13 comments on “The Bible is Catholic!

    • Eversince early Christians used the Septuagint, the Old Testament have been part of Catholicism. Without the Universal Church embracing Judaism as part of the family, it would never ever be Universal. God bless!

      • You’re obviously wrong. If the Catholic church hadn’t co-opted and stolen the Old Testament then Judaism would have become universal.

      • reyjacobs, thanks for your insight. First and foremost, the Catholic Church never stole anything. Christianity was born out of Judaism and it clearly shows this. Without Judaism, Christianity as a whole wouldn’t exist since Jesus Himself and all the first followers of Christianity were Jews. The first Christian preachers used the Septuagint as the very biblical basis for the birth and existence of Christianity.

        You have not even pointed out how my statement became wrong. Catholicism in its theology didn’t forget its Jewish roots, it actually glorifies the reality that the Jewish people are the people of God, and through Jesus who was a Jew gave way to the point that other people all over the world have become the children of God. If Israel was God’s city in the Old Testament, it just magnified this by making the Church in itself as the New Israel. Catholicism never nullified Judaism, it simply magnified it.

  1. You’re talking about Catholic theology today, I suppose, because for centuries the Catholic church oppressed the Jews. Catholic theologians used to call them Christ killers and use the most hideous vitriol. Have you ever read the so-called fathers? But that’s not my point. My point is that the New Testament IS Catholic in the sense that the decision on which documents to include was made by the Catholic Church. The Old Testament is not, because it was the Jews who made the decision which books got in to it. That the Catholic church included (or stole) the Old Testament is irrelevant — the Old Testament is not Catholic. The NT is. My point then, is that anyone who would consistently reject everything Catholic would reject the NT and be a Jew. As to silly statements like “Catholicism never nullified Judaism, it simply magnified it.” That is foolishness. Catholicism is based on misinterpretation of the Old Testament to twist the prophecies and make them about Jesus when they clearly are NOT. Catholicism is about twisting the Old Testament which represents its Law as eternal, and forcing it to say that the Law is only temporary! It is a lie. As an ex-prot, I saw all this, and I gave up on Christianity. The New Testament is nothing but a synthetic book — a lie — that is not truly based on the Old Testament at all, not truly, but only based on a twisted understanding of it, one that began probably with Paul who was really an idiot when it came to understanding the Old Testament.

    • I will give examples:

      Isaiah 7:14. Christians/Catholic only quote verse 14, becaus in context it is clear that Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 are about God giving a sign of WHEN the two kings opposing Ahab will be defeated by the King of Assyria. Isaiah says that a child will be born of a virgin and before the child knows good or evil, the two kings will be defeated. Obviously these two kings, the king of Assyria, and Ahab himself, were all long dead hundreds of years later when Jesus was born. The prophesy, then, had to have already been fulfilled in these mens’ lifetimes, and chapter 8 of Isaiah indeed says exactly that. But the lie of Catholicism/Christianity requires that we ignore all this context and read only 7:14. Or, Christians will come up with an asinine non-sensical double fulfillment theory where Mahershalhashbz/Hezekiah can be the primary fulfillment in time (fulfilling all the requirements) but Christ is the primary fulfillment in importance (fulfilling less then half the requirements). Such theories are obviously nothing but spin and lies, and you wouldn’t put up with a Muslim theory interpreting the Old Testament in a similar way, so why should I put up with your theory interpreting the OT this way?

      • Example 2 : Micah 5. This is the Bethlehem birth. It doesn’t say born in Bethlehem but “of Bethlehem-Ephratah” which is described as the least “of the tribes of Judah” tribes not cities. It is about tribal affiliation not being born in a certain city. And further in verse 4 or 5 it says “this man shall be our peace when Assyrians invade our land.” It describes one who will be “governor.” Zorobabel was of the Bethelhemite tirbal affiliation and lived in a time when Assyrians invaded the land, and was governor of Judea. It is him that it is about not Jesus.

        Example 3: Jer 31. Rachel weeping in RAMAH (not Bethelehem) and after it is said about her weeping it is written that God sought to comfort her saying “weep not for there is still hope for your children to return from the land of the enemy to their own borders” — that is, its about CAPTIVITY in a foreign land, not death. It is about, furthermore, the EPHRAIMITES, for Rachel is their mother, not the Judeans, which is why its set in RAMAH not Bethlehem. It is about the Ephramaites in Assyrian Captivity, not about Herod killing babies around Jesus’ birth in Judea (a thing which incidentally Josephus never mentions). Nor does any historian mention it.

        On and on we can go deflating the misuses of OT prophecy. But I prefer now to look at Paul’s misuse of the OT to destruct itself:

        In Galatians, I think chapter 3, Paul says :

        “The just shall live by faith, but the Law is not of faith, for it says ‘he that doeth these shall live by them'”

        Now the Law does say “he that doeth these shall live by them” somewhere in Leviticus. But that doesn’t make it not of faith. Nor when Hosea says “the just shall live by his faith” does he mean by faith alone, but rather “according to his faith.” But Paul has seized and misused this passage to suggest that the Law is not of faith at all, as if it did not inculcate or command faith, and as if one might keep the Law without faith! And for what purpose? To illegally invalidate the Law and give his new religion (Christianism, for in Greek it is called Christianismo not Christianity) a fake basis by attacking the Law.

        Again, in Romans 10, he uses a passage from Deut (somewhere between 30-34) where Moses speaks of the doability of the Law:

        “It is not in heaven that you have to send anyone to fetch it down, nor accross the sea that you have to send anyone, but it is in your mouth in your heart in your hand that you may do it!”

        So, the Law is easy to do, because here it is. It is not far away.

        But Paul twists this into the opposite, claiming this passage teaches the Law is IMPOSSIBLE to keep, and therefore instead of the Law, just believe. Read it for yoruself but the most attrocious part is where he says “And what saith the word of faith? HE is not in heaven. HE is not in the deep. That is, do not try to bring Christ down from heaven, nor up from the grave.” Notice how what Moses said of the LAW, “IT is not in heaven”, “IT is not accross the sea”, Paul now makes about Christ “He is not in heaven,” “He is not in the deep,” for the purposes of twisting what Moses said, and making it about Christ rather than the Law to help him sustain his argument that the Law is impossible to keep for reading the passage as-is it is clear it says the Law is EASY.

      • Well, thank you again your reply. You are very correct to point out that the New Testament was written and bounded within the authority of the Catholic CHurch. But do you also know why the Old Testament, which is actually a Jewish text was also included in the Bible? There is always a reason why.

        If Catholicism is hiding and cutting its roots from its Judaic origin, then it should have been easy, just remove the Old Testament and live with the New Testament. But that was not the case. The Old Testament was unanimously decided upon by the Church because it shows how the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament. This is exactly showing that Jesus Christ never lied in Matthew 5:17.

        Never confuse yourself with human errors as well who excused their evil ways using the Church just as how the corrupt scribes and pharisees used the Torah and tradition to say they have done a holy deed when it was not.

        The Church always and consistently held that Christianity will and always will recognize that it began from the Jewish belief. No matter how man would tend to dilute this with their evil reasons and intent, the doctrines and dogma of the Church shall always illuminate otherwise.

        The message of the Old Testament was made clearer when the New Testament was then bounded showing that the contradictions you thought are not contradictions at all but a matter of theological understanding.

        And about Paul whom you declared as nullifying the law, actually not a single doctrinal issue was nullified. It was only those practices and traditions that even Jesus Himself taught that contradicts God’s Truth. You know that Jews can divorce as authorized by Moses as well but Jesus on the other hand nullified this law, but never will any of the Christian apostles as well of Christ shall ever say “no” to what is of dogmatic and doctrinal importance.

        This is the very reason why the Old Testament exists in the Christian Bible. It is not stolen because it was the Septuagint that early Christians did use to clarify matters about Christianity.

        As I said, if Catholicism would like to exterminate Judaism from its history, then a long time ago, the Catholic CHurch should have abandoned the Old Testament.

        God bless you!

  2. “But do you also know why the Old Testament, which is actually a Jewish text was also included in the Bible?”

    There is a massive problem with this statement. That problem is simple. The Old Testament was not “included” in the Bible. The Old Testament IS the Bible. Thus it is from the Jewish perspective. When they say “the Bible” they mean only the Old Testament, the original. It is therefore not that you Catholics included the Old Testament in the Bible but that you added the New Testament to the Bible. This is the most rational perspective to look at the Bible and I have therefore adopted it.

    So, I’m not interested really in why you “included” the Old Testament, since you didn’t. I’m interested in why you added the New Testament to the Bible since that is what you did. You did this because you believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of a bunch of Old Testament prophecies that when read without Christian presuppositions and convenient apologetics tactics are found to not even all about the same man. Isaiah 7 and Micah 5 are not both about the same guy, nor is either one about Jesus.

    “As I said, if Catholicism would like to exterminate Judaism from its history, then a long time ago, the Catholic CHurch should have abandoned the Old Testament.”

    That is another problem. It is not that you want to exterminate Judaism from your history but that the Catholic church has sought at various times to exterminate Judaism from the present. It was only recently that the decision was made that the Old Covenant be viewed as still salvific for Jews and that the Catholic church can cease to preach to Jews and leave them alone. This is a Vatican II development or post-Vatican II development. And the rest of Christianity lags behind on that point, still taking the Catholic church’s old position that Judaism is to be exterminated by demonization of it as a religion and by conversion of all its people to Christianity.

    • “It was only recently that the decision was made that the Old Covenant be viewed as still salvific for Jews and that the Catholic church can cease to preach to Jews and leave them alone. This is a Vatican II development or post-Vatican II development. And the rest of Christianity lags behind on that point, still taking the Catholic church’s old position that Judaism is to be exterminated by demonization of it as a religion and by conversion of all its people to Christianity.”

      Its silly to quote myself, I guess, but I want to comment a bit on what I said there. Paul’s writings in particular are the problem here and we would be better off if the Catholic church had not made the boneheaded decision to include him. He has a very Gnostic outlook towards the Law, and it is his faith-onylist dogma (yes, he contradicts it alot but he does teach it in Romans 3-4 nonetheless) that has caused Christianity to fracture into all the thousands of denominations we have. If the Catholic church hadn’t included Romans and Galatians (the other writings from Paul are less Gnostic) then it would have been better off, as would the Protestants assuming there even would have been a Protestant Reformation in that case.

      • reyjacobs, once again, I am afraid that I have to prove you wrong with your commentary. I believe that you were already told that the New Israel is the Church upon which Jesus Himself built upon Peter. The New Israel is the one of which Jesus declares to be His own body. This New Israel never did exclude the Jews, who, by ethnicity and belief they are Israel. You have to understand that even if the bible did mention things about the unbelieving Jews and shutting them off from heaven does not imply that all Jews in general were shut off. You have to understand that Jesus always pointed upon Jews who were hypocrites during the time He was spreading the good news to the world, these hypocrites are the ones he fully addresses here. A deeper theological understanding regarding this will further bring you to light and what Vatican II only did was to bring what was always believed to be clearer and magnified. You see, the New Israel will always be grafted with the Israel of the Old Testament, and the Church always believed this consistently for 2000 years now, what you have observed were the notions of the ignorance of some historical figures who diluted the real teachings of the Church, and sadly, there were many during the dark times of the history of our Church. But to make it clear, Vatican II did not change dogmatic belief and did not soften for the modern age, it just made a lot of the teachings of the Church much clearer.

        And about Paul, if he was a “Faith onlyist” as you have concluded, then why did he teach the following:
        “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8)
        “…continue to work out your salvation in fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12-13)
        “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” (James 2:14)
        “…faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:17)

        I have not included Romans there yet as you have pointed. Honestly, Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism wanted to scratch these epistles from his Bible because Martin Luther was a “Faith Alone” believer. Martin Luther even called the epistle to James as an “Epistle of Straw” due to the reason that it fully supports good works along with Faith.

        The question is, how can your points be ever correct over the meticulous study of the Church about scripture for 2000 years? Do you believe your judgment is sound regarding Paul? Try to test it first my friend. Hoping this helps.

        God bless you!

    • Well said reyjacobs, but there are a lot of things that you need to address with. First of all, my reasons are not only due to apologetic tactics, it is what the Church had always fully believed. And yes, the New Testament was included if you wish but for the reason that we do believe in testimonies within it about Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

      The thing is this, you reacted so fast with the Bible being Catholic maybe even without realizing that the history pointed out in the article did focus on the binding of the New Testament, and of course, as a Christian Church, it makes sense and it is reasonable to bind this with the Septuagint text since this Church fully believes in the testimonies within it about Christ. By the way, the Gospels themselves were even written by Jewish apostles converted into Christianity. The question is why then were there too many, whether Pharisees, Sadducees, Doctors of the Jewish laws, and ordinary Jewish men and their families convert into Christianity as early as that time when Christianity was born? There could have been something they did see from the Septuagint that Jesus did fulfill as the Messiah.

      Let’s address Isaiah 7 first then. Who then was the Emmanuel who was born of a virgin my friend it was never Jesus? I am okay to get your insights about it as it interests me to learn what others always believed.

      And about Micah 5, who then is that ruler who is the One who will go forth for God to be ruler in Israel who’s origins are from the ancient times but is not born from the woman whom God chose? Who is this promised ruler of Bethlehem? Enlighten me if you may.

      And once again, Catholicism never did exterminate Judaism and never did it wish to. You can check all the consistent teachings of the Church as you wish, and I do not know what sources did you find such conclusions. Tell me your sources and I will review it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s