Christians Only: Why Easter is NOT the Way to Honor Christ.

[Deeje]

Yes, that's why the liturgy of the Church is its 'public' prayer.

Was prayer in the Christian congregation words from a page by rote....a mindless repetition of words that came from the mind but not the heart?
What did Jesus say just before he gave his model prayer....?

"But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
7 “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.


9 “Pray then in this way:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:6-10 NRSV Catholic Edition)

Does Jesus say.."pray this prayer"? What do you see there? What is it that I hear in Catholic churches, but mindless repetition of the same words over and over again.....is this what God wants from us? Is that what prayer is for....a heap of words that is said over and over that will somehow please an intelligent God?
If your children did that to you, what would you tell them? (apart from "shut up"!)

Like private prayer, public prayer should follow the model that Jesus set...in order of importance....the sanctification of God's name....the importance of his his kingdom to "come" and what will happen when it does.
There are no set words....the words should come from the heart, not out of a book.

Do you really believe that churches of the Apostles gathered in a free for all atmosphere with no order of worship when 'doing this in memory' , or when baptizing? How long before the 'meal' in Paul was reduced to gathering for the 'breaking of the bread' without a meal. Why did the Christians continue to attend the synagogue?

You don't seem to understand that there was no free for all. There was order and there was instruction for the preaching and teaching work that all Christians were commanded to undertake. Jesus trained his disciples in this work and sent them out to preach, not to sit in some fancy building with stained glass windows waiting for the sheep to come to them. The Apostles likewise trained and taught in the congregations, but the old covenant was finished and a new covenant was instituted.....they were nothing alike.

"The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

Jesus told his disciples...
"Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. 12 As you enter the house, greet it. 13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Matthew 10:11-15)

You don't seem to realize how Christendom has fallen back on the ways of the old covenant. The "temples", the priesthood, the liturgy and ritual, the fancy titles and distinctive dress......they have ceased to be preachers and teachers and instead have become Pharisaical "friends of the world". (James 4:4) They seem to pop up whenever there is a worldly affair to be commemorated ....especially associated with the military and wars. Didn't Jesus teach us to 'love our enemies and to pray for them'? Would Jesus attend any of those occasions?

I think your 'studies' are all too narrow.

You think my studies are too narrow??? I think your studies are non-existent....even in the most simple things, whatever Jesus taught, the the whole of Christendom teaches something different.....but the RCC led them there.
She is the "mother" of many daughters.

Are you all set to celebrate Easter? Did you fast for Lent? Is you God a trinity? Is Mary "the mother of God"? Is there such a place as purgatory? What about infant baptism? Was Peter the first Pope? What does the title "Pontiff" mean?

Find me these in the Bible, please....

 

[rational experiences]

Humans already prove we live without religious instruction.

Live kindly. Live caring. Live loving. Live assisting. By choices.

I learnt my brother plus brothers wanted.

The taught theme.

A human knows to exist they have two parents first.

Know that they live about 100 years then die. We know we are never our parents.

Humans call that status advised. Using truth. A word that was given a description so that if you weren't applying truth you were determined lying.

Humans know humans.

I look.at anything else and I know I am not it.

Our brother does not seem enabled to apply seeing correctly.

Due to what I observed. Wanting.

He looked at ground patterns and wanted them.to be our human beginning.

Yet his conscious seeing already said not a human. Is a pattern on the ground.

The brother man human theme. A question. Did life get saved sacrificed. Yes. We are saved. Lots of humans are sacrificed. Loss of perfection one of those meanings.

My mother never said she was perfect. My mother memories taught me anything said about her female life was a man thought. Her self did not express especial purpose.

What you can't establish today as Mr know it all doing a biblical examination for scientific machine advice to copy atmospheric conditions.

No machine no conditions.

Design human a living thinking is not the designer of creation.

You had to exist. To think. To build. To react a design that God O earth never owned.

What you lie about today that you represented God as a man.

The document specific says no man is God. Your answer why sacrifice of life occurred.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because you have refused to answer MB's question and mine that deals with Jesus' promise to guide the Church until the end of times. When you decide to deal with that, let me know and we can maybe move on to other items since thus far all you are doing is setting smokescreens so as to avoid the question.

Thus, we can discuss this issue of self-defense and warfare when you stop avoiding answering these basic questions.

It really has been answered before ...there have always been a “few” that have obeyed Christ, i.e., that are on the ‘path to life,’ (Matthew 7:13-14) throughout the last 2,000 years. (It seems that Isaac Newton may have been one of those few. IDK.)

Peter was given the privilege of ‘opening the door’ (the keys of the Kingdom) for all to become Christian: first the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), then Samaritans, then Gentiles.
But he was no pontiff! He had no authority over his fellow apostles. In fact, he was reproved in a public way, by Paul.
As predicted, once the Apostles died, there was no “restraint” against the developing apostasy.

Only “in the final part of the days”, would true knowledge “become abundant”. — Daniel 12



I stated earlier, there’s no justification for joining the world in its wars. When Jesus said “be not of the world,” that covered all bases.... I can’t think of a worse way to be disobedient to Christ, than to join the world in killing others!

I had a pastor tell me years ago, “What are you gonna do when the Russians come marching down your street? Wave your little green Bibles?”
I told him “No; as in any disaster, I’ll use my God-given wisdom & soundness of mind, and I’ll rely on His protection.... which I’ll only have if I’m obedient.”

In regard to war, christendom’s reputation is well-established....
Clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick (Protestant) wrote: “Even in our churches we have put the battle flags . . . With one corner of our mouth we have praised the Prince of Peace and with the other we have glorified war.”

 

[rational experiences]

We are today all humans as old as the age you say you are.

A baby grown into an adult who one day dies.

Surviving irradiating conditions in a water holy life heavens. As a bio life.

Easter approaches.

O earth a planet moves cyclic around the sun. We approach change of seasons for garden nature.

On God earth the garden is one first.

Life in garden dies and falls.
Life in garden renews. In two places. You know 2.

Science says two humans.

Natural. It always is natural.

That circumstance two is called a balance.

Day 12 hours. Night time 12 hours.

A balance of two.

What changed historic?

Documents said the two of balance changed.

Light as day went dark.

The earth's body underwent a huge shift natural disaster.

It had been pre warned.

Science pre warned humans by science.

Science only expressed by humans for humans thinking.

Then a story about pre warned life losses as Christians already dying.

Was an act caused by human choice science.

Temple pyramid. Why you viewed to dismantle the sciences and never practice it again.

Seems today you constantly preach about it coming back. As the preachers. Scientists.

And want to claim human logic?

 

[pearl]

"But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
7 “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Jesus attended the synagogue for public worship, he also prayed privately. I would assume in the passage you refer to praying in the synagogue 'whenever' they pray, a righteous appearance for public show. Why do you have a problem with Christians gathering for prayer? I take it whatever your 'services' involve, prayer is not included.

Does Jesus say.."pray this prayer"? What do you see there? What is it that I hear in Catholic churches,

Exactly the same prayer! We follow the form in Luke followed by a doxology containing the additional words of MT.

Much of our Liturgy reflects the Jewish ritual and liturgy Our Lord would have known. The standing during the gospels is, in Jewish liturgy, the standing for the Torah. The prayers of the offertory are the prayers of the Jewish Benediction before a meal.
The Sanctus is a direct quote from the Jewish prayer the Quedushah, while the ending of the maranatha when we say “Come Lord Jesus” is there in the invocation for the coming of the Messiah in the Jewish Shemoneh Esreh said daily.
The octave after Christmas or Easter, is the week kept by Jews after every major feast. The beni-toi with its holy water, sign of baptism and once placed at the entrance of Catholic homes, takes the place of the Shema Israel encased in the wall before the entry into Jewish homes. And the readings of the Easter Vigil are the Passover readings Our Lord would have known.
So please don't be so arrogant as to pretend you know anything of our Liturgy beyond anti-Catholic gossip. The rest of your post has nothing to do with any intelligent discussion, nothing but anti-Catholic dribble ad nauseum.

 

[metis]

perhaps you dont see the narrative in the scene that unfolded . Jesus was speaking to Peter then referring to him self he said
'' and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. '' Jesus is the rock . Peter is but one of the stones in the foundation wall .

You getting it quite wrong as Jesus is the "Cornerstone" of the Church, which is of far more importance than just being a "rock". But let's dissect what's going on:

Matthew 16[13]Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
[14] And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
[15] He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note that it is Peter who correctly cites the significance of Jesus. Then note that Jesus says "And I tell you, you are Peter...". Peter certainly knows who he is, so why would Jesus repeat the obvious if it was not important? What is important is that Jesus is basically going to explain the significance of Peter's new name, which is "Kephas" in Aramaic, which means "rock" [or stone].

Then Jesus continues on and says he's going to build his Church on this assignment to Peter, which is why when we see any listings of the apostles Peter's name is almost always first, and in many cases it just says "Peter and the others". When Paul comes to question the adherence to Jewish Law, he confronts Peter. This is a pattern that is repeated over and over again.

Then note that Jesus sets up the commission to Peter and the others in regards to leading the Church after he's gone, plus stating that the Church will prevail, which it has. The early Church considered Peter to be the spiritual leader but not the administrative leader (James).

Thus, Peter is the "rock" that Jesus is referring to, but it is Jesus that is the actual Cornerstone of the Church, thus not Peter.

 

[metis]

Acts 20:
. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son. 29 I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.''

oppressive wolves are in fact those splintered off ones which makeup the majority of Christendom .
for true Christion's the difference stands out . in churches there are items
of devotion ,idolized and held dear.

Of course there was going to be those who disobeyed or didn't tell the truth, and that was true even within the ranks of the Apostles themselves even when Jesus was alive. Jesus wasn't stupid, thus he would be fully aware of the fact that humans are not perfect, including those even running the Church after him.

But what you are totally missing is Jesus' promise that he would guide the Church through the end of times, therefore your assertion that the Church turned into "Christendom" is absurd because it negates what Jesus promised. And if you think that the Church became "Christendom", then what is the Church that Jesus promised he would continually guide?

BTW, can't help but notice that you are using the canon of the Bible that was written and selected by that supposed "Christendom" Church. Thus, you're trying to have it both ways.

 

[metis]

It really has been answered before ...there have always been a “few” that have obeyed Christ,

But that is illogical in terms of supposedly being the "Church" that Jesus created. The Church was created by Jesus with leadership as being "one body" as Paul repeatedly stated. IOW, it clearly was created and regarded by Jesus as being his organization that he was creating. It is also this "one body", the Church, that selected and taught the scriptures that you even quote from.

So, your idea that some some diverse people scattered all over the place as being the Church that Jesus created is absurd. Prior to the selection of the canon by the Church in the 4th century, there were all sorts of "scriptures" that were written-- roughly 2000 of them according to theologian William Barclay. Thus, you are using the scriptures selected by the Church that you deny even existed.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But that is illogical in terms of supposedly being the "Church" that Jesus created. The Church was created by Jesus with leadership as being "one body" as Paul repeatedly stated. IOW, it clearly was created and regarded by Jesus as being his organization that he was creating. It is also this "one body", the Church, that selected and taught the scriptures that you even quote from.

So, your idea that some some diverse people scattered all over the place as being the Church that Jesus created is absurd. Prior to the selection of the canon by the Church in the 4th century, there were all sorts of "scriptures" that were written-- roughly 2000 of them according to theologian William Barclay. Thus, you are using the scriptures selected by the Church that you deny even existed.

Métis, remember Jesus’ parable about the wheat & the weeds, growing together?

As stated, there have always been those ones loyal / obedient to Christ. They were always “few.”
As far as the church being utilized by God to organize the Bible canon.... did not Jehovah use the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans etc., to do what He wanted done?

In fact, there were other books, approved by the church, that were eventually considered apocrypha, and not accepted as the standard 66-book canon.

Well, you take care. I wish you and yours the best.

 

[metis]

Métis, remember Jesus’ parable about the wheat & the weeds, growing together?

As stated, there have always been those ones loyal / obedient to Christ. They were always “few.”
As far as the church being utilized by God to organize the Bible canon.... did not Jehovah use the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans etc., to do what He wanted done?

So? That changes nothing, and it doesn't deal with what I asked.

As before, you still have not dealt with the question as to which "one body", to use Paul's words, is Christ's Church. Clearly, it was an organization, thus not just a do-your-own-thingy. And since Jesus promised to guide his Church, it must still exist as an organization.

In fact, there were other books, approved by the church, that were eventually considered apocrypha, and not accepted as the standard 66-book canon.

The Apocrypha was not originally canonized by the Church because of their relatively late writing. In Judaism, they made the same decision not to include it. However, later on, the Church made the decision to include them in the canon, and Luther did much the same in his original German copy.

If you read them, there's really nothing* that's a problem theologically. And since the Church was responsible for the selection of the canon to begin with, which includes the one that you use, what's the problem with them including them if they felt they were helpful, especially providing information written between the two Testaments to sorta fill the gap?

Well, you take care. I wish you and yours the best.

Ditto back at ya.


* The only item that raised some eyebrows was praying for the dead, which doesn't occur in the other texts but which the early Church believed was a good thing to do. The reference to the "communion of saints" found in the Apostle's Creed is not only a reflection of that but also what we know was that at least many Jews were doing this at the time of Christ. These "saints" include those whom had died and those whom were still living, as the belief was, and still is in the Church, that we can still pray for each other, much like you and I can pray for each other right now.

IOW, death is not the end.

Again, take care.

 

[rational experiences]

Second coming was mathematically prophecised to return life sacrificed.

For it to be believed the book compiler would update advice as change occurred.

Studied of book compilation proof.

Evidence caused book compilation to change and information re written. Other previous detail ignored.

The church was as a building built only when it was.

Therefore it proves that book compilation changed as no church existed in times Jesus 34Ad change to O God earth.

The fact the natural daylight was removed. The body of gases burning disappeared. The day the sky went dark.

Science statement as science for science.

Was life sick sacrificed before Jesus event?

Yes.

Concluded evidence against science proven the day the sky went dark.

Ended.

Became a human man science memory. No light when there was light. Light returned.

Science would have said it a maths womb space mother of earth event God status. Science.

Described.

Ask yourselves today do you think humans irradiated in UFO conditions speak rationally or use correct conscious descriptions?

I don't.

The same goes for the past.

Light is heavenly in a womb vacuum. Born as a spirit body to be sacrificed. Life lives by heavenly light existing.

A rational natural human observation.

When you talk irrationally it includes human greed status science invention ownership as false ideals.

As light belongs as a support for all bodies living.

When you give it direct ownership two conditions to reason why exists

One......I live owning light naturally.
Two....science said it owned it was using it in machine conditions.

Two reasons for claiming I own one is fake reasoning.

Humans today seem to ignore natural exists first. Human thinking second. Theory third . Reaction fourth and fifth conditions

Not one.
Not natural.

Status fake.

Science therefore first says the natural God heavens owns the light. Not humans.

Science then reasoned constant of light. Caused UFO radiation fall out.

Argument against science had to say humans naturally spiritually owned the light. As a form of teaching without being science correct. As science is the liar.

What you overlook today. A one of event occurred. Humans life was sacrificed suffering before and after that event.

Light gas sacrificed returned. What was removed in the teaching that only belonged to God O one body history.

 

[Deeje]

Jesus attended the synagogue for public worship, he also prayed privately. I would assume in the passage you refer to praying in the synagogue 'whenever' they pray, a righteous appearance for public show. Why do you have a problem with Christians gathering for prayer? I take it whatever your 'services' involve, prayer is not included.

On the contrary, prayer is a very important part of our worship and our meetings, as it was to Jesus. They are not ritualistic, said by rote....but come from the heart of the one either praying in private, or on behalf of others.

Jesus was Jewish and followed the ways of the old covenant all the days of his human life, but he instituted the new covenant on the night before his death. That new arrangement, which was rejected by majority of the Jews, was the foundation of Christianity.

There was no reason to adhere to the ways of the old covenant or to Jewish traditions. Yet Catholicism is basically Judaism with so many pagan Roman additions that it could not possibly be recognized by Jesus as anything close to what he taught. (Matthew 7:22-23)

Much of our Liturgy reflects the Jewish ritual and liturgy Our Lord would have known.

Exactly....Christianity was not Judaism. A complete separation was inevitable. Jesus condemned the teachings of the Jewish leaders as corrupt......from the devil in fact. (John 8:44) If they did not separate from that corrupted religious system, they too would have been rejected by God.

The standing during the gospels is, in Jewish liturgy, the standing for the Torah. The prayers of the offertory are the prayers of the Jewish Benediction before a meal.

Again harking back to the old Jewish system.....saying a prayer before a meal does not need to be a set of repeated words. When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he did not pray according to any set script, but used the circumstances of the evening, and the symbolic nature of the bread and the wine, to pray appropriately....

In any circumstance, a simple “thank you” from the heart is more acceptable to God than a long memorized repetition that involves only the mind.

Prayers must always be to the Father through his only mediator....Jesus Christ. Prayers addressed to or through any others is not heard by him. Who said that there were any others who could intercede on our behalf?

Paul says that......”In everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving let your petitions be made known to God.” (Philippians 4:6)
Our petitions and supplications are unique to our individual circumstances. We are to take them to God and ask for his help in coping with our problems and extend that when praying for others. It is a personal conversation with God....”our Father”.....the Father of Jesus Christ as well.

The Sanctus is a direct quote from the Jewish prayer the Quedushah, while the ending of the maranatha when we say “Come Lord Jesus” is there in the invocation for the coming of the Messiah in the Jewish Shemoneh Esreh said daily.

Again...is a repetition of set words, what God requires for disciples of his son? Did Jesus’ prayers to his Father follow a set of repeated words, or did his petitions come from his heart?

Even the Lord’s Prayer was not given as a set of words to be repeated......you can see from his preceding words that mindless repetition was not the purpose of prayer. (Matthew 6:6-10)

The octave after Christmas or Easter, is the week kept by Jews after every major feast. The beni-toi with its holy water, sign of baptism and once placed at the entrance of Catholic homes, takes the place of the Shema Israel encased in the wall before the entry into Jewish homes. And the readings of the Easter Vigil are the Passover readings Our Lord would have known.

As far as I am aware, set Jewish rituals were not part of original Christianity. The majority of Christians after Jesus died came from the Gentiles who would not have followed Jewish traditions or customs, nor were they required to. There were no requirements for circumcision, Sabbath observance or any other tradition that was important in Judaism.

There were only a few “necessary things, according to the apostles....

Acts 15:14-20
“Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.......so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things.......Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.”

These were the only requirements for Gentiles who still make up the bulk of Christians today.

So please don't be so arrogant as to pretend you know anything of our Liturgy beyond anti-Catholic gossip. The rest of your post has nothing to do with any intelligent discussion, nothing but anti-Catholic dribble ad nauseum.

My aim is not to spread 'anti-Catholic dribble' at all, but to expose the anti-Christian basis for most Catholic beliefs. You seem to have no idea of the origins of your own belief system. But that is entirely your choice to hang onto those things if you disagree with history. History tells the story....not just me.

 

[metis]

Again, as we so frequently see, there are some who simply do their darndest to strip away any semblance of Jesus' Jewishness. And then they compound this with throwing charges of "pagan" at all other denominations of "Christendom" around like it's candy at a parade.

 

[pearl]

Jesus was Jewish and followed the ways of the old covenant all the days of his human life, but he instituted the new covenant on the night before his death. That new arrangement, which was rejected by majority of the Jews, was the foundation of Christianity.

And this new covenant was instituted within the Jewish liturgy and Jewish rejection was not immediate.

Exactly....Christianity was not Judaism. A complete separation was inevitable. Jesus condemned the teachings of the Jewish leaders as corrupt......from the devil in fact. (John 8:44) If they did not separate from that corrupted religious system, they too would have been rejected by God.

Eventual and complete separation yes, but the Jews were never rejected by God.

My aim is not to spread 'anti-Catholic dribble' at all, but to expose the anti-Christian basis for most Catholic beliefs. You seem to have no idea of the origins of your own belief system. But that is entirely your choice to hang onto those things if you disagree with history. History tells the story....not just me.

I know my belief is rooted in the first century. As for yours, it dates to the 19 century.

 

[metis]

OK, to any JW's here, how is the Easter mass supposedly "pagan"? Here's that mass in a nutshell:
Entrance Antiphon

Penitential Rite

Gloria

Opening Prayer

Liturgy of the Word
First Reading {OT]

Psalm [from Psalms]

Second Reading [NT]

Gospel [NT]

Homily [sermon that must reflect the Gospel and at least one other reading]

Renewal of Baptismal Promises

Liturgy of the Eucharist
Prayer over the Gifts

Eucharistic Prayers

Lord's Prayer

Breaking of Bread

Communion Antiphon

Prayer after Communion

Concluding Rite

Dismissal

 

[pearl]

Again, as we so frequently see, there are some who simply do their darndest to strip away any semblance of Jesus' Jewishness. And then they compound this with throwing charges of "pagan" at all other denominations of "Christendom" around like it's candy at a parade.

That's where the false idea comes from that replaces the God of Israel with a 'Christian' God.

All the blessings of Easter my friend

 

[Oeste]

Most in Christendom know this time of year as Easter....but this word is not even found in the Bible....so where does it come from and why is it associated with the time of year that Christians are supposed to honor Jesus Christ?

Where then did these Easter customs originate? It has been said that the church incorporated these pagan customs and celebrations into the Christianity in order to attract the pagans, somehow Christianizing pagan practices, to bring the pagans to Christ....but is that what Jesus taught in the Bible?

Where did these Easter customs originate? My goodness Deeje! You really do like taking things to their illogical extreme, don't you?

If you really want to stop pagan practice then its best to lead by example rather than accusation, wouldn't you think?

Stop celebrating on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and other "God-dishonoring" days of the week, and start celebrations on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th day of the week. I was shocked to hear that Kingdom Halls have continued to submit to the pagan tradition of holding their religious meetings and celebrations in conjunction with named pagan weekdays. I'm sure the excuse "It was convenient" isn't going to hold water at Armageddon, especially when an existing numeric solution is so simple.

Oh, and watch those days of the month. It's quite possible April was named after the Greek goddess Aphrodite and thus Sunday, April 4th (Easter) should appropriately be referred to as "the fourth day of the fourth month". "True Christians" must always be aware, careful, and vigilant not to immerse ourselves into a pagan culture that uses a pagan calendar full of pagan days made to honor pagan Gods which itself was created to honor the pagan emperor, Julius Caesar.

Of course, there is just no chance that the Watchtower uses the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory XIII. What would Jehovah think if he sees a Gregorian calendar affixed to an inner wall of a Kingdom Hall, with a sign outside advising the next meeting will be held on THURSDAY (after Thor)???

What does the Watchtower itself say?

These religions also blend their worship with love for the world. The Bible refers to this form of unfaithfulness as spiritual adultery.—James 4:4. (Who is Babylon the Great? https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/babylon-the-great/)​

Why blend "true worship" and take a chance? It seems to me you have 3 options here:

1. You can "walk the walk" rather than simply "talk the talk" to us and actually "Get out of her" OR

2. You could adopt the Jewish calendar. I'd be very surprised if you told me the Watchtower hasn't adopted it already...OR

3. You can choose to enjoy your freedom in Christ*. As the apostle Paul stated:

“Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Cor. 10:31) " Then prayerfully and carefully read Mark 2:27, John 8:31-32.​

I think the Christians here, for the most part, have chosen option 3.

________________________________________________________________________

*One last point at Romans 14:5:

4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord; he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.…

HTH

 

[Deeje]

And this new covenant was instituted within the Jewish liturgy and Jewish rejection was not immediate.

The Christians were driven out...for obvious reasons. All ties with Judaism were severed, again for obvious reasons. Jesus had revealed how the Jewish leaders had lost the plot. (Matthew 23)

The Christians had a new covenant and a new way to worship their God.....No Jew would have touched the trinity with a barge-pole as it was a clear blasphemy, and breach of the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3) No original Christian would have done so either, for the same reason. Why do you think it took over 300 years to become accepted Church doctrine? And what other false doctrines were to become so firmly entrenched that no later Catholics would even question them? The list is long.....Easter was a pagan celebration even before Christianity was founded. It never was a Christian event until Catholicism adopted it and tried to hide its pagan roots.
Origin of Easter: From pagan rituals to bunnies and chocolate eggs

Eventual and complete separation yes, but the Jews were never rejected by God.

I believe that Jesus would argue with you....
Matthew 23:37-39...
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you, desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (NRSV Catholic Edition)

The word "desolate" here is "erēmos" which means...."solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited" or in relation to people....

1. "deserted by others
   
   
2. deprived of the aid and protection of others, especially of friends, acquaintances, kindred
3. bereft
   1. of a flock deserted by the shepherd
   2. of a woman neglected by her husband, from whom the husband withholds himself"

That word paints the picture of what Jesus said would become of natural Israel. God deserted her like an unfaithful wife.

He went on to say to the Jews...."For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord."

Have the Jews ever blessed the one who came in the name of their God? Its been almost 2,000 years and still they deny him. God chose a new nation to bear his name. (Acts 15:14; Galatians 6:16) This nation is made up of both Jews and Gentiles whom the apostle Paul called "the Israel of God".
"Israel" are still God's people, but are no longer fleshly Jews. This is a spiritual nation.

God has no further use for that rebellious nation, though individuals can still come out of all rejected forms of worship in the world (Revelation 18:4-5)...the door of opportunity is not yet closed, but I believe it will be soon.

I know my belief is rooted in the first century. As for yours, it dates to the 19 century.

Your beliefs were completely unknown in the Christianity of the first century......the Christian faith as it was practiced from the second century, up to the 19th century needed to be completely cleansed, whitened and refined because of the religious filth that was passed off by a thoroughly corrupted church, as "Christianity".

Daniel foretold what would take place in this "time of the end". The "wise" ones would understand the need for their worship to undergo a thorough 'cleansing and refining'.....the wicked would not, and would therefore understand nothing, continuing on as if nothing happened.

God said: “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are to remain secret and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked shall continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand." (Daniel 12:9-10)

There is enough evidence in the Bible and in history to convince many people that Christianity as it is practiced in Christendom today, is not even close to what was practiced in the first century. The "weeds" did exactly what Jesus said they would.

Jesus knows who are "doing the will of God".....and he is the judge who accepts no excuses. (Matthew 7:21-23) We will all stand before him.

 

[pearl]

The Christians had a new covenant and a new way to worship their God

There is one God whom Christians worshiped in and through Jesus, the God of Israel, and the Jews were never rejected.

From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of Saint Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the Jews (cf. also Jn 4:22). God entrusted Israel with a unique mission, and He does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) to fulfilment without drawing into it his “first-born son” (Ex 4:22). From this it is self-evident that Paul in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people. Just as decisively he asserts: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9-11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel against the background of the Christ-mystery culminate in a magnificent doxology: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways” (Rom 11:33).

I find it sadly amusing that you have no Scripture to turn to but ours.
In any event, I wish for you all the blessing and joy of Easter which are yours even though you are unable to acknowledge them.

 

[sojourner]

On the night before his death, Jesus said to his faithful apostles.... “Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19) He took a loaf of unleavened bread and a cup of unfortified wine to symbolize his sinless flesh and the blood that he was about to shed for the benefit of those who obey his teachings. He then passed these emblems around to his apostles to symbolize the fact that they would share in his death and resurrection in the same way in the future. His death would pave the way for entry into the heavenly realm when he returned as he promised, to take them "home".

As this is a memorial to the one who offered his life for us, we should honor him for his sacrifice, without which, none of us have an opportunity to gain everlasting life

The Greek word you’re fishing for here is anamnesis. And it means neither “memorial” nor “remembrance.” It literally means “not-forgetting.” Its implication involves much more than a memory or a symbol of a past event. It really means to step outside time and pull the event into the present such that one participates in the event, itself. The NT concepts are deeply steeped in Platonism, so the bread and wine are not “emblems” or “shadows,” as Plato would have said, of Christ’s body and blood — or of his sacrifice. Rather, they become the true body and blood of Christ. That’s the sort of philosophical world in which the NT writers conceptualized their stories.

What happens in the Eucharist is that there is one meal — one loaf of bread, and one cup of wine that is shared in all times and in all places. Christ is truly present in the meal that is shared. Christ is shared in the meal, and those who share become the true body of Christ. That’s the way the first believers believed and practiced. That tradition comes down through the Church (“Christendom” as you call it) in its orthodoxy and orthopraxy. That’s the biblical concept and definition. Yet the JWs seem to have rejected that biblical teaching snd then claim that we’re “wrong.”

That’s why the Eucharist is celebrated, not “observed,” and why it’s celebrated every Sunday, because Sunday is the celebration of the Resurrection. And Easter is the principal day in which the Resurrection is celebrated. You see, the meal is a living within his death and resurrection, and since the celebration of Easter is really only a special calling attention to and immersion in that meal, they are inexorably tied together. You fail to understand the biblical concept and tradition, and thus have presented a theological straw man.