Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[ThatTrueLight]

There's no logic in your statements.

Well, they're not my statements, they're the simple teaching of the Apostles themselves (remember that foundation which the church is built upon), as anyone can see for themselves;

Gal 2;

God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

It's right there in plain English Brother.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Saint Peter brought the gospel to the gentiles first, likewise to the Jews and the Samaritans thus he is apostle to all.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Saint Peter brought the gospel to the gentiles first, likewise to the Jews and the Samaritans thus he is apostle to all.

No kidding, and he is an Apostle to the circumcision just as scripture plainly shows.

Is that troublesome for you? That Peter is an Apostle to the circumcision?

Are you aware that there are twelve apostles of the circumcision? Do you remember their names?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

This is bible 101 by the way;

There's an Apostle to the Gentiles too, remember him?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Notice how Peter begins his letters;

He's writing to Jewish Brethren in Christ within the twelve tribes.. because that's his mission, to be an apostle to the circumcision as Paul is to the Gentiles.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

So it's just weird that the church in Rome would believe that Peter is their Pope.. when his ministry is to the circumcision.

Paul might be a better fit (not that there's a good fit) for the job being raised up to take the gospel to the Gentiles while Israel is blinded in part.

Remember how long Israel shall be blinded in part?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

You forgot to pay attention to the Apostle's letter to the church in Rome, didn't you?

Now look what you've done. You're ignorant of the simple mystery of Israel being blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in..

Careful, that might lead to becoming wise in ones own conceits.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course saint Peter is apostle to the Jews because he is apostle to all.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Of course saint Peter is apostle to the Jews because he is apostle to all.

Scripturally speaking, Peter is an Apostle to the circumcision as Paul is to the heathen, or GENTILES.

That's why God raised up Paul, to take the gospel to the GENTILES while Israel is blinded in part.

He already had twelve apostles to the circumcision, and yet chose to raise up Paul to be the Apostle to the GENTILES.

If you actually follow the scriptures of course.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

It seems to be troublesome for you that Peter is an Apostle to the circumcision.

Is that a problem for the assembly in Rome?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course saint Paul is apostle to the gentiles because the Jews sought to have him killed and in the end they did by means of the Roman emperor.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Of course saint Paul is apostle to the gentiles because the Jews sought to have him killed and in the end they did by means of the Roman emperor.

Now you're talking, that's why God raised him up because the Jews (Israel) were about to be cut off and the gospel would go out to the Gentiles while they're blinded in part.

Extra Credit:

When shall Israel's blindness in part end?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So we have Saint Peter as first apostle to all and saint Paul as his helper in the evangelisation of the gentiles, yet it is saint Peter who, while in Rome, was its bishop.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

So we have Saint Peter as first apostle to all and saint Paul as his helper in the evangelisation of the gentiles, yet it is saint Peter who, while in Rome, was its bishop.

Paul as his helper, that's cute Brother.

Interesting that Peter didn't write to the church of God at Rome, whereas the Apostle to the Gentiles certainly did.

Remember his warning to the church there concerning Israel and what would happen if they remained ignorant of it?

Paul's letter to Rome is chock full of important stuff.

Peter wrote to his Jewish brethren scattered abroad, as that was his ministry to which the Lord had appointed him.

 

[Rick Otto]

How long was he at Antioch before going to Rome? What was his office at Antioch?
Wasn't Peter cozying up with Jews when Paul confronted him about circumcision?

 

[Rick Otto]

Paul as his helper, that's cute Brother.

Interesting that Peter didn't write to the church of God at Rome, whereas the Apostle to the Gentiles certainly did.

Remember his warning to the church there concerning Israel and what would happen if they remained ignorant of it?

Paul's letter to Rome is chock full of important stuff.

Peter wrote to his Jewish brethren scattered abroad, as that was his ministry to which the Lord had appointed him.

How come "helper" Paul never wrote as much of a hello to Peter, or mention him being at Rome, the guy he was supposed to be helping, the guy was in charge of the Roman congregation?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

We're told some interesting things in that little portion of Galatians 2;

Let's look again..

God accepteth no man’s person; for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Now, who was he that wrought effectually in Peter?

For what purpose?

 

[Rick Otto]

So did Paul even realize he was contradicting what MoreCoffee would say a couple thousand years later?
Looks like Paul didn't know what he was talking about.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Saint Paul had a right estimate of himself as he said of himself that he was (prior to his conversion) the greatest sinner of all and after his conversion the lest of the apostles. But our Lord Jesus Christ said to saint Peter "you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church". Some may want to make saint Paul war against the Lord and declare himself greater than the word of God spoken to saint Peter but saint Paul himself would not.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Back to the issue of this thread....

It is a foundational, dogmatic insistence in some Christian communities/denominations that while the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God, that it nonetheless is MISSING a whole bunch of really super important things that Jesus taught and that we must know and believe....


The spin goes like this....


God, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures:


The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible; it is His inscripturated words to the faithful. And He did so inerrantly. And thus, it is infallible. But.... the thing is....... well....... the Holy Spirit did a lousy job. Because He just forgot a whole mess of really, really, really important dogmas - essential, de fide dogmas - matters of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible, matters impacting the salvation of souls. Just.... forgot! Jesus taught these (we just have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates that)..... and thus all 12-14 Apostles taught them (we just have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates that)..... it's just that the Holy Spirit.... well...... forgot. He told us how many fish the disciples caught one day (153) but forgot a mess of super important, critical DOGMAS we gotta believe.


What to do?


Realizing the error, God could have done a re-write. But that would have been a lot of work. God just let it stand - and hoped for the best.


"Oral"

But...... while the Holy Spirit forgot, there was/were Christian(s) who remembered! And somehow (no one knows how)...... these super important DOGMAS Jesus and all the Apostles taught that the Holy Spirit forgot to include in Scripture.... well, they survived!

Eventually (maybe many, many centuries later), one denomination kinda learned about one or more of these!!!!! And eventually (maybe many, many centuries later) it itself decided to tell Christians about this!

This is sometimes called "Apostolic Tradition" (although it can NEVER, EVER be related to ANY much less all of the Apostles). It is sometimes also called "Second Testimony"

This missing stuff tends to be whatever is UNIQUE DOGMA in that specific denomination. "Jesus taught this as de fide dogma - it's just part of the forgot stuff but this denomination learned it somehow - and here it is." Oddly, these "forgotten dogmas" are never the same....


Stools

Some communities that buy into all the above (and they do so passionately and foundationally) state that because the Bible is so.... well, see above about God forgetting..... therefore we need TWO (maybe 3 - we'll get to that) EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL sources for our dogma:

1. Scripture (which is good - as far as it goes)
2. Oral Stuff (which is the forgotten stuff, equally important but usually more clear).

These are like two streams that blend into one inseparable river - one source, one revelation, one truth. All the equal teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and the Early Church (it's just that..... sadly...... we have NOTHING - absolutely nothing at all that indicates that Jesus or any of the Aposltes or anyone in the First Century and often for long after that ever even heard of any of these "oral stuff" Dogmas).

Now, some add a third stool: themselves (or the leaders self chooses from among self that are pleadged to agree with self). It just reinforces the ME part.


What do you think of all that?




Here is what I think....


1. I think there WAS a Christian "proclamation" for the 10 years or so between Easter and the first NT Book was penned and the NT began to take shape. This is called "the kerygma" Thing is: we don't know EXACTLY what "it" was for one simple reason, it was never recorded. But I find no reason to believe it included a whole bunch of super important DOGMAS that became lost (or at least with ZERO evidence - for CENTURIES).


2. I don't think the Holy Spirit forgot Dogmas. Yes, John tells us that Jesus DID some things not recorded in THAT specific singular book (the Gospel of John) but that's a whole other enchilada than insisting that THEREFORE God forgot a bunch of critical DOGMAS from the ENTIRE Bible.


3. I find no credible reason to believe that the NT is MISSING super important, critical DOGMAS taught by Jesus plus all 12-14 of the Apostles. No credible reason to believe the whole "God messed up.... God forgot" insistence.


4. I DO think that as time moved on, beyond the period of the Apostles, it is almost certain that questions and issues arose that no Apostle could be asked about (not that such would necessarily know) and that Scripture didn't address. Heaven knows, the Second, Third, Fourth Centuries were likely the most chaotic time in all of Christian history - there WERE questions and debates, and not always did those 27 books adequately address these. IMO, there were some very wise men with enormous insights and faith that often prevailed - applying Scripture. Some call these "Early Church Fathers." And I'm grateful for the Roman Emperors calling meetings in the Fourth - Seventh Centuries (we cal these the Seven ECUMENICAL Councils) that I think also did some very wise and very helpful work. But while I hold this in great esteem - I do NOT regard them as THEREFORE what JESUS and the 12-14 APOSTLES and every Christian in the First Century believed. NOT part of the "Oops, the Holy Spirit just forgot to include" stuff. And it means I place these UNDER Scripture - not EQUAL to such. Our words - however wise - are NOT ergo Jesus', it is not Jesus' job to parrot what WE eventually said - however wise we regard such.




.

Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah