CHURCHES AGAINST GOD? [This page was updated on March 8, 2025]

When I realized that GOD exists, I initially thought the churches would be the right ones/teach the right thing.
BUT, I must NOT advise, and neither must the ISLAMIC. One MUST live up to one's responsibility and examine oneself, lest one become a CHRISTIAN KILLER/“HERETIZER” KILLER, SOMEONE who fights AGAINST GOD. For there is one in the Bible who says, "Do it, without knowing if it is right, Eve, eat the fruit [the apple *is not mentioned there]," and one who wants no kings under him, but a judge, who judges all flesh on earth and every spirit. First things first. On the way to play it safe, to be sure whether the law of the Old Testament has been abolished or not (which constitutes the New Covenant, according to Jeremiah 31:33... "This is the new covenant; I will put my law [Thorati, the "my" form of Torah, Torah = law] in their minds and write it on their hearts"), I saw someone saying, "The Pope/the Church is Satanic," and I just thought, "He's crazy." Maybe not everything is right, but satanic is something else. The more I learned, examined, and understood, the clearer it became: HE WAS RIGHT, IT IS UNDOUBBLE, BUT IT IS NOT PERFECTLY EXPLAINED. For me, the path was short, with understanding given by GOD, which GOD PRESCRIBS before one acts, up to this point and the actually simplest explanation, from layman's thinking to teacher's thinking. DECIDE FOR YOURSELF, YOU MAY IGNORE THE BIG HISTORICAL SIDE. [RELATIONSHIP WAR/ALIGINAL HERETIC WHO DIED TO KEEP THE 4TH COMMANDMENT AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. THE SIDE THAT IS HUGE JUST BECAUSE OF THE 24.6M ADVENTIST NUMBER, WHO ALL SAY "CHURCH = ANTICHRIST, SAYS THE BIBLE".]

24.6 million vs. 2.6 million,
to all the church workers of the three major churches.
Yes, they are only about 2.6 million, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox in total, from the Pope to nuns and deacons, of whom one would assume that they have engaged with the other, correct perspective (minus the followers, as in Islam). Reading the Bible once is not enough. The Bible itself says that the Holy Scriptures must be explained by those who understand, see Daniel 11. 24.6 million Adventists, who, despite losses in life, say this, go through life for God (I love them very much for that). "For a comparison of numbers, see the image at the very bottom"]

You're hearing this for the first time and thinking the same thing I did back then? Martin Luther already said, "The Catholic Church is an Antichrist!" - NOT BECAUSE HE WAS ANGRY AT THE CHURCH, or because of the Church's temporary behavior, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FACTS (even if the Catholic Church's actions imply pure anger, since in retrospect he initiated reforms that change NOTHING about the facts)
Many are also taught this by Dr. Walter Veith [Adventist], see: youtube.com

There are 3 classifications of the Antichrist, & 10 definitions (listed below) according to 1 John & 2 John. Only in these 2 letters is the Antichrist also called Antichrist:
1. The spirit of the Antichrist [the enemy or also literally: of error, WORD G4106. (NOT SEDUCTION! OF THE INFLUENCE THAT LEADS OUT OF TRUE! SEDUCTION IS A MISFORTUNATELY INTERPRETATED, LIMITED VERSION OF THE MEANING, AS PURE LEADING OUT OF TRUE IS EXCLUDED [one doesn't have to offer you anything to mislead you]. ALTHOUGH HE IS LITERALLY CALLED "SPIRIT OF ERRORS", THE APPROPRIATE VERB G4105 IS TRANSLATED AS "SEDUCE" INSTEAD OF "LEADING OUT OF TRUE" [*not in every translation]) & THEN THE IMPORTANT CONCEPT "SPIRIT OF ERRORS" IS LOSED, when one reads "do not be deceived" 39 times [3 times directly in 1 John] & only 1 time "the SPIRIT of the ANTICHRISTIAN is the SPIRIT OF ERRORS"]
2. Many Antichrists [plural] have existed and exist.
3. The Antichrist [singular] who will come to the end of Satanic rule on this world (Satan is the ruler, or god, of this world ACCORDING TO: John 12:31 & 14:30 & 16:11 & 2 Corinthians 4:4 & Ephesians 2:2 & 1 John 2:15 to 16 & John 15:19)!



What MUST make ANY layperson who has ever read the Bible suspicious are at least these 2 FACTS:
1. FACT
JESUS, GOD, came to EARTH & denounced the fact that the Jews adhere to man-made commandments and thereby even abolish GOD'S commandments.
THIS, IN ORIGIN OF ESTABLISHING A NEW COVENANT IN THE WORLD IN WHICH EVERYTHING, REALLY EVERYTHING, IS MAN-MADE, & PARTIALLY EVEN ADOPTED FROM PAGAN [PAGAN = OTHER THINGS, SATANIC] [like folding your hands in prayer 🙏 in the 6th century (the deity Shiva, Satanic, carved such images of followers in stone before Christ's time.)]? God intends to throw the pagans/enemies partially alive into the realm of the dead in the future, BUT BEFORE that, to adopt their traditions and customs without God having commanded it, purely by human decision, who also blasphemously disregarded God's commands/traditions for this purpose.

Read briefly and consider what this makes of Jesus, God:
Mark 7:8-13
8 For you have forsaken the commandment of God and have kept human traditions, washing jars and cups, and many other similar practices. 9 And he said to them, “Well done you are forsaking the commandment of God in order to hold fast to your traditions.” 10 For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother,” and, “Anyone who curses their father or mother must be put to death.”[2] 11 But you teach that if someone says to their father or mother, “Korban,” which means “To the offering [3] is set aside, what was to come to you from me,” 12 then you no longer permit that person to do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus, by your tradition that you have passed on, you are nullifying the word of God. And you are doing many similar things.

Also, Jesus said that the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. TO THEN KILL THOSE WHO KEEP THE SHABAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO KEEP SUNDAY AS THE CHURCH DOES? THAT IS SURE TO BE GOD-ORGANIZED, blasphemous.


2. FACT
JESUS, GOD, came to Earth and denounced the Jews for claiming to be superior to their forefathers, the prophet-killers. Was this to establish a covenant in the world, in which Christians, en masse, would become the number one murderers of Christians in the history of mankind? At least until now, before the Great War with Satan, which will grow ever larger in the coming years, blasphemous.

Read briefly for yourself and think about what one makes of JESUS, GOD:
Mark 7:8-13
29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have shared in the blood of the prophets.” 31 You testify to yourselves that you are the sons of the prophet-killers. 32 Fill up the measure of your fathers! 33 You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of Hades? 34 Therefore, I am sending you prophets, wise men, and scribes; And some of them you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you will be upon all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation. 37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 Behold, your house will be left desolate to you; 39 for I tell you, you will not see me again from now on until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
(AND YES, THIS IS NOW/SOON, THE TEMPLE WILL BE BUILT SOON & THE MISSING 7 YEARS FROM DANIEL WILL THEN EXPIRE.)



Before we get to the pagan/Satanic traditions & customs of the Church, let's briefly review:
SAME IDEAS BETWEEN CHURCH & ISLAM
Remember that Satan weighs human logic, a SCALE, & tries to tip it with "DEMONSTRATIONS OF POWER" contrary to what GOD HAS TOLD. BUT IT IS KEY: ONLY GOD'S WORD THROUGH THE BIBLE IS ABOVE ALL - IS IT NOT 100% BIBLICAL, & IT CANNOT BE 100% BIBLICALLY PROVEN.
RECOGNIZE/DISTINGUISH SATAN:

CHURCH	ISLAM
It spread throughout the world. First the religious war, then it continued with so-called "false believers/heretics" who did not accept what is not biblical and the distortion of God's word, changes that are not biblical, without God having commanded it. On the contrary, God has clearly forbidden it.	It spread throughout the world. First the religious war, then it continued with so-called "UNBELIEVERS" who did not accept the so-called new words of God.
It was still making its mark on the world until recently. In schools, Catholicism was sometimes forced upon you, as you were NOT allowed to call it untrue.	KILLS ITSSELF INTO THE WORLD TODAY.
IS GREAT, IS FROM GOD.	IS GREAT, IS FROM GOD.
KILL WITCHES, IS FROM GOD.	KILLING, CONQUERING & CONVERTING SATANIC PEOPLES IN SPREADING ISLAM, IS FROM GOD.
Contrary to Amos 3:7, which states that God prophesies all important things, there is nothing in the Bible about God's alleged second center of power, not even a word about it.	Contrary to Amos 3:7, which states that God prophesies all important things, there is nothing in the Bible about God's alleged second center of power, not even a word about it.
However, what the church did is prophesied in a negative way, including the changing of times and the law in Daniel 7:25. Furthermore, the church itself is also prophesied in a negative way, since the whore of Babylon sits on seven mountains, just as Rome, historically unique in size and time, claims to have been built on seven mountains (even though many prefer to omit this fact). But also here in the first and second letters of John, through the ten anti-Christian definitions, which are partially fulfilled. Therefore, it has clear anti-Christian teachings that are biblically unjustifiable and impossible to justify!	However, Islam is prophesied negatively in the First and Second Epistles of John through the ten anti-Christian definitions that Islam specifically fulfills, and more prophecies concerning all Arab peoples, and even more, see the Islam Prospectus. Therefore, it has all anti-Christian teachings that are not biblically valid and cannot be justified!
However, what the Church did is prophesied negatively, including the changing of times and the law in Daniel 7:25 [Don't mention Galatians 4:10 for the permanent change; that is pure suicide of a scholar, more on that in detail shortly! Similarly, Romans 14:5-6 for the law]. Furthermore, the Church itself is also prophesied negatively, since the whore of Babylon sits on seven mountains, just as Rome historically claims to be unique in size and time, built on seven mountains (even though many prefer to omit this fact). BUT ALSO HERE IN THE 1ST & 2ND LETTERS OF JOHN, THROUGH THE 10 ANTICHRISTIAN DEFINITIONS, WHICH ARE PARTIALLY FULFILLED, IT HAS CLEARLY ANTICHRISTIAN TEACHINGS THAT ARE BIBLICALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE TO JUSTIFY!	HERE ALSO IN THE SENSE OF REALLY KNOWING.
Do it, you don't need to know the other side, my responsibility is your action, you have none, you are ignorant.	Do it, you don't need to know the other side, my responsibility is your action, you have none, you are ignorant.

According to the Bible, Jesus was demonstrably born in the 9th or 10th month, half a year later than John the Baptist, and this can be calculated "precisely." And it's too cold for shepherds to be out in the fields at night in winter. Sheep were always brought into the barn after the Feast of Tabernacles. Therefore, it's common knowledge that there were never any sheep out in the fields in Israel in December. Even if it had been a particularly warm year, it still wouldn't have made sense, since everyone would have said "it would have been too cold"... I don't think so... would God plan it that way and give Satan room to sow doubt? But that's not even a question, since that would be 2-3 months too late.

The Nativity story you know is a fairy tale based on very few facts and is NOT in the Bible. The Bible does not specify when the three wise men came, only that they came. Practices/customs adopted from paganism (including/possibly Satanic deities) by the Catholic and then Protestant churches. & Othodox Church:
(Preliminary information: "Baal" "Ashera" "Dagon" "Tammutz" are all SATANs mentioned in the OT.)

Satanic? (Baal, Ashera Cult)	Is it in the Bible? Does it have a biblical justification? Is it not blasphemy?	Sin, among other customs:	Explanation:	Link(s) to check:
✔	❌	Christmas	It was "Christianized," from a satanic festival to a pagan one (December 25th is the birthday of the sun god "Sol," during which people exchanged gifts; his other name is supposedly "Tammutz"). The festival is supposedly about the son of "Baal" and "Ashera," who is said to be like a sun, a light for the world. Regarding Link 4: "(is unclear) the question of whether Christmas was linked to the date as a reaction to the Sol festival?", IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CALL THIS A COINCIDENCE. Conclusion: According to the churches, it is okay to spread at least one lie about GOD'S birth date, to celebrate it on a pagan/satanic festival, along with fairy tales, even though ONLY 2 SATANIC people even celebrate birthdays in the Bible & no human being of GOD. Celebrating birthdays is therefore a PURELY satanic/pagan practice. ALSO HERE: One must again remember ADAM & EVA, a tree & underneath it (where the fruit falls) are gifts, then you will be like GOD Eve. CAN'T BE, IT DEVELOPED THIS OVER A LONG PERIOD? DO NOT BE Foolish (same tactics of Satan): 1. People began translating the word G733 (ἀρσενοκοῖται meaning: MAN - BED, i.e., homosexual) as "pedophile" in the 6th century. Reason: alleged hatred of pedophiles. Punishment according to Revelation: at most Hell; a minimum is questionable, but indisputable because of "at most." Today: There are discussions: Is God "outside the law"? Is homosexuality forbidden according to the Bible? Satan has taken space, Christians have given him space. Homosexuality, for which Hell is clearly written, is accepted, and same-sex marriages are even blessed. There are even "outsider" churches. 2. A bishop and Church Father, Augustine of Hippo (most likely a servant of Satan), begins to number the Ten Commandments differently. Unlike Moses, and all those since Moses, including Jesus. He makes the first two commandments into one and the last into two. Time: 4th-5th century. 1st century, officially disseminated ALSO FROM THE 6TH CENTURY. STEP 2: In the 6th century, the Church adopts this different numbering of the 10 Commandments, TOGETHER & AT THE SAME TIME with the SHORTIFICATION of the 10 Commandments in SHORT FORM (SUBJECT WORDS), so that the 2nd Commandment COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS FROM PUBLIC. STEP 3: Statues of Jesus, i.e., idols of GOD JESUS, are made and erected everywhere. From about 350–400 AD, Christians began to use statues – including of Jesus. From the 6th century: Jesus statues everywhere, breakthrough of images and statues. The Church adopts the new numbering of the 10 Commandments (Augustine). The prohibition of images disappears from public life. Short form Statues of Jesus, figures of Mary, and images of saints spread massively. Churches are filled with icons, frescoes, and statues. 1566 official edition of the "Roman Catechism" standardized the Ten Commandments in short form. This contradicts Isaiah 44 where God clearly states that He finds the act of worshipping statues/figures ridiculous (verses for reading/deciding for yourself are listed below with the Ten Commandments).	youtube.com youtube.com youtube.com evangelisch.de wikipedia.org wikipedia.org
✔	❌	Easter	Easter slowly supplanted a festival of God, Passover. VERY MOCKEDLY, EVEN IN SOME BIBLE TRANSLATIONS EASTER IS DESCRIBED – a clear, extremely grave sin!!! When "Ashera" wanted to go to heaven to Baal (her husband), he threw her to earth in an egg. Therefore, Easter eggs were dyed red with blood back then, supposedly the blood of children. One possible origin of Easter: Babylon. But even if this isn't true, Easter is definitely pagan (satanic)	youtube.com youtube.com youtube.com youtube.com
✔	❌	The Mitre	Similar to the sun god "Mitras". Possibly belongs to the "Fish God" Satan named "Dagon" (he is said to be the father of Baal), fish hats. "Dagon" priests actually wore such fish-mouth hats! It is possible that this was carved in stone at the time, among other things, and can still be seen today! (Caution! Most links are for demonstration purposes only; the Bible should not be seen as inspired by humans, since all writing in the Bible is inspired by God the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible! Evidence for God's existence is in prospectus 1)	youtube.com youtube.com youtube.com wikipedia.org wikipedia.org evangelisch.de
✔	❌	Kissing the Ring	According to the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, in Chaldean times, a representative of "Dagon" was the head of the Church, and he was considered infallible! Furthermore, he was addressed as "Your Holiness." Nations subjugated by Babylon had to kiss the ring and shoe of the "King of God." Kissing the ring was a gesture made to greet the "Dagon" Pope. This is still the standard way to greet the Pope today.	⚙
✔	❌	St. Peter's Square, a sun wheel & the obelisk	The obelisk in the middle of St. Peter's Square (approximately 4000 years old, from an Egyptian temple of a satanic deity). These obelisks were always erected as objects of power for the worship of satanic deities, and their names, such as "Baal," were engraved on them. In 2 Chronicles 34:4, sun pillars that were felled are mentioned in connection with "BAAL" and "ASHERA." It is possible that these refer to obelisks. Interestingly, it is the only obelisk in Rome that is not inscribed with hieroglyphs. Dr. Cathy Burns, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, 1998, pages 340/341: The word "obelisk" literally means "Baal's stem" or "Baal's reproductive organ." An obelisk is almost always placed in the center of a circle, which represents the female genitalia, and thus both together symbolize the physical sexual act. "Pornographic" material was already being disseminated by Satans back then. There is a Satanic book, similar to the Psalms, which, according to Roger Liebi, is highly pornographic, or rather, pure pornography.	schlachterbibel.de schlachterbibel.de youtube.com
✔	❌	Change the 4th Commandment! Sunday	Sunday (the Sun's Day), the Eighth Day (not the Seventh!), is, as its name, which is of satanic origin, already suggests, to honor the sun god. Because there is no better biblical justification, Romans chapter 14, verses 1-6, is often cited as justification, even though it is clear to anyone who reads it that it is about eating or fasting. On the contrary: the Bible makes it consistently clear that the Sabbath is forever the day on which we should rest. After all, Jesus was crucified because he healed on the Sabbath and said, "Take the mat and walk," which is permissible. A link to the BIBLE PASSAGE of the absurd justification, which is clear to ANYONE who reads this, in the Schlachter Bible 2000 (Caution! The link to this translation is not an endorsement! Among other things, this translation also contains the 'ADDED CALL TO BAPTISM', which is a grave sin according to Revelation (Schlachter LINK2) & one should not partake of sins! (Schlachter LINK3)). But that people, including priests, will take teachers who tell them what they want to hear, not what God says, is foretold (Schlachter LINK4).	youtube.com 1_schlachterbibel.de 2_schlachterbibel.de 3_schlachterbibel.de 4_schlachterbibel.de
❌	❌	Baptismal Call	In Revelation 22:18-19 it says that whoever takes away from this book or adds to it, God will add to that person all the plagues written in this book. And no, this of course doesn't only apply to Revelation, and you can rewrite all the other books, ridiculous. The Catholic Church has added a false baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19): In the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, on pages 262 and 263, it says that the Church changed the baptismal formula in the 2nd century from "In the name of Jesus Christ" to "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The same is also stated in the Encyclopedia Britannia, 11th edition, Volume 3, on page 365. As well as the Catholic ENCYCLOPEDIA VOLUME 8 confirms this once again: Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped to transform the old baptismal formula "In the name of Jesus Christ" into the titles "Father, Son, Holy Spirit". The books must be borrowed or purchased; they are not available online.
✔	❌	Vatican	According to Amos 3:7, God will communicate "everything" through his prophets, everything that will happen! The Vatican is not mentioned in a positive light, not even once, in the Bible. Neither before nor after the final war! As if it didn't exist biblically at all? Yes, many interpret the woman in Revelation 17:9 as the Vatican, who sits on the seven mountains/hills (they refer to the seven mountains as the "Seven Hills of Rome," which briefly included Vatican Hill!). MORE PRECISELY: the Greek word ὄρος (G3735) FROM Revelation 17:9 MEANS mountain, hill, elevation (BUT NOT HILL, THERE ARE NO REFERENCES FOR THIS ON LSJ.GR | HOWEVER, THE 7 HILLS OF ROME > were called "Septem montes Romae" in Latin < (1. mons = "mountain, mountain range" | 2. THEY ALSO USED: collis = "hill, elevation", SO "Septem colles Romae". The first is attested, among others, in Festus (De verborum significatu 254 L) and in Roman topography. Modern research (e.g., Platner, The Septimontium and the Seven Hills, Classical Philology 1906) also confirms: the traditional designation is montes, not colles. Modern research (e.g., Platner, The Septimontium and the Seven Hills, (1906) emphasizes that "Septem montes" is the older cultic formula and "Septem colles" is the later historiographical term. Festus (2nd century AD and others such as Varro, Pliny, and Solinus) explains the festival of Septimontium, which was already celebrated in Republican times. It was a city festival of the inhabitants of certain hills within the early city of Rome. The name comes from septem montes = "seven mountains/hills". Which hills are meant: The festival did not refer to the later famous "seven hills of Rome" in the classical sense, but to an older grouping of seven elevations, which mainly comprised the Palatine Hill and adjacent ridges. According to Varro and Festus, these included the following hills: Palatium, Cermalus, Velia, Fagutal, Oppius, Cispius, and Caelius. The Vatican Hill, around and on which the Vatican is located, is also NOT one of the classical "seven hills of Rome," and is not isolated like a mountain, but part of a chain of hills that stretches from Monte Mario in the north to the Janiculum Hill in the south. A regional catalog from the 4th century AD actually lists the Caelian, Aventine, Tarpeius (Capitol), Palatine, Esquiline, Vatican, and Janiculum as the "seven hills"—the Quirinal and Viminal are replaced here by the Vatican and Janiculum. Why? Because the city expanded westward in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and the Vatican and Janiculum became important militarily (Janiculum) and religiously (Vatican). Was this adopted? Only in a few late antique catalogs, not as a permanent replacement for the classical seven. When Vatican City State became a separate entity in 1929... Since the Vatican was founded through the Lateran Treaties, Vatican Hill (mons Vaticanus) was no longer part of the "seven hills of Rome," therefore it is HIGHLY questionable to interpret the seven hills in exactly this way. However, as a geographical reference, it is acceptable, but primarily because of everything else concerning the Bible and the Catholic Church. There are approximately 50 places worldwide to which seven hills/mountains are attributed (sometimes very absurd), but only three are biblically relevant and have anything to do with seven hills/mountains. 1. Rome 2. Constantinople/Istanbul (The designation "city of seven hills" has been established since late antiquity/Byzantium and is deliberately based on Rome.) 3. Moscow (as a later, but historically rooted, city legend. The "seven hills" reference arose in the 15th-16th centuries in this context.) the “Third Rome” idea and has since been passed down locally) ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES TO THIS? THE 7 MOUNTAINS COULD ALSO BE MEANT EXCLUSIVELY PROVERBLY FOR CENTERS OF POWER. The author Steffen Fuchs claims (however, without any reference known to me & according to AI an undeniable mistranslation): the name “Vatican” has an interesting meaning. It is composed of the Latin words “vatis” (which means “prophetic”) and “canus” (which means “snake”). Therefore, one could interpret the Vatican as “Prophesying Snake”. (YOU DON'T DO THAT! ONLY THE PURE TRUTH KILLS THE LIE! THEREFORE, THE BOOK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH CAUTION! THE STATEMENTS OF THE BIBLE VS. THOSE OF THE CHURCH (INCLUDING ITS ACTIONS) ARE COMPLETELY SUFFICIENT. The book will probably still contain many truths, though. I WOULD BUY IT WHEN I HAVE THE TIME, BUT CHECK/VERIFY EVERYTHING WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF FRIENDLY FAITH PARTIES WHO DON'T ALLOW THEMSELVES TO TELL LIES!) But, who hasn't heard of the lecture hall in the Vatican (PICTURE IN LINK 1), which, among other things, is designed and shaped in such a way that when you enter it, it looks to you as if you are looking into the face of a large snake. And from the outside, it looks like a snake's head. It doesn't get more absurd than that.	custos-sancto.blogspot.com buecher.de

What does God think of pagans and paganism?
Numbers 24:8… He (God) will devour the pagans, his adversaries (better called enemies), and crush their bones (or bodies), and strike them down with arrows. The last part (with arrows...) clearly points to a further process. Ignoring this verse, among others, the opinion is held that pagan festivals can be celebrated TO GLORY OF GOD.

The Bible teaches that one should listen precisely to God's word:
King Saul did not do this, and God rejected him and sent him an evil spirit that led him astray (1 Samuel 15-22-23 [here God says disobedience is like idolatry, i.e., SATANISM]).
An old prophet misled another prophet by lying to act against God's instruction (by saying an angel had commanded him to change), and God killed the prophet because he disobeyed his instruction (NOT the one who lied) (1 Kings 13-21-24).
When a bearer reached for the Ark of the Covenant because cattle had stumbled, God killed him, since it was only to be touched by the carrying poles (2 Samuel 6-6-7).
Also ignored: Numbers 3-4: Regarding Moses' brother Aaron. God killed two of Aaron's sons because they did not take incense from the altar as God commanded, but instead made their own fire. God also did not accept that Jeroboam had invented a festival in his own heart. And also in the churches after Jesus' crucifixion, some died (because of their sins).



In Gal#4-10 G3906 (LINK to the word G3906 in the free dictionary LSJ.gr https://lsj.gr/wiki/παρατηρέω): Some translate the word as "observed," although this translation is actually somewhat questionable (in Aristotle's Rhetoric 1405b33 - the only reference, "observe" actually fits better, see in the download section). Galatians#4-10 in short: You observe the feasts of God. In fact, the word G3906 also means "observing while standing nearby," or "being wary of something," etc., DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT! One could interpret "observed" here maliciously or misguidedly, since it (G3906) also means "to obey (a command)" (in Dio Cassius 53.10, see also in the download section). In German, one could say "observes commands," so theoretically it fits, although the question is whether the German "beachten" (to observe) doesn't broaden the meaning too much, for example, "I'm watching you without paying attention to you." The basic meaning of G3906 is indeed "observing while standing nearby," and it does NOT mean having CAUTION to something, but rather FOCUSING ONE'S "EYES" ON SOMETHING! What could easily be misinterpreted in Galatians 4-10 if it's translated as "NOTICED". [YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT GALATS 4-10 CAN BE TRANSLATED LIKE THAT & IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT? GRAMMATICALLY AS WELL AS CONTEXTUALLY? TAKE 2 SECONDS & COPY PRE-MADE QUESTIONS FOR CHECKING INTO THE ANCIENT GREEK-SOUNDING, FREE COPILOT AI (IT'S LINKED) & SEE THE ANSWER FOR YOURSELF, IT'S BEST TO CLICK THE THINK DEEPER FUNCTION FOR THIS! A CLEAR EXPLANATION & CLARIFICATION OF THE CONTEST (INCLUDING VERSES THAT PROVIDE IT) CAN BE FOUND BELOW.] But you have to consider the overall context, therefore the question is irrelevant! There must be festivals, because the Antichrist [whose spirit was already in the world around 90 AD, according to 1 John] will seek to change the times (festivals) and the law, according to Daniel 7-25. Anyone who seriously claims that God means satanic festivals [meaning the Antichrist will seek to change satanic festivals {which includes abolishing them as a possibility - which the Catholic Church did}], because God has simply rejected his "eternal festivals," which even have prophetic significance, and labeled them "weak and wretched principles" in Galatians 4-9 "due to misunderstanding" [which actually describes, among other things, the view of the festivals], even though they will be celebrated again in the future [i.e., weak and wretched principles, until they are no longer weak and wretched], should remain silent and listen to those who listen to God (1 John 4-6), and not to man-made misdirections. In Zechariah 14-16...19, the Gentiles must (in the future) celebrate God's Feast of Tabernacles, otherwise God will punish them for it. A clear contradiction. Celebrating festivals can also be understood as worship. Another striking point here is that before God (since all Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, i.e., by God) speaks about his supposedly now wretched festivals, saying that celebrating them is bad, he suddenly and extremely prominently addresses the worship of paganism in the flow of his discourse in Galatians 4-9, and equates or similarly equates the worship of his festivals with the worship of paganism. This, in order to then, in the future, without prophecy (which would be necessary to legitimize according to Malachi), deify pagan festivals?
That this is irrational in logic is unequivocally clear.



Galatians 4-10 is the only verse which, if mistranslated and misunderstood, would describe God's own festivals as something bad [as a prime example of trying to be saved by the law, which would be an absurd example], otherwise there is no other verse that would do so. But what does one make of God when one says, "God says: My own festivals are wretched, those of the heathens/Satans are the good festivals!" As if God, the God of gods who knows the future and everything, couldn't create his own good festivals. That is pure blasphemy. Heathen (Satanic) and man-made things are rejected, even hated, in the Bible, and Jesus denounced them. Believers emigrated to America because the CHURCH killed Christians (approx. 50-100 million), which is why the following was written into the American Constitution: "NO ONE MAY BE PERSECUTED BECAUSE OF HIS FAITH" (Later consequence: Today there are PUBLIC Satanic temples/churches in America, and Satanism is a religion there). As if all the early Christians fled to America because they didn't understand that God now finds paganism (satanic, i.e., hostile) great and is appropriating it. Totally absurd. The question is, what makes the difference to you that, in your opinion, allows God to say—not literally, but still—that celebrating satanic pagan festivals is okay? God wants to fight against the pagans in the future and throw them and their Satans into hell, but until then, one should be able to celebrate pagan festivals? What, in your opinion, has changed that this is now okay? 1. God? No! God doesn't change. (Malachi 3-6 & Hebrews 13-8, James 1-17) 2. The people, the world, and therefore God's opinion? Yes, but NO. God's opinion on the future of pagan people is clearly stated: Hell. (Rev. 21-8) 3. The Satans behind it? No, the judgment has remained the same until the end of the events of Revelation.
According to the Bible, Satan's servants pose as servants of God. The logical consequence of this is that they then mistranslate, misinterpret, and misteach the Bible, leading the flock as far as possible. The Bible clearly identifies this insane leading as a satanic practice (2 Corinthians 11-13...15: Apostles in disguise, ministers of righteousness in disguise, the highest of God, and Satan in disguise).
Please look into the story of Balak and Balaam (Numbers 22-24) to understand what a stumbling block is. Jesus says, "Before my eye/arm/leg becomes a stumbling block, I will tear it out/cut it off/cut it off" (This occurs three times: Matthew 5-29, Matthew 18-8...9, and Mark 9-47). A stumbling block is something that could lead to sin.

If you say in Daniel 7:25 that the pagan festivals were indirectly called, is that the limit? Or, according to 2 Corinthians 3:17, is it permissible to Christianize other pagan/Satanic customs and make them glorious to God? If no one is harmed and it doesn't contradict other New Testament laws? Is it therefore permissible to offer sacrifices to God with incense on old pagan altars (do any still exist?) or to place ceremonial breads for God on them?
Is there a limit to adopting pagan customs? In the Old Testament it says one must not cut one's hair and beard like the pagans, but now fish hats like Dagon the Priest wore are okay? Absurdly anti-Christian. Nowhere does God say we adopt this pagan custom, and that's where it ends, because God doesn't say that at all, nor does he permit it. Amos 3:7 "The Lord God does nothing except reveal his purpose to his servants the prophets." — BUT THERE IS NOTICE OF "WE NOW CELEBRATE LIKE OUR ENEMIES, THE PIGGY," OR "THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE CHANGED - THE 2ND COMMANDMENT IS COMPLETELY DELETED, INSTEAD THE 10TH COMMANDMENT IS MADE INTO 2 COMMANDMENTS, & THE 4TH COMMANDMENT ABOUT SEN SHABBAT IS REWRITED TO BE SUNDAY (to fit the sun worship cult)." Instead, Jesus says in Matthew 5:18, "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one stroke of a pen will pass from the law until everything is accomplished. (By everything, this literally means everything prophesied in the Bible, until the new earth and the new heaven from Rev. 21:1 / 2 Peter 3:13 / Isaiah 65:17 / Isaiah 66:22)" Furthermore, Isaiah 66:17 states: "...whoever eats swine, mice, and other abominations—all of them shall be swept away (killed!), says the Lord." And yes, this refers to the future, which becomes clear through Isaiah 66:15. THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING TO WHICH ISAIAH #66-17 REFERS: This prophecy refers to the coming judgment on the Day of the Lord. It is expected to happen in the end times when God judges the world. So, once again, they have to lie around the issue, claiming that neither pork nor Christians are meant. And the 1260 years from, among other sources, Revelation are only days and not years (although according to Daniel they are guaranteed to be years), even though they were fulfilled ABSOLUTELY TO THE YEAR (538-1798, MORE ON THAT IN A MIND). THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INCREDIBLE COINCIDENCE AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROPHECY FULFILLED IN DETAIL? ABSURD & "WONDERFUL", AS IT IS ALSO CALLED, WONDER-PROVING REV#13-3 "And the whole earth looked on in wonder at the beast."

The Catholic Church killed approximately 100 million Christians for heresy. These were Christians who wanted to observe the fourth commandment, the Sabbath (not Sunday!), and those who wanted to translate and preach the Bible (as commanded by the Gospels). The practice of buying absolution from sins should also be mentioned.
There was and is, of course, absolutely no, not even remotely any, biblical justification for the persecution and killing of other Christians, even if they had sinned.

Because the Bible says in Revelation that the first beast (=military power), which all will worship, will persecute believers for 1260 years, which exactly applied to the Catholic Church (year 538, last resistance in war against the Church was broken militarily, and the 1260 years of persecution began and ended in 1798), then received a wound from the sword ("sword" in the Bible always means an act of war) (in 1798 the Pope was deposed and arrested by the French, thanks to a military action, literally put in chains), the fatal wound of the sword was healed again. Many people believe that this part of the prophecy, which was written in 1815 (the Papal States recover), has been fulfilled. It must be said, very often not everything happens immediately, but in stages, as there are other events that follow. And, as is common in prophecy, it might be fulfilled a second time, although this is not guaranteed, and if it is, it doesn't need to be in such detail. Another example: How, among other things, the "abominations of desolation" prophecy will be repeated, as explicitly stated by Jesus.

Whoever among the Bible teachers, readers, and thinkers now says that this is not possible because the Catholic Church is no longer a military power, or rather says that Islam with the Mahdi (Islamic Messiah) will be one of the beasts, to them I would say, how about both, purely theoretically?

Martin Luther said the Catholic Church is the Antichrist. The reason is not in question, because it did exactly what, according to Daniel 7:25, the Antichrist will do. In retrospect, even including the 1260 years of prophecy, including the sword wound and the healing of this actual death wound.

Behind Islam, which explicitly fulfills all seven biblical definitions of the Antichrist and leaves none out, is Satan, according to the biblical definition. This leads one to think theoretically that the popes and the majority of bishops were and are theoretically not with God, and theoretically glorify and fight, in the form of misdirection where possible, including theoretically for "Baal" and the highest Satan, "Lucifer." Since the Bible clearly states that such things exist, subversion through deception. Theoretically, one could say that, among other things... The churches belong to satanic deities (that's how Satan is described in the Old Testament, AS GODS), and these deities are waging war against God not only, but also through the churches. One mustn't forget that the coming war is the final war and the two beasts (military forces) of Satan. One must therefore think bigger.


Churches in Timeline - In 1 Timothy#4-1...3, the text deals with demonic teachings, such as forbidding marriage. According to these verses, at least one of the three categories of the Antichrist (1. Spirit of the... 2. Many Anti... 3. The Antichrist) will forbid marriage, which the CHURCH did, even though GOD prescribes two children as a requirement for a church leader in 1 Timothy#3:4...5. In 1 Timothy 4-4, God logically does NOT speak of unclean animals ["Everything" is, as always, meant contextually; human flesh was also created by God => I explain the Hebrew spirit of the language, which is also in the New Testament, among other places in BT7. There is debate about this, but biblical Greek is very similar, only slightly less strict regarding the non-existence of context-free statements, i.e., absolute statements. God probably chose Hebrew for his chosen people when he confused the languages.], but of those defined as food. Again, I refer to Isaiah 66-17, the future killing of those who eat animals "NOT DEFINED AS FOOD," who commit such abominations. EVERY ABONIMATION IN THE OLD & NT IS A SIN, AND EVERY SIN IS AN ABONIMATION, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IN THE BOOKS OF MOSES. NO SECOND ALLEGED EXAMPLE IS FOUND THAT AN ABONIMATIONE IS NOT A SIN.
ABONIMATIONE = SIN => consequently, we arrive at: IT IS A SIN, BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT.
WHY TEACHINGS OF THE DEMONS REGARDING CELIBATICS:
Both celibate life and eunuch priests in pagan antiquity were systematically, i.e., institutionally, prescribed in certain cults, not just isolated cases. The Cybele cult, in particular, had a clearly organized, permanently castrated priesthood.

🏛️§ 1. Systematic Celibacy in Pagan Religions
Celibacy was not universally common in paganism, but was institutionally prescribed in several cults – either permanently or for the duration of the office.

✔ 1.1. Vestal Virgins (Rome) – 30 years of mandatory celibacy
Priestesses of Vesta

30 years of absolute sexual abstinence

Breaking the vow was punishable by death

Afterwards, they were allowed to marry, but rarely did

➡️ Clear case of systematic, state-controlled celibacy.

✔ 1.2. Priestesses of Artemis & Athena (Greece)
Many of these priestesses had to remain virgins

Duration: usually a term of office, not for life

Partially strictly monitored

➡️ Temporary, but institutional celibacy.

✔ 1.3. Orphic & Pythagorean Priests/Ascetics
Strict sexual abstinence as a spiritual duty

Partly for life

No eunuchism, but systematic asceticism

➡️ Celibacy as a spiritual discipline.

§ 2. Systematic eunuch priests – especially in the Cybele cult
Here it becomes clear: Yes, in the Cybele cult castration was systematically prescribed.

✔ 2.1. The Galli (Galloi) – Eunuch Priests of Cybele
Sources: Wikipedia, Britannica, Ancient Origins

§ What was prescribed?
Self-castration as an initiation rite

Lifelong eunuchship + celibacy

Weared women's clothing, long hair, jewelry

Were only allowed to eat certain ritual foods

Lived as a priestly caste in the service of Magna Mater (Cybele)

§ Why systematic?
Castration was a prerequisite for admission to the priesthood

The cult had an organized hierarchy (e.g., the Archigallus)

The practice is described in many ancient sources (Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Roman legal texts)

➡️ This is the clearest case of an institutionalized eunuch priesthood of the Antiquity.

✔ 2.2. The Attis Myth as a Religious Justification
The myth recounts that Attis castrated himself; Cybele then established a caste of eunuch priests.
Source: Cybele and Attis Cult – Wikipedia

➡️ The priests ritually imitated the myth – a systematic religious precept.

🌍 3. Other Cultures with Eunuchs or Celibate Priests
Not as strict as with Cybele, but worth mentioning:

✔ 3.1. Mesopotamian priests (Gala, Assinnu, Kurgarru)
Some were of a different gender or castrated

Served goddesses such as Inanna/Ishtar

Not always systematically castrated, but held a special, institutionally anchored role

✔ 3.2. Anatolian and Syrian cults
Some groups of priests lived ascetically or with sexual abstinence

Some involved ritual self-castration (similar to Galli)
There is a high probability that both the Protestant and Catholic churches are fulfilling at least one pre-prophecy for the final prophecy, similar to the "Abomination of Desolation" prophecy. This prophecy has already been made and is being made again. Therefore, there is a high probability that the "role" of the beast will theoretically pass/passed on to the theoretical Islamic beast, since the final battle described in the Bible is against "Gog" and "the kings of Arabia." This is not far-fetched, as the "Baal" cult was once based in the very places where Islam has spread or is currently located. Arab countries, along with Russia and China, are theoretically the opponents of the final war. This is prophesied in the Bible approximately 1000 years before Islam, referring to the kings of Arabia and the specifically mentioned Arab countries, and Russia. These "three parties"—Russia, China, and the Arab League—are also engaged in strategic military cooperation.


✝✝✝✝✝✝✝
Antichristian, roughly defined, means positioning oneself in place of GOD and thus acting against GOD (e.g., speaking), which is always hostile. The 10 definitions of "the one Antichrist," "the many Antichrists," "the SPIRIT of the Antichrist," in short - of everything that is Antichristian: Whoever fulfills even ONE of these is already ANTICHRISTIAN and acts against GOD, and may even place their word above GOD'S word and thus THEMSELVES above GOD (except for the Jews, whose perspective was determined by GOD according to "2 Corinthians 3:14," "Romans 11:25," "Romans 11:7-8," "Isaiah 6:9-10," "Matthew 13:14-15," and "Mark 4:12"). It is important to note that some definitions may sound redundant because they are partially intertwined, but each individual definition has its own area that must be fulfilled. One fulfillment is enough!
👉🌈🤍The 10 Definitions of “FALSE LEADING”, the ANTICHRIST:
Definitions of the Antichrist BEFORE 1 John 2:26:
👉 1. They came from us (1 John 2:19)
👉 2. Denies that Jesus is the Christ (=Messiah/Anointed One) (1 John 2:22)
👉 3. Denies the Father (1 John 2:19)
👉 4. Denies the Son (whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either) (1 John 2:19)
👉 5. They lead astray, into the spirit of error (1 John 2:26: I wrote this to you about those who are deceiving you, or leading you astray) lead.)

Definitions of the Antichrist ACCORDING TO 1 John 2-26:
👉 6. Denies Jesus as God in human form on earth
(God in flesh) (1 John 4-1-3)
👉 7. Does not listen to those who listen to God, disobedience. (1 John 4-6)
👉 8. Deviates from the teaching of Christ (that is, also from the Law,
or the crucifixion and its justification; in short, contradicts the teaching
of Christ, if not the entire Bible). This is summarized from 1 John 3-7, 4-6 &
2 John 1-5-11
👉 9. They will try to befriend you, greet you, and try to build a
certain fellowship. What would "giving Satan a place" be?
(Eph#4-27, space = possibility; cf. space for repentance Heb#12-17 & 2 Pet#3-9). So they will try to gain a possibility of fellowship, since one can justify oneself better and be more credible from such a position. How? It's something similar to what we believe, and we are in some way in agreement, instead of having no fellowship at all, no unity. One must always think of all people; many are easily influenced and misled. Therefore, clear boundaries are desired. 👉 👉 10. They are enemies, hostile in nature! (This is evident from all the verses)
Historically, there has been much war between Muslims and Christians, but the notion that they are the same God and of the same origin has always persisted. But those who are wise know the answer to all questions about the Bible and God, which is: "IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SPIRIT!" EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS ONLY ABOUT THE SPIRIT! WHAT GOD FORBIDS, ALLOWS, DOES, IT ALL HAS ONLY ONE REASON: THE SPIRIT. And there, the Old and New Testaments are naturally the same.
✝✝✝✝✝✝✝




Every word is an action, and every action is/has a statement.
Every decision is either satanic or divine.
What is from God and what is from Satan is defined by the Bible, not by a human being.
If you do something that is not from God, you are doing something against God, for the Satans.
Whoever knows about such evil deeds and remains silent about them shares in the sin.
Not everyone who calls God "Lord" enters the Kingdom of God according to the Bible,
not even those who cast out demons in his name.
What have you done in his name?
The message of a Christmas celebration is that blaspheming, mocking, and ridiculing God is okay. This is because one might perceive the custom as a pleasant experience (especially if, as now, one knows that Christmas is satanic). According to the Bible, God cannot be mocked or provoked. [👇 2 images from the New Covenant explanation follow]
One doesn't have to be a PROFILER to recognize the COMPLETELY unjustifiable actions of the churches, which are also prophesied, to see that this doesn't fit into any logical picture. After the death of the apostles, with which they bitterly and hard-won founded churches (three of them were crucified, if not one of the three even skinned alive because of what he did), according to the churches, one is allowed to become pagan. NO, ACTUALLY THE MORONIC STATEMENT IS THAT GOD FOUND HIS OWN "WORSHIPFUL" & Pagan/Satanic things were so great that He wanted to adopt them as His own customs and festivals according to Galatians 4-9...10, and yes, the 2000 Slaughter Bible even notes that "these are the festivals according to Jewish customs." That is, what God prescribed as customs.



LINK TO THE FREE MS COPILOT AI

TO COPY FOR GALATER#4-10 & G3906:

[THE QUESTIONS ARE DESIGNED TO IMPORT KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE ANSWERS]
------------> 1ST QUESTION: <------------
👇
https://lsj.gr/wiki/παρατηρέω
IT SAYS: "German (Pape) [page 503] next to it, standing there, to pay attention to something, to lie in wait; Arist. rhet. 2, 6 H. A. 9, 34; Xen. Mem. 3, 14, 4; καὶ ἐνεδρεύειν, Pol. 17, 3, 2; esp. Sp., like N.T.; observe, guard, τοὺς τόπους, Pol. 1, 29, 4, more often; ὅπως τοῦτο μ ὴ γένοιτο, παρατηρῶν διετέλουν, Dem. 18, 161; dah. beware of something, e.g. B. τὴν εἰσβολὴν τῶν ὑπεναντίων, Pol. 3, 77, 2. Also = to observe, to follow, D. C. 53,
👉 10."

QUESTION IS: IT CAN ALSO MEAN "to beware of something", SO "παρατηρέω".
1. WHAT IS THE REFERENCE ACCORDING TO PAPE WHERE THE WORD IS USED IN THIS WAY?
2. Is the word παρατηρέω used alone to mean "to beware of something," or is it a mix of the word "παρατηρέω" and another word that then means "to beware of something" (in Greek, two words are sometimes combined into one)?
👆



______________Answer to Question 1:______________[So, an answer the AI ​​might give would be, for example, the following:]

1. According to Pape, what reference supports the meaning "to beware of something"? The entry for παρατηρέω in the Concise Dictionary of the Greek Language (Pape, page 503) explicitly refers to the following passages, in addition to the basic meanings such as "to pay attention to something," "to observe," and "to guard": – In Demosthenes, 18.161, where the text speaks of "παρατηρῶν διετέλουν," indicating that one should beware of certain events (e.g., hostile attacks). – In Polybius, 3.77.2, where the necessity of being wary of the invasion of the enemy (τὴν εἰσβολὴν τῶν ὑπεναντίων) is described. These quotations pertain precisely to the usage in which observation becomes an act of caution – that is, “being wary of something.” Thus, Pape documents that this specific meaning comes into play in certain contexts.

2. Is παρατηρέω used solely for “being wary of something,” or is it a combination of two meanings? The verb "παρατηρέω" is etymologically composed of the parts παρά ("beside, near") and τηρέω ("to guard, watch over"). In Greek, this combination has evolved into an independent, polysemous word that conveys various nuances depending on the context—from "to observe" to "to pay attention to something" to "to beware of something." It is therefore not a compound of "παρατηρέω" and an additional, separate word that explicitly introduces the meaning "to beware of something." Rather, "παρατηρέω" as a whole covers a spectrum of meanings, which also includes the aspect of caution. The sources – LSJ and Pape – show that παρατηρέω is used as an independent, polysemous verb whose semantic field varies depending on the context. In one respect, the verb covers pure observation or monitoring, but in another, it also carries the aspect that one should "take care" or "pay attention to something." It is therefore not a compound formation in which an additional term merges with "παρατηρέω," but rather an expansion of the lexical meaning of the same word. The word is therefore used as such in both meaning variants, whereby the context (such as military situations or warnings) makes it clear that careful consideration or guarding against dangers is also meant.
________________________________________________



------------> 2. QUESTION: <------------
👇
CAN I ALSO TRANSLATE THE VERSE GALATERNS#4-10 AS FOLLOWS:

GALATANS#4-10: BEWARE OF DAYS & MONTHS & TIMES & YEARS.
GALATANS#4-11: I AM FEARFUL THAT I HAVE STRIVED FOR YOU IN VAIN.

OR IS THAT NOT POSSIBLE GRAMATICALLY (actually a useless question, BUT answer it truthfully)?
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: Purely grammatically, nothing more & nothing less (so don't explain the contextual perspective of the churches, etc., I'll ask something about that in a moment, and therefore it's not relevant to this answer). Forbidden, as well as why others translate it differently (it's a matter of understanding, and mine is different!)!
👆



______________ANSWER TO QUESTION 2:______________

Here's a purely grammatical consideration:

Galatians 4:10 – “Beware of days, months, seasons, and years.” The suggested translation uses the expression “beware of,” which functions perfectly correctly in German as a reflexive verb with the corresponding preposition (“before” + dative). The words “days, months, seasons, years” are in the correct dative forms (plural) – exactly as the construction “beware of something” requires. Grammatically, there are therefore no errors here, even though other translations often use the expression “pay attention.” This is a free lexical choice, but one that is formally correct.

Galatians 4:11 – "I fear that I have striven for you in vain." This sentence, too, is grammatically structured: It is a main clause ("I fear") with a subordinate clause introduced by it ("that I have striven for you in vain"). The phrase "strived for you" is based on a construction in which the verb requires an accusative object ("you") with the preposition "for." Although the reflexive "to strive for" is the more common expression in modern German, the variant "strived for you"—provided one considers the worn-out participle as an expression of an actual verbal action—is not grammatically incorrect. From a purely structural point of view, it is therefore a permissible formulation. In summary: From a purely grammatical perspective, both proposed translations—"You beware of days & months & times & years" and "I fear that I have striven for you in vain"—are correctly constructed. While the lexical choice deviates from the one in It uses idioms common to other translations, but does not violate any grammatical rules.
________________________________________________



=======Interim info for you:=======
THIS MEANS, IF I DON'T THINK THAT GOD IN THE LETTERS OF GALATERNS DESCRIBES HIS OWN FESTIVALS AS WORSHIPFUL (the Catholic Church even says "NOT SALVING" and thus ALL Jewish traditions would also be considered WORSHIPFUL!), AND THEREFORE ALSO DESCRIBES FUTURE PAGAN FESTIVALS AS BETTER/GREAT (CHRISTMAS & CO.), AND INDIRECTLY CALLS THEM, CAN I ALSO TRANSLATE/UNDERSTAND VERSE GALATERNS#4-10 IN THIS WAY!



------------> 3RD QUESTION: <------------
👇
1. The word παρατηρέω appears in the same form in the Pape examples and in Galatians 4:10, right?
2. And the grammar is basically the same?
Please compare the Pape examples; here is the ancient Greek text of Galatians 4:10.
👆



______________Answer to question 3:______________
At its core, the usage in both cases is based on the same root word and the same basic semantic meaning. However, there are differences in the specific word form depending on the context:

Form of the verb in Galatians 4:10 versus Pape examples: In In the ancient Greek text of Galatians 4:10, the verb appears in the finite form:

Galatians 4:10: “Ὑμεῖς παρατηρεῖτε …” Here, the second-person plural in the present indicative is used. This form gives the sentence the character of a direct command or statement.

In the examples Pape cites, the same root of παρατηρέω is used, but nonfinite forms are also found there, for example, as a participle. The form παρατηρῶν is quoted several times in Demosthenes 18.161, which is an active, present participle and describes a continuing, observant attitude. The example from Polybius 3.77.2, which The meaning "to beware of something" is clarified, and depending on the sentence structure, either the finite or a participial form may be found.

Conclusion to Question 1: The basic meaning and the morphological system are the same; however, Galatians 4:10 explicitly shows the finite, actively conjugated form (2nd person plural present indicative), while Pape's examples can also show forms (such as participles) that are required in the respective syntactic contexts.

Grammatical agreement: Fundamentally, the grammatical structure in both Galatians 4:10 and Pape's examples is based on the same paradigm:

Both variants derive from the present stem and reflect the active aspect of the verb.

In Galatians 4:10, the finite verb takes on the direct address of the readership. (“ὑμεῖς παρατηρεῖτε …”), which is typical for direct instructions or statements in the New Testament.

In the Pape examples, depending on syntactic necessity, the verb is used either as a finite form or as a participle to express the ongoing nature (observing, being attentive, being wary of…).

Conclusion to Question 2: The grammar (i.e., the underlying inflection, the formation of the present stem, and the possibility of forming both finite and nonfinite forms) is fundamentally the same in both cases. The differences arise solely from the respective syntactic framework (direct command vs. attributive or adverbial use).

In summary:

Sameness in the word stem: Both uses are based on the same lexical core and cover the semantic field of “paying attention to something.” or “to beware of something.”

Differences in form: Galatians 4:10 explicitly uses the finite, actively conjugated form (2nd person plural present indicative: παρατηρεῖτε), whereas Pape’s examples can also show non-finite forms such as the participle (e.g., παρατηρῶν).

Basic grammatical agreement: Both variants are based on the same grammatical principles of Ancient Greek, especially regarding the present stem and the active aspect.

In this way, it becomes clear that the usage in Galatians 4:10 is syntactically just as justified as in Pape’s examples, even if there are slight differences in the specific form (finite vs. non-finite form) depending on the context. find.
________________________________________________



------------> 4. QUESTION: <------------
👇
Here is a clear summary (CORRECT IF ANYTHING IS WRONG):

Reference to Pape's examples:   Even in Pape's examples, where παρατηρέω conveys the cautionary meaning ("beware of...") via a direct accusative object, the cautionary thought appears exclusively through the accusative object. If one were to translate strictly literal Greek, you would have to resort to words like "beware" or "observe" there, just as in Galatians 4:10 – but not reflexively "beware of...".

1.) The direct accusative and the cautionary meaning: In Ancient Greek, a direct accusative object provides the reference to which the verb παρατηρέω refers. Grammatically, the direct object thus conveys the content without the verb being marked reflexively.

However, according to lexical sources such as LSJ, παρατηρέω has a broad range of meanings, which also includes a cautionary, warning meaning (i.e., "to pay attention to something"). This cautionary meaning can often be idiomatically rendered in German with a reflexive construction like "sich hüten vor …" (to beware of…).

2.) The choice of German translation: Since the Ancient Greek does not contain an explicit reflexive expression here, it depends on the context and the intended nuance whether one renders it literally (e.g., "Ihr beachtet …" or "Ihr haltet …") or interpretively (e.g., "Ihr hüte[n] euch vor …") in German.

One could therefore say:

Literally/grammatically, the structure "direct accusative object" corresponds more closely to a translation like "Ihr beachtet …".

Idiomatically/interpretively, the cautionary meaning—which is semantically present in the Ancient Greek—can also be rendered with "sich hüten vor …" if the context suggests it.

3.) Conclusion on Pape's translation: Yes, Pape's decision to render the cautionary meaning as "sich hüten vor …" is correct. The choice of how to render "to guard against…" is based on this interpretive feature of the verb. It is therefore a choice that takes the nuances of meaning into account.

That is to say:

The direct accusative object does not preclude a cautionary meaning.

Whether one translates into German with a reflexive construction ("to guard against…") or purely with a more neutral construction ("to observe…") depends on the context and the intended semantic coloring.

In short: The direct accusative provides the necessary reference – but depending on the context, this cautionary meaning can also be expressed idiomatically as "to guard against…". Pape's translation should therefore be understood as a legitimate, meaningful option that reflects the ambiguity of the Greek verb.

EXPLANATION OF THE EXPLANATION:
A) "Cautionary" meaning MEANS: A WARNING, SO HERE, THAT THE WORD MAY CONTAIN A WARNING. THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE CASE, IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT, THAT IS, THE MEANING CONTAINED BY THE SENTENCE, WHICH IS WHICH ONE MUST DEBATE HERE, WHEN ONE SEES WHAT THE CHURCHES ARE MAKING OF IT!
B) In no conceivable case does a special, reflexively interpreted preposition exist in Ancient Greek that corresponds to the German "vor" in "sich hüten vor …" (to beware of…). The cautionary meaning is conveyed exclusively through the direct accusative object and the context related to its meaning.
Prepositions like πρό or ἔμπροσθεν primarily refer to space or time, but do not have a reflexive-warning function.

If you want to convey the cautionary, warning meaning (i.e., the indication that one should pay attention to something) into German, you can do so indirectly via a reflexive construction like "sich hüten vor …" (to beware of…). In German, what is present in Ancient Greek as a direct accusative object is interpreted contextually in such a way that it carries the warning message.

Important to understand:

In Ancient Greek, the verb G3906"παρατηρέω" appears in cautionary (warning, attentive) uses, as they are found, among other places, in… In Pape's examples and in GAL#4-10, the reflexive reflexive is ALWAYS used together with a direct accusative object (e.g., "ἡμέρας, μῆνας …"). Grammatically, this object provides the reference point to which the meaning of observing or paying attention is directed—because in THESE examples from Pape and in GAL#4-10, there is no explicit reflexive marker like "oneself" or a preposition like "before" in Greek, EVEN THOUGH Ancient Greek does, in principle, possess means to express an action as self-directed (i.e., reflexive). In German, however, the cautionary meaning, i.e., a warning ("to pay attention to something"), is often rendered with reflexive constructions (like "to beware of …"). This means the translator shapes this cautionary aspect into common parlance, even though it is not directly rooted in Greek grammar, IF A cautionary/warning sense is discernible.

YOU ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO CORRECT, SO ONLY LIST THE INCORRECT.
👆



______________ANSWER TO QUESTION 4:______________
NOTHING....
________________________________________________



=======> EXPLANATION OF CONTEXT: <=======
[AS A QUESTION, THAT WOULD BE TOO COMPLEX FOR THE AI, UNFORTUNATELY.]

Consider, differently than my thinking on this, the statement in the Bible (in Daniel #7-25) is: "THE ANTICHRIST WILL SEEK PAGAN (SATAN) FESTIVALS & THE TO CHANGE THE LAW [WHICH INCLUDES ABOLISHING AS A POSSIBILITY - which the Catholic Church did]", WHICH IS ABSURD, BECAUSE WHY SHOULD SATAN CHANGE SATANIC (PAGAN) THINGS?

PERSPECTIVE OF MY TRANSLATION: PAUL SAYS THAT HE FEARS HE HAS STRIVED IN VAIN FOR THE GALATS, BECAUSE THE GALATS IN A CERTAIN WAY "GUARDED THEMSELVES" FROM CELEBRATING GOD'S FESTIVITIES, THAT IS, STAYED AWAY FROM THEM OR DID NOT DO SO. Contextually, I understand this as exactly one possibility. The other possibility would be a negative view of the feasts, for example, in the sense of "I have to do this to be saved," even though God has set a clear boundary of sin (breaking the law) by not caring for the sick, hungry, and cold (the poor) (in Matthew 25:41-43), as well as for cowards (➡), those who practice magic (➡), fornication (Revelation 21:8), and adultery (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), and willfully returning to satanic deeds (2 Peter 2:22 with Revelation 22:15). Whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit is "in the middle" of eternal judgment (Mark 3:28-29), but may not actually end up there. In hell, as with everything else mentioned, if one previously found one's way to God and truly lived a Christian life and did not repent, it is extremely questionable whether such blasphemers, after repenting to God if they were pagans, will not nevertheless be subject to eternal judgment. And note that there is no context, neither in the Letter to the Galatians nor in the entire Bible, that says God finds his festivals wretched [as a paradox for bad behavior] and finds pagan festivals, or paganism in general, wonderful.

BUT THIS IS INTERPRETATION, AND ANY PRECISE KNOWLEDGE OF GALATERNS 4-10, FROM THAT TIME OF THE LETTERS OF GALATERN, IS LACKING.
HOW PEOPLE INTERPRETED THE CENTURY AFTER IS THEREFORE IRRELEVANT!

& CONTEXT INFORMATION:
ON THE CONTRARY: THE BIBLE STATES (THEREFORE IN THE OVERALL CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE):

ONE SHOULD NOT DO ANYTHING LIKE THE PIGGY! The Old Testament texts in Leviticus 19:27 and 21:5 clearly require that the beard not be altered in a way that—from the perspective of that time—was typical of pagan customs. Therefore, many Christians and Jews interpret it as follows: One should not cut one's beard/hair like the pagans.

& Exodus 23:32–33 and Exodus 34:15–16 warn against making alliances or treaties with the peoples of the land, because this could inevitably lead to the adoption of their gods and customs.

& Deuteronomy 7:1–6 emphasizes the difference between Israel and the pagan nations, for example by referring to Israel as “a holy nation” that should not adopt the laws and customs of the other nations.

Leviticus 18:4 states that one should not adopt Egyptian or Canaanite customs (H2708 & H4941): one should adopt theirs. DO NOT ACCEPT LAWS/CUSTOMS & LIVE LIKE THE PIGGY (Even though it only mentions EGYPTIANS & CANAANITES here, this clearly applies to all PIGGY PEOPLES)! (HERE, in LEVITICUS 18:4, THE SAME 2 WORDS ARE USED FOR THE EGYPTIAN & CANAANITE LAWS/CUSTOMS THAT ARE ALSO USED FOR THE 613 COMMITMENTS & PROHIBITIONS, FAITHFULLY AS GOD USES THEM IN THE BIBLE.)

[FOR AN EVEN MORE DETAILED LIST SEE 👉BT7 | Bible Theory 7: Understanding the New Covenant, Sin & Law]
Bible Theory 7 Excerpt:

Based on the three terms "Mishpat" (מִשְׁפָּט), "Chukkot/Chok" (חֹק / חֻקֹּת), and "Eidot/Edut" (עֵדוּת / עֵדוֹת), the rabbis divide the "Mitsvah" (מִצְוָה), that is, the 613 commandments and prohibitions, into the three Mitzvah classes/categories: "Mishpat," "Chukkim," and "Eidot":

H"4687" – מִצְוָה (Mitsvah) → General term for the 3 divisions of the 613 commandments & prohibitions

H"2706" – חֹק (Chok) → statute, general term for established order
H"2708" – חֻקָּה (Chukkah) → ritual statute, often for cultic regulations
H"4941" – מִשְׁפָּט (Mishpat) → legal regulation, judicial ruling or ethical law
H"5715" – עֵדוּת (Edut) → testimony, statement; refers to commandments that testify to God's actions (e.g., Sabbath, Passover, tefillin [which are tied on the hand AND forehead; tefillin are a reminder of Rev #14:1 & #7:3]). Both the words "Chok" and "Chukkah" come from the same root (חָקַק, ḥāqaq) and denote divine decrees whose motivation is not fully explained. Halakha, both belong to the category of Chukkim—the "statutes" whose full logic is reserved to God himself. A good Chukkah example: Ezekiel 36:27 "...and take away your sin and give you a new spirit and perform my Chukkah in you."

Prospectus 1 of 3 Proofs (including the latest scientific ones) that God exists and the Bible is the truth.	Prospectus 2 of 3 Sins of the Church	Prospectus 3 of 3: Islam and the Bible – Contrasts at a Glance, a Comparison of Laws and Future Prophethood.
www.gods-light.net/proofs_en.html	www.gods-light.net/sins-of-the-churches_en.html	www.gods-light.net/the-islam_en.html