The Catholic Church is fully Biblical

All the days which you mentioned from the Old Testament were not holidays but obligations, obligations which are not binding on Christians. The Scriptures tells us what I mean, Colossians 2:13-17 says: "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law but are now under the laws of Christ. The feast days and rituals of the Jews are not obligations of Christians. An example is Paul's debate about whether Christians need to be circumcised or not. Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and it has been fulfilled and those obligations are no longer mandatory. Another proof of those days not being mandatory for Christians today is the fact that the laws of the Old Testament do not justify us. Galatians 2:16 says: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Romans 3:20 says: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." If you look at the old holy days of obligations, you can obviously see that they prefigure Christ who is the fulfiller of the Law. Fr. John Echert of EWTN gives a better explanation, he says, "In many ways, even while our Lord celebrated Jewish feasts, He transcended them and gave them new significance. Examples include: The Passover becomes our Holy Week, to include the Holy Thursday Last Supper, Good Friday Crucifixion of the Lamb of God, and Easter, Pentecost becomes the feast of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and birth of the Church, rather than an agricultural feast as it had been, Water baths and purifications for external purification and circumcision give way to Baptism, Sabbath on Saturday as the end of the week day of rest and worship gives way to Sunday as the day of Resurrection and new day of the week for rest and worship. These are just samples of how the New Covenant transcends and replaces the Old, which prepared the way for Christ and Christian practice." THE DEUTEROCANONICALS "1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament." The books written in Hebrew were written by the Jewish Authority. When the "Dispersion" of the Jews occurred, which was when the Jews were scattered and settled in other lands outside of Palestine, the Jews began to lose their Hebrew tongue and they adopted Greek. Greek was the Universal Language so the Hebrew text had to be translated into Greek. This was known as the Septuagint (Latin for 70) and is named after the 70 translators who did the task in Alexandria where Greek speaking Jews lived. This was 280 years before Christ and finished around the next century. The Deuterocanonicals are considered the "books of the Dispersion" in Asia and Egypt and were indeed used by Our Lord, the Apostles and the Jews and Christians. "2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the "inspiration" of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?" "3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures." Could you site them please? I already have a feeling what you are mentioning but I want you to be specific so I can also be specific when discussing the "errors" and "contradictions". Need to show references for them please. "4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical." Matt1618, a Catholic Apologist, explains STS. Jerome, & Athanasius views on the Deutercanonicals. He says, "In sum, Jerome calls the Deuterocanonicals Scripture. The proofs he gives for doctrine come from the Deuterocanonicals. He calls Baruch a prophet in the same sense as Ezekiel. He quotes from Wisdom & Sirach and gives it the same authority as other Scripture and he complains about his opponent denying the authority of the book, not him. His references to the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, he uses in support of doctrine, clearly seeing them as Scriptures. Jerome mixes them right along with the rest of Scriptures and he treats them just as the rest of Scriptures. Scriptures are used to 'fulfill' Sirach on the same terms that it fulfilled a Psalm, which can thus only be speaking of Scripture. I have shown Jerome quoting and referring to each of the Deuterocanonical books. This includes Sirach, Wisdom, 2nd Maccabbees, Tobit, Esther, Baruch, and even the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three Children, treating each of these books as the same authority as the other books. Thus, the greatest supposed 'detractor' of the Deuterocanonicals, treats the books as Scripture." With the actual outlook of St. Athanasius on those books in practice, it is obviously a misreading of St. Athanasius in the 39th festal letter to say that his list of the canon is meant to be a list of all the Books that he considers Scripture. Included here we have seen citations from Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel. He calls the books Scriptures, calls the books as written by prophets, and uses it in proving doctrine. A side note is that as I said earlier he does not list Esther as part of the canon, and is "noncanonical" but he does refer to the book a couple of times in the Schaff edition. (NPNF2, Vol. 4, pp. 516, 531) He does not say "It is written" about Esther and makes no distinguishing from that book from other "canonical" books. That is the same way he mostly refers to the Deuterocanonical books. He doesn"t feel he has to "prove" they are Scripture, he assumes it. He quotes it in support of what he is saying, without the need in many cases to say "It is written" or "As scripture says". That is the same way he mostly refers to the non-Deuterocanonical books (without saying "As Scripture says" or "it is written", or "fearless words of Scripture.")...Many times St. Athanasius doesn"t say those distinguishing comments at all (i.e. "Scripture says", or "It is written") but takes for granted that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture (the same way he speaks of the Protocanonicals). He goes to these noncanoncal books but still considers them Scripture. All these books are Scripture, and treated as Scripture, so it is obvious that the term "canon" does not mean "the full extent of Scripture." I would discuss ST. Gregory and your point about the Councils but my characters would go over. I could discuss that in my next argument.