"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Friday, December 15, 2017

"The umpteenth heresy in the new biblical translation of the CEI. In 2 Cor 5,21 "of Fra Cristoforo

"The umpteenth heresy in the new biblical translation of the CEI. In 2 Cor 5,21 "of Fra Cristoforo
In this article I want to point out the umpteenth and very serious blunders in the new biblical translation of the CEI. In fact he knows of blasphemy. I think that Bergoglio referred explicitly to this verse of Saint Paul when he affirmed the heresy that "Jesus became a serpent, a devil and a sin" (http://www.unavox.it/ArtDiversi/DIV1958_Nitoglia_Bergoglio_Gesu_fatto_diavolo.html). These serious statements are the result not only of a wrong translation of the biblical text, but at this point I begin to think that behind all these "false transmissions" there is a real evil thought, to completely distort the authentic message of the Word of God. An approach, if not a true wink to all Protestant thought. So then I reiterate the urgency for those who want to remain "Catholic" to rely on the translations before the new one of 2007. Because we are really facing an awesome abyss.

In the new translation, 2 Cor 5:21 is as follows: "He who knew no sin, God made him sin in our favor". The previous translation instead transcribed: "He who knew no sin, God treated him as a sin in our favor". The difference is abnormal. One thing is to say that God "treated" His sin from sin. Another matter is to say that God "sinned" His Son. Do you realize the gravity of this biblical misrepresentation? I had not read this new part until today. Because I usually use old translations. But when I saw her, I dropped my arms on the ground. These are all crazy.

The original Greek text is: "τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν". The term in question is precisely "ἐποίησεν - époiesen- da poiesis", which in all the old Greek dictionaries that are respected is translated with "treat - cure - activate". Obviously the word most suited to the translation in question has always been "treat". In the Vulgate of St. Jerome 2 Cor 5:21 is: "Eum, here not noverat peccatum, pro nobis peccatum fecit", where that "perfect signification" III pers. singular "is not to be understood in this case with" he did ", but precisely with" treated him ", that is" God treated Him as a sin ".

So this new translation has no grip anywhere. We are facing a resounding mistake. And at this point I begin to think that it was really wanted. Above all on a crucial point like this text of Saint Paul. Easily and "factiously" misinterpreted by the Lutherans. Moreover, St. Paul says clearly in Rom 8: 3-4: "For what was impossible to the law, because the flesh made it impotent, God made it possible: sending his own Son into a flesh similar to that of sin and in view of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, because the justice of the law was fulfilled in us, that we do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit ". And in Hebrew 4: 14-15 we read: "Therefore, since we have a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, Son of God, we hold firm the profession of our faith. In fact, we do not have a high priest who does not know how to sympathize with our infirmities, since he himself has been tried in all things, in the likeness of us, excluding sin ". It is therefore the same Saint Paul together with the author of the letter to the Hebrews that give us the right interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21.

Here now we no longer care about what Bergoglio can say or who for him. But this is yet another proof that there is a precise plan (and not from today), of "misrepresentation" of the Holy Scripture and of "anchoring" to all Protestant thought.

Now I invite you to read carefully the same interpretation that St. Augustine gives to 2 Cor 5:21:

"The opinion of some on the Apostle's passage.
10. Then with what sin did he condemn sin? Some found a way of understanding and came to an admissible interpretation. But, in my view, however, their possibility to investigate what the Apostle wanted to say was extremely reduced. But I did not give a distorted interpretation: to you I first say this, then I expose my thoughts and what the divine Scripture affirms to be absolutely certain. By asking them: With what sin did he condemn sin? Did he have sin? They replied: With sin he condemned sin, with sin not his own; however with sin he condemned sin. Whose sin then, if not with his own? With the sin of Judah, with the sin of the Jews. How indeed did he shed his blood in remission of sins? Because he was crucified. Who was crucified? From the Jews. Who the traitor? Down from. Judah betrayed him when the Jews gave him death. Did they do well or did they sin? They sinned. Here is what sin condemned sin. It has been well said and it has been said with truth, because also with the sin of the Jews Christ condemned every sin, because, making itself those persecutors, he poured the blood with which he canceled all sin. Nonetheless, pay attention to what the Apostle means in another passage: In the name of Christ - he says - we act as ambassadors, as if God were exhorting through us; we beseech you in the name of Christ, that is, as if Christ entreated you, we beseech you in his name, be reconciled to God. And he continues: He who knew no sin ... God - with whom we beg you to be reconciled - from sin in our favor, so that we might become God's righteousness through him, the one who had not known sin, that is Christ-God, he the Christ, who had not known sin. Is it possible here to understand the sin of Judah, the sin of the Jews, the sin of any other man, since you hear that he who had not known sin treated him as a sin in our favor? Who? Against whom? God towards Christ, God treated Christ from sin in our favor. He did not say: God made him a sinner in our favor, but he treated him as a sin. If it is an error to say that Christ has sinned, who can tolerate that Christ is "sin"?A more certain interpretation of the Apostle. How Christ was treated as a sinner.
11. How is it then? Your charity sees that you understand a great and profound mystery. You will be happy if you have desired understanding and you will come to love it. Truly, precisely, Christ our Lord, Jesus our Savior, our Redeemer has been made sin because we were God's justice in him. How? Listen to the law. Those who know know what I say; and those who do not know read or listen. In the law the sacrifices offered for sins were also called "sins". When the victim for sin was brought, here you are saying the law: The priests lay their hands on sin; that is, on the victim for sin. And what else is Christ if not a sacrifice for sin? Like Christ - he says - he loved you, and he gave himself for you, offering himself to God in sacrifice of sweet smell. Here is what sin condemned sin: with the sacrifice that he became for sins, he condemned sin with it. Precisely this is the law of the spirit of life, which freed you from the law of sin and death. Because that law, the other, the law of the letter, the law that commands is undoubtedly good; holy, and the commandment is just and good; but he was impotent because of the flesh; therefore that which commanded could not be fulfilled in us. Thus a law, as I initially said, can make you know sin, the other can erase it; the law of the letter can make known sin; the law of grace can take away sin ".

Fra Cristoforo


  1. This is very true I have compared a few new bible's to the "vogate" bible. And found storys changed, words either missing all togeather or replaced with words that change the meaning. I have even found hole paragraphs missing in both the old and new testaments.

  2. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3
    Then the LORD God said: See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?j "

    This is from the USCCB site..Genesis 3:22.
    How long has the word "us" been used in verse 22?