Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Albion

I'm wondering if this ^ is merely meant as bait since every church knows what's in those uninspired books. It's not as though the users of the standard Bible have no access to "Suzanna and the Elders: A Tale" or the rest of these writings.

Indeed, a large percentage of Protestant Christianity (the Lutheran and Anglican churches) affirms that the Apocrypha is to be read, and does read from these books during worship. They're just not made to be more than they are--morality tales--and they don't contain any doctrines, anyway.

We're not talking about some secret knowledge that only the Catholic churches know exists. And then we have the fact that the RCC threw some of this material out of its own Bible in the 16th century, following the lead of the Protestant Reformers.
​

There are "some" who regard Genesis as "myth" a kind of fiction - a "mere morality tale" - so then why complain when the Apocrypha is viewed that way?

Two reasons: The Hebrew Bible included the Book of Genesis and all Jews accepted it as scriptural. Not so the Apocrypha.

Ok so then you make a distinction between Apocrypha and scripture arguing that we cannot assign Genesis to "mere morality tale" but that is perfectly valid for assignment of the Apocryphal books.

My point is that some of those who object to the solution you describe - are the very ones claiming that Genesis is a "mere morality tale" and this is NOT at all one of the disputed books in question.

So then it is illogical for them to complain that the Apocrypha is to be regarded only at the same low level that they themselves have already downsized the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Second, Genesis does teach very important doctrinal material. Again, that's not so with the Apocrypha.

The fact that "some people" are mistaken about this is hardly any different from saying that there are "some people" who are wrong about virtually any Christian belief or practice that can be named--and this certainly is not a reason in itself for affording their misconceptions any credibility.

The point is not simply "here again they make a mistake" the point is that when you put the two mistakes together - they hold to self-conflicted views arguing for downgrading Genesis but then complaining if the Apocrypha is left at the same low level that they have assigned the first 11 chapters of Genesis (an undisputed book of scripture).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What you say may be so for some in the denominations who reject the holy Catholic church because such persons reject the canonical holy scriptures that their own denomination has not sanctioned.

1. I thought that was the rule the Catholic church recommended - don't accept any text your church magisterium rejects. Now you object to it??

2. What specific doctrine in the Catholic church would test as valid if only some more books of the Bible were added?? (So then not valid with the 66 but then valid with the Apocrypha.)

Some among the Anglican communion do have a low regard for the books that they call apocrypha. Nevertheless it is no bait to report the truth about the differences between the canonical holy scriptures and the smaller set of books one finds in bibles such as the NASB.

Sixty six books do constitute the full canon of holy scripture despite the views of a few denominations (or is it just 1?) to the contrary.

BobRyan, a multitude of denominations affirming 66 books means only that those who affirm 66 books have separated one from another until there are many. The Catholic church is one church but has many more members than all of the the many 66 book affirming denominations put together. Numbers do not prove a case but numbers such as these do help to give context to the argument that you put; namely that just one church accepts the full canon of holy scripture while many denominations accept only 66 books.

The reality is somewhat different.

The Catholic church is simply a small splinter off of the real NT church of the first and 2nd century that in turn has grown very large over time though it has spawned a great many divisions even from itself -- dividing from another until there are today many that have separated one from another directly from it.

===================================
But I was not quibbling over that detail in my post that you respond to. Rather I challenge you to show that same application that you claim works so well.

Specifically -

1. I thought that was the rule the Catholic church recommended - don't accept any text your church magisterium rejects. Now you object to it??

2. What specific doctrine in the Catholic church would test as valid if only some more books of the Bible were added?? (So then not valid with the 66 but then valid with the Apocrypha.)

The response you are giving here is "almost as if" you think the rule should be for christians to follow the dictates of "other magisteriums" - but that would not work for Catholics that you would then have following whatever the Methodist magisterium dictated would it?

===================================

Secondly - the 'who is more popular' -- 'who is the larger group' is not an argument that pointed to the right path in the days of Christ or in the days of Paul - all during those times - the non-christian Jews outnumbered the true church. You now make that same argument.

Third: If we are to engage in numbers - to say that the practicing Catholics out number practicing non-Catholics by 3 to 1-- means you have some sort of survey of all practicing Christians on the planet who self-identify as attending church at least a few times a year in the denomination they claim to belong to.

Do you have such a survey - where whole countries are not added as being catholic simply as "policy?"

There are a great many counted as Catholic today that are members of non-Catholic churches - many of them attend their church more than 3 or 4 times a year. The problem is that there is no "followup to infant baptism" in the Catholic church to find out if the infant baptized 40 years ago - is still Catholic. They just accept the number. Or accept that some entire nation is nothing but Catholic.


That sort of system is not as reliable as one would like to be making that numbers comparison you make and getting to 3 - to - 1 results.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

"The oneness of husband and wife is different than the oneness of God." So you say, but where does scripture say so? Where does scripture define what this oneness means so we can distinguish it from a different oneness? As you post, there is little scripture on the Trinity.

So why do churches feel compelled to adopt a creed that inculcates with so much verbiage not present in scripture and attach a damnation clause to it?

With the damnation clause it transitions from a creed/statement of man's belief to being a claimed statement of God. There is no more clear example of dogma in existence in the Christian community.

I commend MoreCoffee for his defense of his "dogma" in the RCC. At least he does not state damnation for one that does not believe as he does.

By participating in threads within the Theology forum one is implying that one accepts the Nicene Creed as expressing one's own faith in God.

Huge difference between the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. Which is what all my posts have been expressing. Until the CF changes the requirements in GT to be a profession of the Athanasian Creed, then I will remind you that it is not the Nicene Creed. So don't "remind" me what the CF requirements are; using it as a way to dismiss my questions.

If you wish to actually address my comments to GratiaCorpusChristi, feel free to add something edifying. Hopefully it would include scripture.

 

[Albion]

Ok so then you make a distinction between Apocrypha and scripture arguing that we cannot assign Genesis to "mere morality tale" but that is perfectly valid for assignment of the Apocryphal books.

Of course.

My point is that some of those who object to the solution you describe - are the very ones claiming that Genesis is a "mere morality tale" and this is NOT at all one of the disputed books in question.

They're wrong, OK?

Just because they make an invalid comparison, are we supposed to change our faith and get in step with them?? C'mon. Yes, I'll agree that "some people" say what you have reported, but so what?

 

[BobRyan]

Well... it's kind of missing the Trinity....

Is the Bible "missing the Trinity"? Is it left for us to "Just make it up"???

Really???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Of course.


They're wrong, OK?

Just because they make an invalid comparison, are we supposed to change our faith and get in step with them?? C'mon. Yes, I'll agree that "some people" say what you have reported, but so what?

So then we would not expect them to complain that their apocrypha is getting the same treatment - as they already give the book of Genesis.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Albion]

So then we would not expect them to complain that their apocrypha is getting the same treatment - as they already give the book of Genesis.

in Christ,

Bob

Who is the "them" here?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not missing the Trinity at all in my opinion. In fact I don't think the holy scriptures could have explained the divine nature of God any clearer than by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Correction, I'm certain that the word of God could not have been more clear.

It is missing the doctrine of the Trinity. The elements that make up the doctrine are there, just as in any other Catholic doctrine or dogma. In fact, every Catholic dogma is, at least, not contrary to Scripture, and every Catholic dogma is based on Scripture.

 

[Albion]

It is missing the doctrine of the Trinity.

No, it isn't. Any of us can point you to the relevant verses. What you can say with accuracy is that it is missing the particular explanation that the Council of Nicaea came up with.

 

[fhansen]

No, it isn't. Any of us can point you to the relevant verses. What you can say with accuracy is that it is missing the particular explanation that the Council of Nicaea came up with.

This is true. And yet Scripture was sufficiently unclear that Arian et al could plausibly support their beliefs with it, using likewise relevant verses.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, the Mystagogy page describes several pieces of the skull of St. John the Baptist in different locations; this method is typical (i.e. dispersion of small pieces of a relic). Do recall that, roughly, a more ancient understanding of "symbol" is that the 'part makes present the whole'.

It is not a matter of a single skull having survived in various pieces, but a matter of varying portions of skulls up to entire skulls having been identified and authenticated as worthy of veneration by the faithful. The only conclusions one can reach is that if John the Bapist was a normal individual having only one head, then some of these skulls and portions have been misidentified and there is every possibility that none actually belonged to him at all. That leaves the Church in the difficult position of having made a mistake, and not a minor mistake at that.

The other possibility is that the Church did not err, nor could it err, and that John the Baptist did indeed have multiple heads. The question then becomes whether or not he had them consecutively or simultaneously.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Perhaps that is why some on this thread think that there are dogmas missing from their bible. If one's bible is seven books short of a complete canon and has missing chapters and verses from two other books then perhaps some dogmas went missing with the expurgated books and passages.

There are absolutely no dogmas found within the deutercanonical books which are not found in the canonical books of the bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No doubt some bishop or cardinal may have entertained thoughts of rejection because of the habit of Rabbinic Judaism in isolating books composed in Hebrew and Aramaic and rejecting Jesus Christ and the testament to his words and deeds that Christians accept. Such corruptions are apt to seep in from the outside and contaminate those who allow it. But is it not true that some among the leaders of the reformation sought to reject the books of James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the second and third letters of saint John as well as saint Jude's short letter? Shall I suppose as they did, and as you may well do if you follow their example SpyderByte, that these books are wrongly included in your bible?

Once one starts cutting away canonical holy scripture it is hard to justify stopping at any specific place. Some in very ancient times wanted only to retain some of saint Paul's letters and some of saint Luke's gospel while rejecting all the rest of canonical holy scripture; what arguments would you give against that expedient?

It may have included some bishops and cardinals, but it certainly included your most esteemed translator of the Vulgate - Jerome.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Pardon me for saying this but I am not persuaded that those here in christian forums are competent to set the criteria for what is canonical holy scripture. Surely this task requires scholarship, holiness, and authority within the church. Have any here these attributes in greater quantity and quality than the men who sat in council to decide the canon of holy scripture in ancient times and those who ratified their decisions in later times?

That describes Saint Jerome to a T, as in Translator.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And many early believers, priests and bishops included, were Arians. But when the Church finally sat at council to decide on the issue, Arianism decidedly lost.

Was Saint Jerome an Arian, as well?

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is missing the doctrine of the Trinity. The elements that make up the doctrine are there, just as in any other Catholic doctrine or dogma. In fact, every Catholic dogma is, at least, not contrary to Scripture, and every Catholic dogma is based on Scripture.

So, I take it, then, because the New Testament tells us some things about John the Baptist, we are free to invent any dogmas about him because other, unrelated things are mentioned.

Thus, we end up with the miraculous man with seven heads.

 

[fhansen]

It is not a matter of a single skull having survived in various pieces, but a matter of varying portions of skulls up to entire skulls having been identified and authenticated as worthy of veneration by the faithful. The only conclusions one can reach is that if John the Bapist was a normal individual having only one head, then some of these skulls and portions have been misidentified and there is every possibility that none actually belonged to him at all. That leaves the Church in the difficult position of having made a mistake, and not a minor mistake at that.

The other possibility is that the Church did not err, nor could it err, and that John the Baptist did indeed have multiple heads. The question then becomes whether or not he had them consecutively or simultaneously.

I don't know if there are any Catholic dogmas regarding John the Baptist. Or anything other than tradition, little "T", nothing having to do with faith or morals.

 

[fhansen]

Was Saint Jerome an Arian, as well?

What's that supposed to mean? St Jerome is considered a saint. The CC doesn't even regard everything Aquinas said as gospel truth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, I take it, then, because the New Testament tells us some things about John the Baptist, we are free to invent any dogmas about him because other, unrelated things are mentioned.

Thus, we end up with the miraculous man with seven heads.

Maybe in your dogma, not in mine. There are no dogmas about John the Baptist in the Catholic Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, it isn't. Any of us can point you to the relevant verses. What you can say with accuracy is that it is missing the particular explanation that the Council of Nicaea came up with.

The relevant verses are there, isn't that what I said? But the doctrine is not there. The Bible contains no doctrine, that's why we have the Catholic Church, and then all those 30,000 denominations, not one agreeing totally with another. There was question in the early Church about the Trinity, what it meant. It's also why some Christians believe that Trinitarian belief is in 3 Gods, not one. The doctrine is not there. The elements are there.