Replies

“Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?” Yep, The Athanasian Creed is foreign and sounds like something written out of a monastery, or maybe Gaul ...
That wasn’t the question. What’s in there that is not Scriptural?

It was the question. It appears you misread either the question or the answer. He asked "Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?” I answered, "Yep ..." Yep is slang for Yes.

Besides, were there no Christians in Gaul or monasteries 1500 years ago?

Negative question, thus the grammatical answer is "no."

Did they have not have access to the same Word of God. Granted, they could probably read it in the original language far better than you or me. Maybe that’s what makes it sound foreign.

Now that is an interesting question. I don't know with certainty what portions of what canon they had in Gaul in the 5th Century. I figure they had the Latin Vulgate. That is not what I was referring to in being "foreign." Rather, the whole tone of the creed is foreign to the Bible, as we know it today. It is more of a polemic text. For example:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; . . .

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

I can't imagine any of the Jewish apostles writing like this. It sounds foreign to even the NT books. It is as if someone is having a thread war on FR. I daresay it even reminds me of Mormonism with its late addition to the canon ...

I suppose it fits the model of a Greek/Gentile synthesized religion based on Judaism.

Let’s see. The original question was:

“Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?”

To which you responded:

“Yep, The Athanasian Creed is foreign and sounds like something written out of a monastery, or maybe Gaul ...”

Which I read as “Yep, there is something that isn’t Scriptural.” That is the grammatically sound reading.

So I asked what isn’t Scriptural about it. That, I believe, was the original question. Not wishing to put words in my friend’s mouth, but I believe it had to do with the propositions in the Creed and which ones you believe are contrary to or aren’t found in Scripture.

That’s the answer I’m interested in anyway. If you don’t like creeds on principle, that one thing. If you don’t like one because of content, then what’s wrong with it?

I can't imagine any of the Jewish apostles writing like this.

Why not? They all expressed propositional truth that was expected to be believed by the disciples under their teaching. The expectation was that is one claimed to be a Christian then one’s beliefs would conform to the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42) and behavior standards.