The Bible is a “Catholic Book”

[MDK]

Well to say that the Bible is a “Catholic Book” is to show ignorance of History and historical fact. The Bible is a Jewish Book written by Jews about the Jewish Messiah. The Bible predates the Catholic Church by thousands of years.

In fact the New Testament was Predates the Catholic Church.

The Term “Catholic” was not used till roughly 103 AD or CE… The Last book of the NT was completed roughly around 90 AD.

For the first 100 years of “Christianity” it was considered a sect of Judaism.

So the Bible is Jewish and we as Gentiles were blessed by the Jews for keeping a record of God so that we could come to understand and worship their Messiah.

At the latest, the Church established by Christ started at Pentecost in the upper room. This was most certainly not a Jewish Church.

Additionally, the Sacred Scriptures were written by Holy Spirit inspired authors who were in the Church established by Christ. The Church definitely predates both the Sacred Scriptures and the collection of such named the Bible.

The Church at conception had no name we know of other than the Church.
It’s a little like development of a person… who at conception has no name but is referred to as a baby, our baby, etc… sometime after birth given a name, say Michael. The person develops throughout life. Are they identical at 46 as they were at 1? No. Are we referring to the same person? Yes. In fact, even though not named Michael at conception, the parents may talk about when Michael was conceived, when Michael kicked inside mother’s womb, then when Michael was 1… One would be referring to the same person, the same entity named Michael at 46 or at any stage in their existence even before the name Michael was conferred. The person can be identified with the same DNA now, as they had at conception.

So, because the name was applied later, has no consequence as you claim. Even if you changed your name today, would you have different DNA?

 

[MDK]

btw: can you answer the question I asked which was “When did he” as in “When did god tell me to join the Catholic Church?” I didn’t hear or see him tell me to do it, so I am really lost.

Dear CK, here’s my personal answer.

In my case, I didn’t hear a voice or have a private revelation to make me become Catholic. It was a process which began when I first became a Christian. It was 16 more years before I became a Catholic. During that time, I joined a supposedly non-denominational church which turned out to be Southern Baptist - long story. So I was taught to read and interpret the Bible for myself.

During that time, I answered an altar call. Looking back, I was caught up in the emotionalism; in reality I had given my life to Jesus back when I had my conversion experience (which was a private revelation).

As I read and re-read the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles, it became obvious to me that anything that seemed contradictory had to be reconciled with what we know Jesus preached. (As I like to put it, “what do the red letters say?”)

I also began participating in a now-defunct Bible Study forum. It became obvious to me that most posters were concentrating on Paul; even more, on just a few of his letters, to the exclusion of the Gospels. I decided I wanted a truly Christ-centered church.

Catholicism never crossed my mind; I saw the Church as a ritual- and legalism-bound human entity. But when I began researching it - here in the Catholic Answers library - I kept finding myself saying “but that’s what** I** believe!” over and over.

So I decided to find out why the Church taught against things I believed in - like contraception. When I saw the love and the God-centeredness of the teachings, I began to think I needed to become a Catholic.

From your sig it appears that you have chosen to join the Baptist church. Oh, well. I’ll continue to hope that you’ll find as I did that the Catholic church holds the fullness of truth.

Affectionately,

Ruthie

Very beautiful.

 

[SIA]

You only get from mass what you bring to it. Sadly, if one doesn’t understand the mass, and believe, then they won’t get anything from the mass. No one who had even a slight idea of what the mass truly is, would say it’s an empty ritual. If you bring none of yourself to mass, you get nothing from it.

Please spare me the condescentment. Not everyone who disagrees with Catholicism is ignorant of it. try a new argument.

 

[embertx3]

Please spare me the condescentment. Not everyone who disagrees with Catholicism is ignorant of it. try a new argument.

I don’t see how MDK was condescending and where ignorance was implied. I would say that people might be educated to the Catholic teaching but rejects it.

 

[KenEOTE]

At the latest, the Church established by Christ started at Pentecost in the upper room. This was most certainly not a Jewish Church.

Additionally, the Sacred Scriptures were written by Holy Spirit inspired authors who were in the Church established by Christ. The Church definitely predates both the Sacred Scriptures and the collection of such named the Bible.

The Church at conception had no name we know of other than the Church.
It’s a little like development of a person… who at conception has no name but is referred to as a baby, our baby, etc… sometime after birth given a name, say Michael. The person develops throughout life. Are they identical at 46 as they were at 1? No. Are we referring to the same person? Yes. In fact, even though not named Michael at conception, the parents may talk about when Michael was conceived, when Michael kicked inside mother’s womb, then when Michael was 1… One would be referring to the same person, the same entity named Michael at 46 or at any stage in their existence even before the name Michael was conferred. The person can be identified with the same DNA now, as they had at conception.

So, because the name was applied later, has no consequence as you claim. Even if you changed your name today, would you have different DNA?

Actually. You need to do some church history and biblical History… Pentecost also known as the Jewish harvest festival of Shavuot. It is one of 7 High Holy Feast Days God instituted in the OT. Everyone who Peter spoke to was Jewish… They all came from around the Roman Empire. But they were all Jews there to celebrate Shavuot. They were amazed that they were speaking in the languages of there Home lands. The reach to the Gentiles was almost 30 years later. To this day you can go to a synagogue on and see Jewish men and woman celebrating Shavuot the same week we celebrate Pentecost.

As far as the name of the Early Jewish Sect it was known as The Way, they were also called Essenes and Nazarene.

Yes the Holy Spirit authored the Bible but he used Jewish men to write it. Including the New Testament. God came through the Jews.

Correct so our DNA has Jewish roots. I don’t consider that a bad thing. Its a beautiful thing. Its a 6000 year old love story of God. It transcends the modern church.

 

[anon52328184]

i agree with a lot of what you say, but i don’t think they necessarily celebrate shavuot the same day we celebrate pentecost. you are correct that they were celebrating the Jewish pentecost, but the Christian pentecost comes 40 days after the resurrection doesn’t it. or 50 days. and i think the jewish pentecost was 40 or 50 days after passover.
technically, peter was told to preach to the Jews and paul was preaching to the gentiles. the OT is definitely Jewish and even though the NT was compiled by people who once were Jews, they were no longer following true Judaism. yes, God first revealed himself to the Jewish people and then he used the Jewish people again through which He brought His son to come down and walk among us and proclaim the kingdom of God. Jesus came from the womb of a Jewish woman and was raised in a Jewish family and went to the Temple in jerusalem for the high holidays.
the first time God created Israel and the second time He sent Jesus down to start the Catholic church was the new Israel. i don’t always like that analogy, but it is true. if you disagree with any of this or feel i am incorrect, you are welcome to reply.

 

[KenEOTE]

i agree with a lot of what you say, but i don’t think they necessarily celebrate shavuot the same day we celebrate pentecost. you are correct that they were celebrating the Jewish pentecost, but the Christian pentecost comes 40 days after the resurrection doesn’t it. or 50 days. and i think the jewish pentecost was 40 or 50 days after passover.
technically, peter was told to preach to the Jews and paul was preaching to the gentiles. the OT is definitely Jewish and even though the NT was compiled by people who once were Jews, they were no longer following true Judaism. yes, God first revealed himself to the Jewish people and then he used the Jewish people again through which He brought His son to come down and walk among us and proclaim the kingdom of God. Jesus came from the womb of a Jewish woman and was raised in a Jewish family and went to the Temple in jerusalem for the high holidays.
the first time God created Israel and the second time He sent Jesus down to start the Catholic church was the new Israel. i don’t always like that analogy, but it is true. if you disagree with any of this or feel i am incorrect, you are welcome to reply.

Well first of all read Acts. They continued to meet in the Synagogues. Also Shavuot is Forty days after Passover. Passover is when Jesus died. So forty days later was Shavuot (It is a week Long Festival). Pentecost is a particular day in the midst of Shavuot.

As I said the Apostles did not change their Jewish ways. They continued to go to Synagogue and Temple and preach Jesus (The fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah). When Paul went on his Missionary Journeys he would would go to the Synagogues first. The Churches he wrote such as the Ephesians and Corinthians were all Synagogues. Some of the Synagogues let him stay and preach others asked him to leave. But he always wen to the Synagogues first.

It was such a controversy to have a Gentile believe in Jesus that they had to discuss if the Gentile had to become a Jew first. Peter in fact said they had to. It was Paul who said they didn’t. They actually got into an argument about this and Paul went back to Jerusalem and speak with Peter about it. In the end they said that Gentiles did not have to become circumcised. But it never said that the Jews stopped being Jews.

Jesus did not come to earth to start “The Church”. You will never find that in scripture. You will find him saying I came to fulfill the Law not do away with the Law. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT. He is the Jewish Messiah. We as Gentiles believe in him and are blessed for it. Jesus came to make a way so that we could fellowship with God. He never came to start a new religion or a new Church he came to make it possible to fellowship with the Father.

As far as how do the Jews feel about the New Testament. I have heard many Rabbis say that it is indeed Jewish in Nature, the style and the things Paul and Peter talked about actually are very Jewish teachings. If you talk to a Jewish man or woman who has come to the understanding that Jesus is the Messiah they can teach you a lot about how Jesus fulfilled the OT. There are many prayers and things done during the Feast Days and Sabbath that point to Christ, that the gentile Church is missing out on because they do not know their Jewish roots, and often times even deny them. As I have said in other threads it is sad to hear when someone says King David was a Good Christian or Even Jesus was a good Christian. Jesus was not a Christian… Christian means little Christ… How could Jesus be a little version of himself?

 

[ChristianKnight]

No, I do not because we have the same living organism for spirtual guidance and knowledge that they did: The Catholic Church.

Your answer, however, puzzles me. As matter of fact, it should puzzle all Protestants who adhere to Sola Scriptura: If our society currently has the full compliment of God’s Word (27 NT books), how is it even possible for you to say those earlier communities (with less than 27 books) **WERE EQUAL **to yours?

It’s a contradiction for Sola Scripturists. Such people need to really think long and hard about this dilemma and offer a counterargument or consider abadoning the ideas of Sola Scriptura all together.

Can you give me a reason why you think not having all 27 NT books (like those early Christian communities) **IS EQUAL **to having all 27 books (like all Christian societies since the 5th century)?

Those early Christian communities did not have all 27 books, yet you claim they had the fullness of Christianity. How is that even theologically possible for Sola Scripturists???

They were humans to, thats why.

same answer.

I never claimed they had the fullness, I claimed they were equal. They are humans, god does not send us to hell cause we don’t have certain books.

Have I stated that you or anyone who is not Catholic automatically doesn’t believe in Christ? This belief in Christ is a wonderful beginning, from which one can come to the fullness of truth, in Christ’s Church. We have to ask ourselves, though, is belief in Christ all that is necessary? Even the devil and evil spirits believe in Christ. We must also do what He asks us. The devil who also believes in Christ does not do what Christ asks of His followers, those who love Him.

Do you have eyes, but do not see? I’ve stated before, God created one Church for His entire family. I’ve given this more detail as well. Do you think He asks us to be in a church which He did not build? Are you expecting a call on a mobile phone, rather than seeking Him and cooperating with the way He established things?

Yes, even though one declares they want a certain destination, but are in the wrong type of vehicle, or are on the wrong road, is one who is lost to a lesser or greater extent. Only God can judge how much.

Yes I have eyes, if I didn’t I wouldn’t be on here.

I would think, but I am not sure. No, I do not think Christ would call me, I will go the way I believe he wants me to, not the way someone tells me they think I should.

 

[Hisalone]

Actually. You need to do some church history and biblical History… Pentecost also known as the Jewish harvest festival of Shavuot. It is one of 7 High Holy Feast Days God instituted in the OT. Everyone who Peter spoke to was Jewish… They all came from around the Roman Empire. But they were all Jews there to celebrate Shavuot. They were amazed that they were speaking in the languages of there Home lands. The reach to the Gentiles was almost 30 years later. To this day you can go to a synagogue on and see Jewish men and woman celebrating Shavuot the same week we celebrate Pentecost.

As far as the name of the Early Jewish Sect it was known as The Way, they were also called Essenes and Nazarene.

Yes the Holy Spirit authored the Bible but he used Jewish men to write it. Including the New Testament. God came through the Jews.

Correct so our DNA has Jewish roots. I don’t consider that a bad thing. Its a beautiful thing. Its a 6000 year old love story of God. It transcends the modern church.

When Christians rooted out Jewish customs and Jewish holidays they rooted out Gods appointed times and Gods appointed seasons. They disregarded these and embrace pagan holidays and pagan customs. This is much of what Catholics so feverantly refuse to let go off and claim is part of Christs Church which could not be further than the truth.

 

[anon52328184]

since passover and easter don’t always coincide on the same date, the jewish pentecost and christian pentecost are not usually celebrated on the same date. in the same season, but i would think rarely on the same date.
well, if Jesus was not starting the Church, why did He tell Peter “upon this rock i will build my church” Matthew 18:16? why did he instruct the apostles on the sacraments they would perform and why did he send down the Holy Spirit?
Jesus was NOT the Jewish Messiah to the Jews then or now. the Jewish people believe that when the Messiah comes, he will not leave and promise to come back again - he will stay. to the Messianic Jew, he is their Messiah. yes, Jesus says he was hear to fulfill the Law not to abolish it. Jesus live the life of a Jewish man and he was a Jewish man when he died.

 

[TLara]

Well first of all read Acts. They continued to meet in the Synagogues. Also Shavuot is Forty days after Passover. Passover is when Jesus died. So forty days later was Shavuot (It is a week Long Festival). Pentecost is a particular day in the midst of Shavuot.

As I said the Apostles did not change their Jewish ways. They continued to go to Synagogue and Temple and preach Jesus (The fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah). When Paul went on his Missionary Journeys he would would go to the Synagogues first. The Churches he wrote such as the Ephesians and Corinthians were all Synagogues. Some of the Synagogues let him stay and preach others asked him to leave. But he always wen to the Synagogues first.

It was such a controversy to have a Gentile believe in Jesus that they had to discuss if the Gentile had to become a Jew first. **Peter in fact said they had to. It was Paul who said they didn’t. They actually got into an argument about this and Paul went back to Jerusalem and speak with Peter about it. In the end they said that Gentiles did not have to become circumcised. But it never said that the Jews stopped being Jews. **

I think you need to read ACTS again, it was St. Peter who was the first to baptise gentiles. It was St. Peter who was first to speak up for the gentiles at the first council of Jerusalem. And If I am not mistaken It was Again St. Peter who said that God had told him that the gentiles would hear the word through his mouth.
Did you actually read Acts or did you just make this stuff up

 

[reteeks21]

I think you need to read ACTS again, it was St. Peter who was the first to baptise gentiles. It was St. Peter who was first to speak up for the gentiles at the first council of Jerusalem. And If I am not mistaken It was Again St. Peter who said that God had told him that the gentiles would hear the word through his mouth.
Did you actually read Acts or did you just make this stuff up

It was also Peter who caved to the Jews who were upset with him over his evangelizing Gentiles without stressing the requirements of the law, and this was after he baptized Gentiles. Scripture makes it clear that Peter’s influence among the Gentiles no longer took precedence once Paul came on the scene. In fact, Paul had to call out Peter over his fear of the Jewish leaders.

Also, what evidence do you have that Peter ever continued his ministry to the Gentiles, or even went to Rome for that matter? Scripture makes it clear that his letters he later wrote went to the people of the DISPERSION, i.e, Jews kicked out of Israel.

 

[MDK]

Actually. You need to do some church history and biblical History… Pentecost also known as the Jewish harvest festival of Shavuot. It is one of 7 High Holy Feast Days God instituted in the OT. Everyone who Peter spoke to was Jewish… They all came from around the Roman Empire. But they were all Jews there to celebrate Shavuot. They were amazed that they were speaking in the languages of there Home lands. The reach to the Gentiles was almost 30 years later. To this day you can go to a synagogue on and see Jewish men and woman celebrating Shavuot the same week we celebrate Pentecost.

As far as the name of the Early Jewish Sect it was known as The Way, they were also called Essenes and Nazarene.

Yes the Holy Spirit authored the Bible but he used Jewish men to write it. Including the New Testament. God came through the Jews.

Correct so our DNA has Jewish roots. I don’t consider that a bad thing. Its a beautiful thing. Its a 6000 year old love story of God. It transcends the modern church.

The Jews are our ancestors in faith. Through them, the promise of a worldwide blessing came. When the actual worldwide blessing came, this new wine could not be poured into old wine skins, could it? The New Testament Church was distinct from the OT priestly system.

The roots of Christianity are Jewish, and the OT was a foreshadowing of the new to come, was it not? However, when the real came, the foreshadowing remained just that, foreshadowing. One had to leave Judaism with the Jewish priestly system, to become a follower of Christ. The OT priestly system is no more, but still today one must leave Judaism to become a Christian (not a Messianic Jew).

Jesus established the New Covenant, and the New Covenant Church as a fulfillment of OT prophecy and covenant with Abraham for a worldwide blessing. However, the New Covenant is for the worldwide family, not just the Jews. This is the way it was designed, not just the way it happened to turn out.

The essential blueprint of the the Catholic Church is not the same as the essential blueprint of Judaism. Judaism was a foreshadowing for the real to come. The real is the Real Christ, Sacrifice, High Priest, Savior. The Jewish priestly sacrifices really didn’t forgive sins. The perfect sacrifice does.

Also, to call these men Jewish is a red herring, as it’s misleading. Yes, they were born into the lineage of Jacob. However, they became Christian in their faith. Peter and others were Jewish by Birth, but became Christians to follow the Messiah. Christianity came on the heels of Judaic priestly system, as it was going out, but was not the same. The two coexisted for a while. Why were the early Christians at odds with the Judaizers if they were simply upholding the Jewish tradition and law? As a matter of fact, they dispensed with Jewish “works of the law,” did they not?

Essenes were ascetic Jewish religious group that flourished from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. I hope you agree that Christianity was not in existence in 2nd century BC. However, some believe the attitude of Jesus and His disciples is essentially anti-Essenic.

Since the 19th century attempts have been made to connect early Christianity and Pythagoreanism with the Essenes. It was suggested that Jesus of Nazareth was an Essene, and that Christianity evolved from this sect of Judaism, with which it shared many ideas and symbols. This is heresy. The Essenes were not the roots of the early Christian Church. According to Martin A. Larson, the now misunderstood Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans who lived as monks. In the Christian era at least and in the Apostolic age they no longer represented the current type of religious thought and practice among the Jews. This foreign element has been derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others from the Syrians or Persians or even from the farther East…

If early Christianity was essentially Judaism, then why did the Jews attack and reject Christianity, instead of welcoming it? The two coexisted, but by and large the Jewish power structure rejected Christ. Early Christianity was distinct from Judaism. Jesus didn’t destroy the OT priestly system until 70 AD. However, while the two coexisted for a while, they were not the same.

Please go back and take a look to determine the truth, not just what you want it to be. History is not up for a vote, but is what happened. Also, heresy will not be accepted here. Please just take history as it was.

 

[MDK]

When Christians rooted out Jewish customs and Jewish holidays they rooted out Gods appointed times and Gods appointed seasons. They disregarded these and embrace pagan holidays and pagan customs. This is much of what Catholics so feverantly refuse to let go off and claim is part of Christs Church which could not be further than the truth.

Is wishful thinking a substitute for truth with you? Do you have not concern over God’s Commandment against bearing false witness?

 

[anon52328184]

MDK i believe in pretty much everything you said except i am confused by your sentence that Jesus destroyed the Jewish priestly system in 70AD. 70 AD is when the 2nd temple was destroyed. Jesus had been gone for many years before that happened.
also, once they did away with circumcision and not having to obey the food laws, many of the Jews ceased to follow them. that is when the real break came between Judaism and Christianity.

 

[MDK]

It was also Peter who caved to the Jews who were upset with him over his evangelizing Gentiles without stressing the requirements of the law, and this was after he baptized Gentiles. Scripture makes it clear that Peter’s influence among the Gentiles no longer took precedence once Paul came on the scene. In fact, Paul had to call out Peter over his fear of the Jewish leaders.

Also, what evidence do you have that Peter ever continued his ministry to the Gentiles, or even went to Rome for that matter? Scripture makes it clear that his letters he later wrote went to the people of the DISPERSION, i.e, Jews kicked out of Israel.

My Catholic brothers and sisters…

The above is an example of what happens when one simply seeks to protest the Church built by Christ, rather than seek the truth. I for one pray that the hostility and falsehoods toward the Church Jesus built will be replaced by truth and love.

No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.

Fifteen hundred years later, an excommunicated heretic started to spread falsehoods and lies about the Church built by Christ, including the papacy. Martin Luther leaves a legacy of heresy, and no valid priesthood in his man made church. Other men protested the true Church as well. It’s no surprise that people who follow these heretical teachings, believe in his lies, and have contempt for the Church built by Christ still continue this man made tradition.

My friends, quite differently, the papacy survives today and continues the work of Christ who instituted the position of rock of His Church. The Holy Spirit protects the rock, and Jesus will be with His Church until the end of time, with valid Sacraments such as the incomparable Holy Eucharist, which bonds us to Christ, and in which we receive the infinite merits of His passion and death in our lives.

 

[MDK]

MDK i believe in pretty much everything you said except i am confused by your sentence that Jesus destroyed the Jewish priestly system in 70AD. 70 AD is when the 2nd temple was destroyed. Jesus had been gone for many years before that happened.

also, once they did away with circumcision and not having to obey the food laws, many of the Jews ceased to follow them. that is when the real break came between Judaism and Christianity.

Yes, Christ ascended to Heaven in 33 AD. However, He can still do His work from Heaven, right (I have to mention also that He is also still very present here in the Eucharist). It refers to God’s coming in judgment against the Old Covenant people, as described by John. Jesus foretold this also. The instrument was Titus and the Roman Army in 70 AD.

A further practical break came at that time dietary laws and such were abolished, but the Christian Church was distinct from the moment of it’s beginning. It has a head, true High Priest, perfect Sacrifice…, a “Prime Minister” in Peter who is rock of the Church, the delegated power to forgive sins, etc.

 

[anon52328184]

MDK yes, Jesus definitely foretold the destruction of the temple.
but the Jewish people continue to thrive no matter who tries to destroy them so i don’t know if Jesus is actually responsible for the destruction of the temple. yes, i agree that the Church was distinct from its beginning, but there had to be a reason that even after the destruction of the temple the Jewish people did not just drop everything and follow Christianity. i feel God still has a covenant with the Jewish people and he has protected them from destruction by the many cultures that have tried to destroy them.

 

[MDK]

Please spare me the condescentment. Not everyone who disagrees with Catholicism is ignorant of it. try a new argument.

I will agree that not everyone who disagrees with Catholicism is ignorant of it. Satan, and his followers would be exhibit one. I gave you then benefit of the doubt that you were not in that category. If you prove that to be incorrect, then I’ll sadly consider you as such.

If you wouldn’t ask people to abandon valid statements, you might actually be a Catholic. The truth is the truth, and I see no need to abandon it.

I stand by my statement regarding the mass, and what one gets out of it. There is the assumption that one seeks God, rather than opposes Him. I believed this is a correct reading for you, since you believe “Scripture is Authority”.

 

[MDK]

MDK yes, Jesus definitely foretold the destruction of the temple.
but the Jewish people continue to thrive no matter who tries to destroy them so i don’t know if Jesus is actually responsible for the destruction of the temple. yes, i agree that the Church was distinct from its beginning, but there had to be a reason that even after the destruction of the temple the Jewish people did not just drop everything and follow Christianity. i feel God still has a covenant with the Jewish people and he has protected them from destruction by the many cultures that have tried to destroy them.

Dear Deborah, I never said God was trying to destroy the Jewish people or lineage! The OT priesthood is no more, is that not true? The Jewish people have teachers, rabbi’s. I also never said the destruction of the 2nd Temple and Jerusalem was an attempt to get all Jews to make corporate conversion to Christianity. They will, at some later time, but not then.

The Jewish people are God’s “firstborn,” and I believe He still loves them. Doesn’t mean he can’t become angry with them for things like worshiping false gods, angry that Jerusalem had become so defiled. Though they are temporarily blinded, they will at some time have a corporate conversion to Christ.