BibleForums Christian Message Board
General Category => In General => Topic started by: watchinginawe on March 10, 2025, 10:52:18 AM
-
Hello fellow BFers, been a while.
I'm wondering, anyone here practicing Ash Wednesday / Lent this year? Any arguments for / against?
I'm kind of thinking on contrasting Ash Wednesday / Lent to Rosh Hashanah / Days of Awe. I haven't really studied it, but both now are more and more observed by Christians of all stripes. Of course, there is strong Biblical precedent for the Jewish New Year observance, and almost no Biblical precedent for Lent. Lent is basically tradition founded on disjointed Biblical precedents. I'm kind of wondering how much the Rosh Hashanah / Days of Awe / Day of Atonement directly play into the tradition of Ash Wednesday / Lent / Easter. I've never done the study, but I see strong correlations.
I'm kind of sympathetic to both observances as a Christian, though I've never practiced either. Maybe that will change in the future.
Thoughts? Contributions? Other?
-
Not being a Christian, I don't know anything about Lent. But I'm here for any questions on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
-
I generally give up fasting for Lent.
-
Not being a Christian, I don't know anything about Lent. But I'm here for any questions on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
OK, some basic questions. If it gets too personal, let me know.
Is this a household observance for you? Do you discuss between you what "sacrifices" you will be making during the Days of Awe? Or am I way off on that? My understanding is that during the 10 days of observance that the observer solemnly practices introspection and also offers sacrifices of one form or another. Then on Yom Kippur, atonement is made which I guess is good for the year until the next time around.
Rosh Hashana - Usually a Synagogue day? Do they blow the Shofar?
Yom Kippur - Usually a Synagogue day? How is "atonement" made? The fast and the previous observance of the Days of Awe? Is the practice of forgiveness of others and asking forgiveness key to the covering for a year? Or is there really any focus on the "atonement" part of Yom Kippur?
For comparison, Easter is always a church day for the Christian. Some will do a sunrise service in observance of the early risen Lord.
Christmas however is usually (in Protestant churches) celebrated at home unless it falls on a Sunday.
Hopefully the above is not too disjointed.
-
I generally give up fasting for Lent.
Is that equivalent to "I don't observe Lent"? I have never either. I have fasted at various times, but I've never or never been attached to a congregation that observed Lent in the traditional manner.
-
Lent coincides with Ramadan on the calander. It’s also known as the Month of Thermador, and I always clean the lent screen in the dryer door when I launder my own money, too.
-
Is this a household observance for you?
No, it's a religious observance.
Do you discuss between you what "sacrifices" you will be making during the Days of Awe? Or am I way off on that?
Unlike Lent, we do not make "sacrifices" on the ten day period that includes Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
My understanding is that during the 10 days of observance that the observer solemnly practices introspection
Yes, that is the point. On Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, we crown God as King of the universe, and all are judged. On Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, we desist from food and drink and labor, and beseech the Almighty to forgive us for our sins.
Rosh Hashana - Usually a Synagogue day? Do they blow the Shofar?
Always a synagogue day and yes we blow shofar.
Yom Kippur - Usually a Synagogue day?
Always.
How is "atonement" made?
Through fasting, resting from labor, and prayer.
Leviticus 16:29 This shall be as an eternal statute for you; in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall not do any work neither the native nor the stranger who dwells among you. For on this day shall effect atonement for you to cleanse you. Before the Lord, you shall be cleansed from all your sins. It is a Sabbath of rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves. It is an eternal statute.
Similarly, Leviticus 23: But on the tenth of this seventh month, it is a day of atonement, it shall be a holy occasion for you; you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall offer up a fire offering to the Lord. You shall not perform any work on that very day, for it is a day of atonement, for you to gain atonement before the Lord, your God. For any person who will not be afflicted on that very day, shall be cut off from its people. And any person who performs any work on that very day I will destroy that person from amidst its people. You shall not perform any work. This is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.
Simple as that.
-
I studied that once in a history of Agincourt. It was in modern English though, it didn’t have connections with ancient Hebrew. The teacher said it had something to do with the Book of Job in the minds of the European people we were studying in that History class, but it was very much a national timeline names’n’dates’n’battles lecture at the school. The phraseology and the religious language came up.
-
I have no idea what you just said.
-
Agincourt is another way of saying “Jerusalem”.
-
Agincourt is another way of saying “Jerusalem”.
In which universe?
Is it me, or is the internet weirder than usual today?
-
It’s from the lifetimes of the translators. You must spend all your time on ancient Mediterranean texts.
-
It’s from the lifetimes of the translators. You must spend all your time on ancient Mediterranean texts.
I'd rather study God's word, but you be you.
-
No Biblical precedent, though I've read many futile attempts to make it seem that way.
Once a Catholic, or raised as such, the big annual event involving ashes on the noggin was a hit.
My adolescent plan was to swear off stewed tomatoes for Lent. Providence had other plans.
Where it concerns "seasons" in Biblical Christianity, to each their own.
-
No Biblical precedent, though I've read many futile attempts to make it seem that way.
Once a Catholic, or raised as such, the big annual event involving ashes on the noggin was a hit.
My adolescent plan was to swear off stewed tomatoes for Lent. Providence had other plans.
Where it concerns "seasons" in Biblical Christianity, to each their own.
Do you consider yourself a "converted" Catholic? As in saved out of the Catholic Church? Or were you a Christian in the Catholic Church and thought better of it and left?
You know, there are many now that find their way to Catholicism and Orthodox from Protestantism. I used to look upon those who did so very negatively, but not so much now.
When I was an adolescent, I was Methodist. Even though I was confirmed, I was never saved. I tell a story that when I was saved I told my mom so and she told me that of course I was, she had me baptized as an infant. lol She weren't wrong but she wasn't right either.
-
Is this a household observance for you?
No, it's a religious observance.
For the Christian, Christmas is a religious observance. However, it is celebrated (generally) by the entire household in exchanging gifts, cards, etc. So that is the context of my question there.
-
I was led out of a devout Catholicism at 27, but was saved as a teen when confronted with the Bible. I have since rejected Catholicism.
-
Let occurs at the same time as the historic Festival of Booths. I’d explain the language arts joke, but it’s probably too political for a religion chat room, and also it revolves around atomic spelling. People think you’re talking down to them when you explain jokes, and also you just shouldn’t, because once you’ve done it they know what you know.
Explaining Lent/lint is a good way to find out which side of the American Civil War people fought on, though. Thin about it. Booths. Voting Booths, Polling Booths, John Wilkes Booth…..
-
My wife is serving as principal for the local Catholic elementary school, so she is getting introduced to all the Catholic things including Ash Wednesday, coming home with some ash on her forehead. Yesterday, they did a pilgrimage around town with the priest, stopping at several locations to pray such as fallen soldiers and vets at the cenotaph, or for the homeless by the local homeless camp. Mass is every Friday, although she (and most others) cannot partake.
-
For the Christian, Christmas is a religious observance. However, it is celebrated (generally) by the entire household in exchanging gifts, cards, etc. So that is the context of my question there.
I thought the religious observance of Christmas is the mass that Christians attend.
-
Let occurs at the same time as the historic Festival of Booths.
The "festival of Booths" (known as "Sukkot" in Hebrew) occurs in the fall, not the spring.
Explaining Lent/lint is a good way to find out which side of the American Civil War people fought on, though. Thin about it. Booths. Voting Booths, Polling Booths, John Wilkes Booth…..
Someone's hitting the sacramental wine early today.
-
Major League Baseball is played with a baton made of specifically, Ash Wood. You have to use a tree cut in a certain area. Also, I was explaining a language art that pollsters use in specifically, American. You’d have to have a certain specific secular job to “get the ball”, but since you’re a rabbi, I’ll let you think what you think.
-
For the Christian, Christmas is a religious observance. However, it is celebrated (generally) by the entire household in exchanging gifts, cards, etc. So that is the context of my question there.
I thought the religious observance of Christmas is the mass that Christians attend.
That would be more Catholic. There are major differences in the Sacraments between Protestants and Catholics, probably too much for discussion. But our religious observances aren't confined to church premises. For example, on Christmas Eve, it is very traditional for Protestants to have a Bible reading in the home, maybe light a candle, etc. This is a household religious observance. Everyone down to the dog participates.
-
My wife is serving as principal for the local Catholic elementary school, so she is getting introduced to all the Catholic things including Ash Wednesday, coming home with some ash on her forehead. Yesterday, they did a pilgrimage around town with the priest, stopping at several locations to pray such as fallen soldiers and vets at the cenotaph, or for the homeless by the local homeless camp. Mass is every Friday, although she (and most others) cannot partake.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Yes, I was explaining to someone the other day the major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and was explaining how Mass is participated in only by those in good standing with the church. Catholics very much manage their faith through the church and not directly with God as we Protestants do, Jesus being our intercessor as opposed to the church.
-
My wife is serving as principal for the local Catholic elementary school, so she is getting introduced to all the Catholic things including Ash Wednesday, coming home with some ash on her forehead. Yesterday, they did a pilgrimage around town with the priest, stopping at several locations to pray such as fallen soldiers and vets at the cenotaph, or for the homeless by the local homeless camp. Mass is every Friday, although she (and most others) cannot partake.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Yes, I was explaining to someone the other day the major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and was explaining how Mass is participated in only by those in good standing with the church. Catholics very much manage their faith through the church and not directly with God as we Protestants do, Jesus being our intercessor as opposed to the church.
Catholics, particularly those who are actively involved and faithful, would disagree with the last sentence. Protestants, mostly evangelicals, rarely interact with Catholicism in good-faith.
I have much respect for RCC (and EO). While some beliefs seem odd or wrong, its not like the belief or doctrine just sprung from one person's head and became the doctrine - these were debated and discussed and then adopted. The Protestant church is the one that forms new denominations over almost anything. Also, the RCC dedication to education, science and robust scholarship is very good. It certainly beats the anti-intellectualism especially present in the present Evangelical world.
-
That would be more Catholic. There are major differences in the Sacraments between Protestants and Catholics, probably too much for discussion. But our religious observances aren't confined to church premises. For example, on Christmas Eve, it is very traditional for Protestants to have a Bible reading in the home, maybe light a candle, etc. This is a household religious observance. Everyone down to the dog participates.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I learn new nuances of Christianity all the time.
-
I hate to drag science into this, but actually if you’re alive and have a body you “participate in mass”. Density is mass divided by volume. I’m not sure which Jewish sabbath corresponds to which Catholic holy day, but I do know there are seven sacraments that also correspond to either the Exodus observances or the seven royal disciplines of Ancient Greece (arithmetic, logic, geometry, etc.) Maybe it’s just something to do with the seven branched candelabra.
As Judaism became Christianity due to the advent, birth, life, death, and ascension of Christ, it’s not really true that anything changed religiously. Messianic Hebrews believed in the messiah, and occupying Italians also had religious beliefs change with the times, both because of the local war in the Judean province and because of conversions. It’s not that technical, the Messiah arrived as prophesied, and faithful observant people’s beliefs advanced accordingly. Everyone else died in the wars of the Flavians, or Nero’s and Caligula’s campaigns against Persia, which kinda smashed Jerusalem in its path, taking the Hebrew Maccabees down with the Temple and, you know, laying waste. That’s why local people needed faith in the resurrection and the afterlife.
-
My wife is serving as principal for the local Catholic elementary school, so she is getting introduced to all the Catholic things including Ash Wednesday, coming home with some ash on her forehead. Yesterday, they did a pilgrimage around town with the priest, stopping at several locations to pray such as fallen soldiers and vets at the cenotaph, or for the homeless by the local homeless camp. Mass is every Friday, although she (and most others) cannot partake.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Yes, I was explaining to someone the other day the major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and was explaining how Mass is participated in only by those in good standing with the church. Catholics very much manage their faith through the church and not directly with God as we Protestants do, Jesus being our intercessor as opposed to the church.
Catholics, particularly those who are actively involved and faithful, would disagree with the last sentence. Protestants, mostly evangelicals, rarely interact with Catholicism in good-faith.
Well, like the thread said, I'm not picking any bones with Catholics. Regarding the last sentence, regardless of how practitioners may disagree, it is the view of the Catholic Church. Thus, your wife is excluded from Mass.
Thanks for the thoughts.
-
The RCC requirement is that one be 'baptized' in the Catholic faith before partaking in their sacred ordinances. Mass attendance is actually allowed but not communion, which is the core sacrament (Eucharist) of that faith, and the true essence of "Mass."
-
This is not an appropriate response. Stay on topic.
-- A
-
The RCC requirement is that one be 'baptized' in the Catholic faith before partaking in their sacred ordinances. Mass attendance is actually allowed but not communion, which is the core sacrament (Eucharist) of that faith, and the true essence of "Mass."
This was my understanding as well.
-
The RCC requirement is that one be 'baptized' in the Catholic faith before partaking in their sacred ordinances. Mass attendance is actually allowed but not communion, which is the core sacrament (Eucharist) of that faith, and the true essence of "Mass."
This was my understanding as well.
This isn't the whole story though since Catholics practice infant baptism. I believe, like in the Godfather, traditionally you are confirmed and take your first Communion. This also is a Sacrament which finishes the work of baptism. Anyway, even then and as I mentioned before, the Catholic church may have reasons to deny one Communion. Communion confirms one's good standing with the church. If you aren't in good standing, you should not partake in Communion.
An example would be divorce. If one divorces and remarries, then they are not in good standing with the church and they should not take Communion.
This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.
-
This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.
And this seems to me to be the real weakness of Catholicism. We can all agree that Judaism is a "works based" (although I prefer the term "rules based" ) religion.
If Christianity is a truly break from Judaism, why then did the Catholic church introduce new rules? Why not just leave the old rules in place then?
-
This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.
And this seems to me to be the real weakness of Catholicism. We can all agree that Judaism is a "works based" (although I prefer the term "rules based" ) religion.
If Christianity is a truly break from Judaism, why then did the Catholic church introduce new rules? Why not just leave the old rules in place then?
Power. You can only have power if you write the rules. Since the Catholic group needed new power with a new group they made up new rules
-
Power. You can only have power if you write the rules. Since the Catholic group needed new power with a new group they made up new rules
The theological wrongness of this bothers me.
-
This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.
And this seems to me to be the real weakness of Catholicism. We can all agree that Judaism is a "works based" (although I prefer the term "rules based" ) religion.
If Christianity is a truly break from Judaism, why then did the Catholic church introduce new rules? Why not just leave the old rules in place then?
This is of course the famous point of The Apostle Paul's to the Galatians.
Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
This was Paul's argument against requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and converted to Judaism as part of receiving Christ. Paul said to do so would make Christ then of "no effect unto you" since they put their faith aside to justify themselves with works.
The determination that Gentile converts did not need to be brought under The Law was proclaimed at the Council of Jerusalem. This is recorded in Acts 15 and The Apostle Paul triumphed over the Judaizers.
I think Paul's primary concern as an Apostle was the Gospel and keeping it (the preaching, the practice, etc.) from dilutive influences. But most of this became directed towards gentile converts while the other Apostles largely directed themselves towards Jewish converts.
You make a good point regarding the comparison between Jewish religion and Catholicism. I kind of made a soft point about this in our discussion above but didn't want to press the point. The Jews observe Yom Kippur annually and thus have to continually atone. This is clearly stated in the Bible as well, the Jews were to continually make atonement, and as you suggest a religion of rules to be followed to practice the religion result, all (maybe not all) with Biblical precedent.
Catholicism kind of fell (from a Protestant's view) into Paul's trap of tradition and a religion with rules (another Protestant objection) takes hold. This is another great point of Protestantism as they hold that the Bible (Scripture) is the sole and final authority for all matters of faith and conduct of the believer whereas tradition of the church is additive to the Scripture in Catholicism. Interestingly, Jewish religion probably holds close to Scripture as the final authority as well. Or does it?
-
You make a good point regarding the comparison between Jewish religion and Catholicism.
Not a comparison so much as "if you need rules, why get rid of the old rules and introduce new rules?"
And also "If faith alone saves, why does the church have laws for the adherents to follow?"
I think it's a big weakness of Catholicism.
I kind of made a soft point about this in our discussion above but didn't want to press the point. The Jews observe Yom Kippur annually and thus have to continually atone.
Actually, we don't have to wait for Yom Kippur to atone. We ask God for forgiveness for our sins every time that we pray. Because we all fall short, so we try our best, and ask for forgiveness and mercy when we fail.
Catholicism kind of fell (from a Protestant's view) into Paul's trap of tradition and a religion with rules (another Protestant objection) takes hold. This is another great point of Protestantism as they hold that the Bible (Scripture) is the sole and final authority for all matters of faith and conduct of the believer whereas tradition of the church is additive to the Scripture in Catholicism. Interestingly, Jewish religion probably holds close to Scripture as the final authority as well. Or does it?
Well, it's complicated. Because Judaism is a religion of rules (as mentioned) and so a religion of deeds. Faith, while important, is not central. Of course why would someone follow all the rules if they didn't believe? Nonetheless. Now, if you read the bible's rules, some are very clear ("don't steal" for example) and some less so. Even something as simple as keeping the Sabbath. It's the seventh day, but when does the Sabbath start? At midnight? In the morning? The bible says not to work, but what exactly defines "work"? And so the Talmud contained all these rules carried down orally from Sinai, so we believe. It's a compendium of information and logical tools to explain what the law is and how it is to be followed. The value is that Judaism is a very democratic religion in that this information is available to everyone and anyone can study the laws and learn for themselves. In fact, the Talmud states that in some ways, the sage is greater than the prophet, because the prophet can only tell you of communication from God, which a person can accept or reject; but a sage can teach you something and logically explain why it's true and then you can acquire that knowledge for yourself.
I kind of rambled there a bit but I hope you caan get the gist of it.
-
I kind of rambled there a bit but I hope you can get the gist of it.
I think I did, and why I put the question mark. What was going through my mind at that point was the "Doctor of the Law" kind of thing. Pharisees for example were described in the New Testament as legalistic to a point of absurdity, so I wondered. It sounds a little like you are saying it is a "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling" kind of thing within norms.
-
Pharisees for example were described in the New Testament as legalistic to a point of absurdity
I feel that this is a mischaracterization.
It sounds a little like you are saying it is a "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling" kind of thing within norms.
Judaism is not about salvation. It's about upholding a covenant with God. He gave us responsibilities and we try to do them to the best of our abilities.
-
Pharisees for example were described in the New Testament as legalistic to a point of absurdity
I feel that this is a mischaracterization.
I assume you mean that the New Testament mischaracterizes Pharisees. The New Testament, except perhaps for Luke and Acts, were written by Jews. Paul of course testified that he, Saul, was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews", and "after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee". Paul doesn't disparage his life and apparently referred to himself as a Pharisee after his conversion. Paul did count the whole of his experience before conversion as "dung" in the context of how it ultimately stood before God. Of course, Paul used his Roman citizenship and identity and renown as a Pharisee to his advantage depending on his compromised situations (beatings, imprisonment, threat to be assassinated, etc.).
I'll pull out a passage which shows the general way the Gospels characterize the Pharisees:
Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Of course Jesus was a Jew as well. My point being that none of the 12 disciples were Pharisees and the portrayal of them is just not favorable by the Jewish writers of the Gospels, thus there were a segment of Jews who did not view the Pharisees positively.
Why do you see it as a mischaracterization? I know the general accusations, etc. and don't want to take it there. But I guess Pharisees carried their religion on into the Synagogue era of the Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple, and that seems to be what exists today. So at least from the perspective of contemporary Jews, I would guess Pharisees are seen as kind of founders of the current practice of the religion? And in a positive light, kind of like our "ECF" or Early Church Fathers.
-
Why do you see it as a mischaracterization?
So, a few thoughts.
First of all, Jesus himself characterizes the Pharisees in a positive way.
Matthew 23: Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you."
Matthew 5: For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Anecdotally, When Paul describes himself as a "Pharisee of the Pharisees", he isn't doing it to make himself look bad. He's saying it because the Pharisees are looked up to by the people.
Most of Jesus's statements that are not found in the bible itself can be found in the Talmud, which was written by the Pharisees. For example, almost every verse from the Sermon at the Mount that isn't in the Jewish bible can be found in the Talmud.
The Pharisee writings themselves emphasize kindness and humility and respect for one's fellow man.
Jesus has almost nothing to say about the Sadducees, whose theology and practice and humility were much farther from what he preached than the Pharisees, which suggests that he felt they were so wrong as to not waste his time with them; while the Pharisees were so close to what he was saying that perhaps he felt they were "nearly there".
And finally, we have to contrast Judaism with Christianity. Judaism is about upholding the Sinai covenant. This covenant consists of laws that God gave us to be followed. God loves us so that He gave us these perfect set of rules to live by; can we love Him any less by not trying to keep them as perfectly as is possible?
I know the general accusations, etc. and don't want to take it there. But I guess Pharisees carried their religion on into the Synagogue era of the Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple, and that seems to be what exists today. So at least from the perspective of contemporary Jews, I would guess Pharisees are seen as kind of founders of the current practice of the religion?
Precisely so.
-
That's a really nice post Fenris. For the Christian, the context of some of the situations you mentioned could be discussed, but I'd rather leave it as a contrasting viewpoint since you did such a good job.
-
That's a really nice post Fenris. For the Christian, the context of some of the situations you mentioned could be discussed, but I'd rather leave it as a contrasting viewpoint since you did such a good job.
Thank you! These are the discussions that I'm here for.