ASH WEDNESDAY AND OTHER CATHOLIC LIES!
ALL GLORY TO ABBA!!! | 15 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PkybZu9Rd4
3:08 A double challenge:
1) give me a reasoned way in which the Roman Catholic feast would be mocking Jesus Christ?
2) give me a historic line of people (same or overlapping different denominations, not excommunicating each other) that do not do so, and are Christians FROM the time of Jesus, TO the present?
- ALL GLORY TO ABBA!!!
- @allglorytoabba3398
- Give me a reason why you defend a pagan cult instead of listening to the HOLY SOIRIT!
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @allglorytoabba3398 Did the Holy Spirit write the Gospel of Matthew?
What was the time adverb for Jesus' presence with His Church according to the last verse?
And why should I take you as the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit over the Church?
3:29 If a Jew accuses a Christian of worshipping Tammuz, the reasoning, though skewed, is at least moderately clear.
Tammuz is alleged to make annual deaths and resurrections. Jesus died and resurrected. To some Jews, this means Christianity is Tammuz worship.
But why celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, along with the redemption from sin and death, would in any way appear to any Christian (or "admitter that Jesus was the Messiah" if you disagree with the word Christian) a kind of Tammuz worship despite openly being about Jesus, that's not reasonable.
4:46 If you called Shrove Tuesday Lupercalia, you might have a point.
There have been popes that called it Lupercalia. But calling Ash Wednesday Lupercalia is ... like saying the Ninevites got saved by keeping a festival to Asshur instead of a fast to God.
5:17 What you have just said about Mardi Gras is what some Popes have said about it.
However, if God does not call you to it, through the Popes He permits you to do it, if you feel you must give meat one sweet farewell before fasting begins for real. Revelry and drunkenness are not synonymous, and getting real drunk is a mortal sin, even on Mardi Gras.
5:52 When exactly do YOU think the Lord calls us to fast?
And when you fast, be not as the hypocrites, sad. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.
[Matthew 6:16]
Note, disfigure doesn't refer to an ash cross, it refers to appearing to moan from fatigue and hunger.
Note also, He did not say "if you fast" as if it were a free decision to take or leave, He said "when you fast" ... get the difference?
I can answer the question by this ideal enumeration:
- Wednesdays and Fridays each week, except in Eastertide and the first four days of Christmas
- perhaps add Mondays or Saturdays (in the West: add Saturdays four times a year, no perhaps about the ember days)
- the forty days of fasting counting backwards from Easter
In the West, this is six days per week, no fasting on Sundays, so 6 weeks Lent prior to Easter = 36 days, add 4 days more, Ash Wednesday to the subsequent Saturday.
In the East, this is five days per week, also no fasting on Saturday, so 8 weeks Lent = 40 days, starting on a Monday. - the forty days of fasting counting backwards from Christmas
- minus dispensations, the Church has given to make the burden lighter.
So, if you pretend Lent is a vain observance, when are we then meant to observe the implied command in "when you fast"?
And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.
[Matthew 9:15]
The reason behind Fridays and Good Friday is, I supposed, obvious.
The reason behind Wednesdays is, Judas took the money for betrayal on a Wednesday.
The liturgy of Ash Wednesday recalls how the primeval couple was separated from the Bridegroom.
The forty days recall the fasting in the desert, and the warning to Niniveh.
6:05 "lies because they are not in the Bible"
Brings a conundrum.
Fasting when the Church says to do so, supposedly is "a lie, since not in the Bible" ...
But fasting not at all is certainly even more of a lie, since contrary to the Bible. Matthew 6:16.
And fasting at any other time is also not in the Bible, unless you keep your fasts with the Rosh Hashana ~ Yom Kippur season.
6:37 You are confusing the no works initial justification in Baptism with the "works indeed" remaining justified after Baptism.
I suppose you sometimes cite a fake Bible passage like Ephesians 2:8 to 9?
7:09 During Lent, we certainly tend to get off the broad way of Pancake Tuesday.
We do it by fasting.
So, did you just say, you were "giving up Lent" for Lent?
That's again against Mt 6:16. Or all the passage Mt 6:16~18.
7:41 And if a Jew eats Latkes for Hanukkah, is that superstitious too?
Or you accept one equivalent among Christ deniers, while you reject its equivalent among Christians?
If it's the latter, whose side are you on?
If it's the former, can you tell me exactly when a habit becomes a superstition?
- ALL GLORY TO ABBA!!!
- The Jews are the chosen nation of ALMIGHTY GOD, the Catholics are heathens and an abomination to The LORD! Catholics are the most self-righteous group of people I have met.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @allglorytoabba3398 Christ denying Jews are the people of God?
So, in AD 34, Jesus would have sided with the Pharisees against the Church of Jerusalem?
8:19 No sacrifice in the Catholic Church was ever TO the Blessed Virgin.
If God from eternity intended Her to be Queen of Heaven, would He not be outraged by any demon assuming that title for an image totally opposed to the Blessed Virgin? Or by any man falling for it?
10:24 Since Jesus, not just as God, but also as Man is King of Heaven, and since He took His mother up, there is a Queen of Heaven now.
The precise reason why God was angry about people getting excited about a false Queen of Heaven back when Mary was not yet in place.
10:31 You just called Gabriel and Elisabeth liars, ma'am.
"Blessed art thou among women" ~ "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb"
What Sisera did She kill? What Holophernes did she behead?
With the addition "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" the answer is given in the reference to Genesis 3:15.
There is no other context and parallel studied meaning of "blessed among women" that is possible.
So, if Mary had not redeemed US from sin, yet, how exactly had She defeated Satan?
He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
[1 John 3:8]
So, the Son had not yet appeared, the words were said the first time BEFORE She was pregnant with God, and She was victorious of the devil, like Jael of Sisera, like Judith of Holophernes.
What exact other option was open to Her to be victorious of the Devil? Being sinless, obviously!
10:42 "because He was pleased with the way She lived Her life"
a) that's at least a hint at Her sinlessness
b) it's also reversing the truth. The Lord made Her such that He could be entirely pleased with the way She lived Her life, because He had chosen Her.
Some sons cannot help their mothers against their worst enemies even when they have grown to adults. Here we talk of a Son Who eternally was God before becoming Her Child.
There are omissions of my duties to my mother which are excused by my weakness - if God almighty doesn't act beforehand in defense of His Mother, how can God be excused?
By the Incarnation, He put Himself under "thou shalt honour they father and thy mother" ... we know how often He made sure we realised He honoured His heavenly Father, shall we conclude from that He was negligent about the needs of His Mother?
10:50 "She was faithful to the Lord God and She worshipped the Lord God ..."
You should have stopped the sentence there.
10:55 Jesus is the Son of Adam and Eve.
He was sinless. When He died, He rose on the Third Day, and went up to Heaven on the fortieth day counting from that.
Mary was also the Son of Adam and Eve. But the words of the angel and of Elisabeth tell us She was sinless.
Nothing there to preclude Church tradition telling us, when She had been buried, St. Thomas went there the third day, and found Her tomb empty, but the veil and belt still there.
11:02 You contradicted Church tradition.
Plus the deepest reason for Gods specific wrath with a specific idolatry in Jeremiah's time.
11:31 How exactly do you fast if you DON'T abstain from meat?
Matthew 6:16~18.
"A break fast is a meal that takes places following a fast. After Yom Kippur, it is viewed as a festive meal. To avoid indigestion, some choose to avoid heavy foods such as meat, observe a custom of eating light dairy foods in moderation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%27anit#Breaking_the_fast
Whether for avoiding indigestion or other reasons, the Catholic practise also involves the abstention from meat.
In other words, if Jesus had had a beef (pun!) about how Catholics fast now, why didn't He warn against this aspect of the Jewish way of fasting?
11:55 Here is the passage:
1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Now, let's forget for a moment the traditional Catholic interpretation, which you don't believe anyway.
The persons who follow doctrines of devils forbid two things:
- marrying
- abstaining from meat
And Paul therefore says two things are to be received with thanksgiving among so many others:
- marrying
- abstaining from meat.
Note, the exact same word forbid has both these things as object. It does not have "meat" or "eating meat" as object.
Now, let's return to the Catholic traditional interpretation:
"Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats": He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance.
The idea that St. Paul meant they forbid "consuming" meat is probably from this interpretation.
I would say, these ancient sects are a preliminary fulfilment, but an imperfect one. One reason being, they are long gone.
What would speak in favour of my interpretation:
- seared conscience
- as in the days of Noah
If an unmarried man is prevented from abstaining from meat, he's prevented from being at the same time chaste and calm. He is made vulnerable to intrigues against his capacity to marry.
Noah had his three sons when he was far older than any other patriarch. I would say, he had very long been prevented from marrying.
As in pre-Flood days abstaining from meat (except of sacrificial animals, I presume) was anyway obligatory, they did not yet have this exact additional means of making a man miserable, as long as he refuses to follow their ways. Now that meat eating is in and of itself licit, they do have that.
12:17 Catholic priests are not permitted to marry if they were ordained without a wife, or if their wife dies.
Previously, in the Latin rite, unmarried men were not permitted to marry and then get ordained priest.
AND Pope Michael I recently changed this discipline.
But the fact that it is a discipline, and applies to only part of the Church, proves it is not a doctrine, and therefore cannot be a "doctrine of devils" as some have misconcluded from this passage.
12:51 If one simply said "it is not good" without qualifying "in large quantities" "by certain persons" or "in certain seasons" it would be a Gnostic error.
It would be condemned by the Church, even if it was not expressly condemned by St. Paul in this passage.
13:16 It does not say "forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats"
It is exactly ONE verb in Greek. If it means forbidding in the case of to marry, it means forbidding in the case of to abstain. Purely philologically.
It is a longstanding Roman Catholic interpretation that it should be translated one way in the one context and another in the other. But it is not purely philologically in the text.
13:24 So, is abstaining from meats a creature of God?
I would say so, since it was God's discipline for the first men, even after the fall, up to Genesis 9:2~4.
Adventists pretend, I gather, we should go back to it full time. Catholics say we need to go back to it part time.
But some people have hypocritically and with lies pretended I reject marriage when I try to keep Church fast days, and pretended I was planning to leave the Church every time I ate meat, specifically if I did so on a fasting day, and on both sides they have prevented me from getting a Catholic wife.
I e, they have fulfilled this prophecy. Very well.
13:42 What's the next pagan practise you are going to reject?
Reading the Bible?
W a i t, that's about the word of God?
Yeah, but it's the same practise anthropologically as a Muslim reading the Quran, as a Hindoo reading Mahabharata, as a Buddhist reading Tripitaka. Not all that far from the practise of Greek tragedy.
So, why should the intent of worshipping the true God make such a difference this time, when for so many other Christian practises you think pointing to a Pagan parallel is enough to dismiss it?
13:57 No, the pagan festival of Tammuz is in July or close by lunar months.
"In the Hebrew calendar, Tammuz is the tenth month of the civil year and the fourth month of the ecclesiastical year on the Hebrew calendar. It is a summer month of 29 days. Tammuz is also the name for the month of July in the Gregorian calendar in Arabic (تموز), Syriac (ܬܡܘܙ) and Turkish ("Temmuz").[2]"
Tammuz (Hebrew: תַּמּוּז, Tammūz), or Tamuz, is the tenth month of the civil year and the fourth month of the ecclesiastical year on the Hebrew calendar, and the modern Assyrian calendar. It is a month of 29 days, which occurs on the Gregorian calendar around June–July.
The name of the month was adopted from the Assyrian and Babylonian month Araḫ Dumuzu, named in honour of the Mesopotamian deity Dumuzid.
If you will accuse ANYONE of fasting in mourning of Tammuz, while purporting Monotheism, why not accuse the Jews who fast the 17th of Tammuz?
14:13 We know that Satan tries to imitate Almighty God.
True word. So, why don't you apply that to the Queen of Heaven?
Is worship of Jesus idolatry, because Tammuz also is said to have risen?
No, Satan tries to imitate.
Is honouring the Queen of Heaven idolatry, because a pagan deity had a close on title?
Oh, yes, there is a clear parallel, how can you miss it?!
How can you miss the inconsistency?
14:24 "carried in from Roman paganism" ?
Dumuzi or Tammuz is Babylonian paganism.
He was kind of mourned as Adonis by some Greco-Romans, but even then often the "Aphrodite" in question is qualified as "the Syrian goddess" ...
But either way, the things I read about that kind of lamentation is precisely what Jesus warned against about WHEN you fast. They really disfigured themselves.
15:05 And he brought me in by the door of the gate of the Lord's house, which looked to the north: and behold women sat there mourning for Adonis.
[Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 8:14]
Just to clarify on both points. Yes, Adonis really means Tammuz, and yes, it really is about weeping, making a sad face.
And when you fast, be not as the hypocrites, sad. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.
[Matthew 6:16]
One additional point in favour of Mardi Gras is, some happy memory of that revelry may linger under Lent, and help one to NOT make a sad face when in fact fasting.
- ALL GLORY TO ABBA!!!
- Is Mardi Gras in the LORD’S Word? NO! You cannot mix lies and truth together to make a point!
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @allglorytoabba3398 Is "internet" in the Lord's word?
Is it the flying scroll?
Or is the flying scroll about upcoming restrictions on it?
If the flying scroll is the internet, is it the flying scroll, i e the internet, or is it the bad use, like deleting homepages (burning houses) for copyright infringement (if someone has stolen) that is evil?
Is wearing a wedding ring in the Lord's word? Is that evil too (by the way, it genuinely is a Roman practise of pagans)?
15:57 Perhaps you prefer to say on Good Friday "I'm not a widow"?
As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 18:7]
16:46 OK. Every Catholic who considers this a representation of Jesus, worshipped with relative laria, i e it's to the One represented, is in some unclear way responsible for "worshipping Tammuz"?
Why?
17:19 We do.
But we have had a dispute on whether it's First Day of the Week or a certain date in Nisan.
Oh, you pretend that Passover is still first and foremost about the Exodus?
That Jesus dying and resurrecting doesn't work as a fullfiment?
St. John disagrees. When Jesus' legs were not broken, He fulfilled a law about the Passover lamb. John 19:36.
No comments:
Post a Comment