The Apostles Creed Missing Ingredient?

[Arch Stanton]

And what about the OT writings? Nearly everything taught by Jesus in the gospels can be found in the NT, and the NT writers constantly used the OT in their writings, building everything they wrote upon it, and they did so apply the OT to both Jewish and Gentile converts. The op did not specify Old or New.

How is it that you don't see the NT Church before the NT writings?

 

[Mr GLee]

How is it that you don't see the NT Church before the NT writings?

I would ask in your own words .What is the messenger (apostles) creed. They are ones with beautiful feet that bring sola scriptura). We could be talking about two different things

What is the private interpretation as creed of the apostles (sent one?)

Is it to puff up dying mankind one against another above sola scriptura (all thing writen in the law and prophets) . Or rather apostle (sent one) are given words from the invisible head Christ the husband , to declare his will as writen below Gods creed as it is written .

1 Cortina s 4: 6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure (parable) transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another?and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Who makes you differ one from another? Does the Pope the patron saint maker make us differ from each other or a queen of heaven?

 

[prism]

What???

The OP is asking for people's thoughts about whether or not the Apostles' Creed would have been better with a statement included about Scripture.

Thank you, couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Thank you, couldn’t have said it better myself.

That would have been better but you confused the issue with the word 'foundation'.

 

[Josheb]

post 3 has nothing to do with me

Typo. Can you not see that is what Post 2 does?

Christ left us The Church... The Church preceded the NT writings

In one sentence it is asserted Jesus "left" "us" the Church, and in the very next sentence it is asserted the Church preceded the NT writings (where the record of what Jesus "left" "us" is recorded. The post contradicts itself. Is it being asserted the Church was left to us between Calvary and the penning of the first NT writing? If so, then that is going to contradict some of your later posts like the affirmation of the NT being meaningless without the OT. and comments like, "One Church, One Faith," when the NT makes it overtly clear the faith of many OT persons was the same faith, making the magisterium equivalent to the Church (as is implied in Post 41), the Church being the "pillar of truth" implies there was no pillar of truth in the OT, etc. There are other problems, like "The Church gave us the Bible." Yes, the Church did compile the books constituting what we now call the "Bible," but the Church did not give us scripture. This is important because the RCC Bible and the non-RCC Bible are two completely different Bibles and it took the RCC several attempts to establish their Bible.


Look at your last ten posts.

What is the topic of this op?


Can you not see you've once again hijacked another op to argue RCCism off-topically? This op is about the answer to one single question: What is missing from the Apostles' Creed?

The Apostles Creed is a fine summary of the basics of our faith.........................................

The main problem I see with the Creed is that it leaves out a statement concerning the very foundation upon which the Creed is based on...the Scriptures themselves! Thoughts?

What you've done is enormously paradoxical and self-contradictory. You have argued the Church is the foundation upon which the creed is based and done so using scripture, repeatedly asserting Jesus left us the Church..... according to what is written in the NT and how you read and interpret those scriptures based on RCC doctrine. In the effort to justify the Church as the creed's foundation you've used scripture as the foundation for doing so.

And paradoxically proved the op's point of view!

You could have done that with one word in one single post and 1) been done with the thread and 2) agreed with most of this thread's participants. Even though the apostles (the authoritative leaders of the NT-era Church) penned the NT after Calvary and Pentecost when - according to some - the Church was given or "left" to us), it is the scriptures that provide the foundation for everything you've posted, everything upon which the creed is based.

 

[Josheb]

That would have been better but you confused the issue with the word 'foundation'.

Speak for yourself. I did not find the term or its use in the op confusing.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Typo. Can you not see that is what Post 2 does?

You confused the issue by adding the OT writings.... my post did not mention the OT.

In one sentence it is asserted Jesus "left" "us" the Church, and in the very next sentence it is asserted the Church preceded the NT writings

correct... the Church came first... the Church is also the pillar of truth; the Church is also where the wisdom of God is made known

You could have

... you write in your style and I will write [type] in mine

 

[Arch Stanton]

Speak for yourself.

I just did... how is it that you are so unaware?

 

[Josheb]

You confused the issue by adding the OT writings.... my post did not mention the OT.

correct... the Church came first... the Church is also the pillar of truth; the Church is also where the wisdom of God is made known

... you write in your style and I will write [type] in mine

I just did... how is it that you are so unaware?

Neither post furthers the discussion one word. Your posts do mention the OT and the Church did exist prior to Calvary, Pentecost, and the NT. Its members simply had not been perfected (see Heb. 11), your posts still contradict themselves in both word and practice and neither Post 207 or 208 addresses (much less resolves) the contradiction, and this op is not about RCCism.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Neither post furthers the discussion one word.

I thought the same when you posted this....

Speak for yourself.

Your posts do mention the OT and the Church did exist prior to Calvary, Pentecost, and the NT. Its members simply had not been perfected

You know exactly what I mean.... THE CHURCH that Christ established [Mt 16]. You just won't admit the obvious --- The Catholic [Universal] Church that has been protected for two millennia.

 

[Josheb]

You know exactly what I mean.... THE CHURCH that Christ established [Mt 16].

No, I do not. I know what is posted. What is posted is off-topic, inconsistent with the whole of scripture, self-contradictory, and supports the position asserted in the op. If you've got something op-relevant to add about anything the Apostles' Creed may be missing, then post it. Otherwise, the problems cited persist unattended and not corrected.

 

[prism]

That would have been better but you confused the issue with the word 'foundation'.

Is that because there is an element of Scripture phobia?
If not, what is wrong with Scripture being the foundation of the Creed?

 

[Mr GLee]

You know exactly what I mean.... THE CHURCH that Christ established [Mt 16]. You just won't admit the obvious --- The Catholic [Universal] Church that has been protected for two millennia.

Mathew 16 where Peter rebuked the lord and forbid Jesus from doing the work of the Father .That Mathew16?

 

[Arch Stanton]

No, I do not. I know what is posted. What is posted is off-topic, inconsistent with the whole of scripture

No, it is not off topic since the topic was about the foundation....

The main problem I see with the Creed is that it leaves out a statement concerning the very foundation upon which the Creed is based on...the Scriptures themselves!

THE FOUNDATION is not the Bible. THE CHURCH gave us the Bible. THE CHURCH came centuries BEFORE the Bible.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Mathew 16 where Peter rebuked the lord

Mt 16 and the keys

That Mathew16?

yes, that Mt 16

 

[Arch Stanton]

Is that because there is an element of Scripture phobia?
If not, what is wrong with Scripture being the foundation of the Creed?

As long as you aren't referring to the NT/Bible.

 

[Mr GLee]

THE FOUNDATION is not the Bible. THE CHURCH gave us the Bible. THE CHURCH came centuries BEFORE the Bible.

I would offer .Then according to the Pope. . . Its the church" that said "let there be gods" and the" gods as patron saints were good" That foundation?

When a person changes the meaning of one word (spiritual plagiarism) They have violated the loving warning not to .

Therefore violating the first commandment, Have no gods before him

Yet as a Catholic you have a legion of gods called patron saints *3,500 and rising. Picking up the approval of the Pope speed . An idol image as a worker with familiar spirits (needed to put a face on the Legion when it comes up .Each one is available on line

One word can change the the authority of the whole, from God and give it to dying mankind. A wile of the father of lies .

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Apostle ="sent messenger " . Like my wife sending her little apostle on a mission to the supermarket with a written list not to add or subtract from. Mission over. The reward three peanut butter cookies and a glass of milk

Sounds like someone puffing up (venerating) dying mankind above all things written in the law and prophets .(sola scriptura)

Its is written below

1 Corinthians 4: 6-7 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure(parable) transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who (Peter?) maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, (as it is written) why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

They in exchange of obeying the loving commandment not to add new meaning to a word, They have chosen limbo/purgatory as it would seem some sort of safety net to guard against sola scriptura .

No man can serve two good teaching masters a one Creator Lord Peter tried to say he was the foundation. The lord rebuked him after Peter rebuke the invisible head Christ.

The Lord forgave Peter of his blasphemy against the Son of man Jesus. That w 33 year window of opportunity closed.

No forgiveness against the unseen head, Christ the Holy Spirit

 

[Arch Stanton]

One word can change the the authority of the whole

God to His Catholic Church -- AMEN

 

[Mr GLee]

No, it is not off topic since the topic was about the foundation....

THE FOUNDATION is not the Bible. THE CHURCH gave us the Bible. THE CHURCH came centuries BEFORE the Bible.

Let there be and it was our invisible God alone who is alone good . That foundation? Or Peter our brother in the Lord alone is good? Which master?

It would seem that you are not trusting the word of God in so much that it is alive and is working in the heart of born agin dying mankind

.His Powerful living words are not dead once it is spoken as if they were the oral tradition as a law of the fathers dying mankind .

Hebrew 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do

God has no time restraints . One third of human history had passed before Moses was moved to record . From a reliable witness who was there in the beginning working out the good purpose of his will .His word is alive

The foundation of sola scriptura

God took Moses up on a mountain to represent his kingdom is above all kingdoms, With the finger of God He hewn out two tablets and with His finger establishing his written law, wrote on both sides no room for the oral traditions of dying mankind. Like that of Peter in John 21 when he went to town and started a new lie as a oral tradition.. saying that John would not die .Revealing to us where Peter.s heart was at.. . . .not the things of God

When Moses came down and witness of the oral tradition of men were already in play .It began as soon as Moses was out of sight. He moved the hand of Moses destroying the first two . Then this time having Moses hewn out the two tablet then again the finger of God wrote the same on both sides with no room for the oral traditons of dying mankind ,

I think revealing the supernatural invisible work of two. The Holy Father and Son man, Jesus working as one. . A display to the whole world of his labor love through the dying creation . Pouring out his Holy Spirit on dying flesh giving the new creatures the privilege as messengers (apostles) to preach the gospel

 

[Arch Stanton]

Let there be and it was our invisible God alone who is alone good . That foundation?

Christ's Catholic Church.... that foundation