Just what do you mean – The Bible is Catholic? –

vatican_obelisk-2

The following is a discussion that can be found at “Banned by HWA”.


 

James said…

If you look back further, Miller broke away from those pagan Baptists as I recall. But what the hell. All these groups use a book put together by the Catholics. The bible is a Catholic book. Why don’t we discuss this ACOG’ers?
June 13, 2014 at 2:21 PM

 

Anonymous said…

James said…

“All these groups use a book put together by the Catholics. The bible is a Catholic book. Why don’t we discuss this ACOG’ers?”

Alright, let us discuss it.

What is commonly called the Old Testament of the Bible was put together and preserved by the Jews. The Catholics had nothing to do with it besides trying to add some Apocryphal books to it, which the Jews still do not accept, and trying to oppose and do away with virtually everything that it quotes God as saying. The Catholics replace God`s biblical Sabbath with Sunday, and God`s biblical Annual Holy Days with Christmas, Easter, Halloween and many other such things. The Catholics replace God`s laws about clean and unclean creatures with eating the uncleanest creatures around such as swine. The Catholics replace the biblical Aaronic priesthood that was handed down from father to son with a bunch of supposedly celibate but actually sexually active homosexual pedophile priests.

Even what is commonly called the New Testament of the Bible gets messed up by the Catholics. They replace praying to God with praying to Mary, make Jesus out to be a hippie like some umpteenth century Italian artist’s painting of his long-haired, swish-type, homosexual lover, and basically teach that Jesus was some smart-alec young man who came to do away with his father’s laws. The Catholics try to add their Apocryphal books to the New Testament too, but the Protestants still do not accept them. In rebellion against what Jesus said, the Catholics call some man on earth their holy father, or pope. Once again, the Catholics replace the idea of the married New Testament apostles with some doctrine of demons forbidding priests to marry, but allowing them to be secretly sexually immoral in the worst ways.

The Catholic church trying to hijack God`s Bible and oppose and pervert its teachings is no different than a satanic cult like Gerald Flurry`s PCG trying to hijack the writings of Herbert W. Armstrong and oppose and pervert them—and delete them, while adding other nonsense.
June 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM

 

rsk said…

Except that the Catholics were the ones to assemble the canon of the New Testament. Its because of the Catholics that we have the collected works today. I believe that is the question the poster was posing.
June 14, 2014 at 5:23 AM

 

James said…

Anon June 13, 2014 at 10:25 PM
“They replace praying to God with praying to Mary, make Jesus out to be a hippie like some umpteenth century Italian artist’s painting of his long-haired, swish-type, homosexual lover, and basically teach that Jesus was some smart-alec young man who came to do away with his father’s laws.”

Yes, the Catholics did just that. But it gets worse. They turned themselves into a bank!

“What is commonly called the Old Testament of the Bible was put together and preserved by the Jews.”

Until the Council of Trent:
“It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church “officially” cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Canons_and_decrees

You wrote: “…Jesus was some smart-alec young man who came to do away with his father’s laws”

Yes, the COG members were taught this phrase by HWA himself. You a member?

“The Catholic church trying to hijack God`s Bible and oppose and pervert its teachings is no different than a satanic cult like Gerald Flurry`s PCG trying to hijack the writings of Herbert W. Armstrong and oppose and pervert them—and delete them, while adding other nonsense.”

If you read about the events at the Council of Trent you will see that the bible is not Gods book. Never was. The Catholics put it together. Now as to Gerald, yes he is changing all sorts of things. He will eventually distort Armstrongism into something else. Something as unholy and corrupt as Armstrongism itself.
June 14, 2014 at 7:52 AM

This is an excellent reply that follows:

JUST-WHAT-DO-YOU-MEANAnonymous said…

“Alright, let us discuss it…”

The OT is not history. It is Hebrew mythology, most likely composed during and post-captivity based on earlier myth, legend, and mysticism. Archeology refutes the Exodus, the wandering in the wilderness and the battle of Jericho. If the Jewish people ever were distinct from the Canaanites, they entered the land not as a conquering army, but as waves of immigrants. Yahweh and El are Canaanite deities, suggesting that the Jews may simply be Canaanites after all. And the OT isn’t the story of a monotheistic people anyway, it’s the story of a polytheistic people who gradually evolved a theology in which the remainder of the pantheon of gods were demoted into archangels, angels, and demons. And let us not imagine that “the Jews” are in any way united about what “they” do and do not accept. Mainstream Judaism today is hardly about Tanakh anyway, it’s about Talmud and Kabbalah.

The NT began to be written, possibly as early as c. 50AD, and includes books possibly written as late as c. 300AD. By my count, there are at least 36 apocryphal gospels, 23 apocryphal books of acts, 14 apocryphal epistles, and 30 apocryphal apocalypses. That doesn’t include the books in the canon that scholars are all but certain do not belong in it. There are surely some others that I have missed and many more that do not survive. The early church fathers voted on which books to include in Constantine’s canon, but by 331 no one in the world had any idea which were the “legitimate” books, and which ones were not, and in the end, all they could do was just guess anyway. And thus our NT was formulated, no doubt, part of the formulation included calculations designed to give Constantine the sort of “holy book” he wanted.

But the NT was written in Greek, which means it was written for people who could read Greek, and most people in Judea/Palestina could not, as Aramaic was the most common language. This is but one indicator of Hellenistic nature of the NT. Moreover, it was written for Jews, but for Hellenized Jews, not Jews who were hewing to a pure form of an older religion. In addition, it was written about a Jewish Messiah who was supposed to soon rescue the Jewish people from the Romans. However, when Constantine turned Christianity into the official Roman religion, that fundamentally upended the original meaning of the entire religion. Finally, since Christianity became a religion filled with Jewish polemics, tarring Jews as Christ-killers, it’s original context and meaning has been thoroughly stripped out and replaced in every place around the world and in every time, with local values and culturally palatable local meanings. Therefore, even if the NT were inspired by a deity, which is incredibly unlikely, for the last ~1650 years, misunderstanding the original intent of the NT has rather been the point, hasn’t it?

In short, the bible itself is an originally Catholic anthology of Jewish and Hellenized-Jewish mysticism. While it does bear a relationship to the Tanakh, that relationship is tangential. It isn’t a latter-day continuation of an earlier revelation. There is no reason to think that a harmonization of the many disparate elements contained in the Protestant bible is a valid way to interpret any of it.
June 14, 2014 at 9:07 PM

 

Anonymous said…

Well done, Anonymous 9:07. Well done! All true.

I might add that it would probably surprise Anonymous 10:25 to know that the jews of Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, also used and relied upon what are now called “apocryphal” scrolls. There was never an “apocryphal” writing in the sense s/he is using the term at all until there was an “orthodoxy” building around the canon against which to define a book as being apocryphal. If we want to be technical, there are a significant number of the books currently in the canon that are, in fact apocryphal, on grounds of authenticity.

The COGs are, without a doubt, all children of the catholic power and to think otherwise is pure delusion. But this is well-worn practice among them, so this revelation of truth about history will make little difference. Let’s hope it gets through to a few more who can still consider sound evidence.
June 15, 2014 at 5:14 AM


Origins of the Ancient Israelite Festivals can be found HERE UPDATED.[whohit]http://hwarmstrong.com/wordpress/[/whohit]