How Andrew Cyrikas distorts reality, stories and juggles them to his own needs.

At the outset, I point out that my readers should speak on the merits, because everyone is entitled to a good name and respect.

Substantive truth is another matter. Andrew Cyrikas is a public figure and speaks publicly, and we can respond to what he says.

A. Cyrikas nadał swemu filmikowi tytuł o nas i widzach Michała Mazura  “judaizujący”.

 

Po pierwsze, wystarczy spojrzeć na dwa działy, kategorie na tym blogu – Żydzi i Izrael – aby wiedzieć, że nie darzymy sympatią obecnego Izraela, a tym bardziej  religię syjonistów. Jest to czarowanie rzeczywistości.

 

 

Andrzeju, kiedy reklamowałem Twoje filmy, to byłem “spoko kolo”, a teraz jestem ten be, bo mam swoje zdanie inne niż Twoje.

 

Before I analyze the film by A. Cyrikas from a different perspective than M. Mazur has already done before me, I will ask you Andrzej, answer yourself if you are honest, just a few questions:

 

1. Assuming you don't acknowledge my work or my views on faith because I'm not in the cluster of pastors (many I value) and have my own opinions, have you ever prayed specifically for me to not err, to the point where you're reading this? I for you many times.
2. After the video in which you want to bring in refugees to evangelize them, did you go to any refugee centers or your believers and evangelize them? After all, you have a common position with the church of Rome not only on the celebration of Sunday, but also on immigrants.
3.  Do you evangelize haters at all? On the internet, on the street, in other places? Your lectures are for Christians. In general: are you expanding the Kingdom of God on earth?

 

So for your consideration.

I now reliably present for the very first the film A. Cyrikas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU5FmHWTMMc&t=880s

As I mentioned regarding the allegations, I will post below Michael Mazur's responses, since he is the one who is mainly addressed by the person calling himself a pastor. I am named as the one who supports him :-).

 

The lead image itself is manipulative because it shovels those who celebrate the Sabbath without confrontation.

 

 

“Legalizm”

“Kłamstwa judaizujących”

Lies must be intentional. Can't a part just be wrong? So you judge, but therefore Allah will judge you.

If celebrating the day blessed at the creation of the world is legalismem, then you can call God a legalist. Similarly, all those who keep the second commandment including you Andrew can be called legalists.

Sticking a patch on, pigeonholing is a way of defending your existing faith principles. It seems like a cry, but a cry of despair. Believe me I am of those who think you are erring because gro thinks you are doing it on purpose.

 

The technique of reversing the tail cat was used about 10 years ago on the Internet, when people wrote about communists and Jews in the comments. Back then, adversaries wrote like this: “jasne, to wszystko wina Żydów, masonów i cyklistów”.

Such a distraction from the substance.

Years later it turned out that there were Freemasons and Jews ruling Poland.

 

 

 

Behavior on the level of a beginning Christian. Many have called me Jewish, Adventist, Pentecostal and one sympathetic reader called us Seventh-day Baptists 🙂 .

 

W tytule “kłamstwa judaizujących” są już dwa twierdzenia: kłamstwa i judaizujący. W ten sposób A. Cyrikas albo manipuluje swymi poddanymi, albo wykazuje kosmiczna niewiedzę, ponieważ Judaism is barely 2500 years old, meaning it was established 500 years before the birth of Christ, and the Sabbath was established 1300 years before the birth of Jesus.

In this way, A. Cyrikas either exposes his ignorance or deliberately manipulates. I do not know his heart, so I do not judge.

Whereas how to believe such teachers who link the Sabbath to Judaism!!!

 

Someone will think that almost all Protestants celebrate Sunday so they are right.

However, if we look at the various denominations that deceive, all these falling in the spirit and kundalini spirit , we see that they also teach about Jesus just like the model Beny Hinn that I have often mentioned.

We sometimes think that someone is born again because he talks about Jesus, but how does A. Cyriklas talk about his enemies?

With contempt. Judaizing.

 

Below are the answers of Michał Mazur refuting the arguments of Pastor Cyrikas, who as Peter Petros put it, is going from one lie to another. I would say from one error into another.

Michal's videos are few because they are short.

 

 

 

 

Tutaj Michał wykazuje omylność A. Cyrikasa, ponieważ pastor zadał pytanie czy szabatujący usuwają tłuszcz z naczyń, co jest nie z biblii, ale z Talmudu…

 

Michael refutes all of the pastor's arguments.

 

Under A.C.'s video I read a comment suggesting that Christianity without religion, without a church, is not Christianity. There are many pros and cons on both sides. There are times when people do not have churches in their cities. Many are on the green island and other promises of Tusk. It was the Catholic state that sent them into exile.

Well, but what is Christianity? I leave aside the etymology of the word. But answer me the question in what religion were John Hus and William Tyndale without whom you could listen to the Bible but in Latin.

What denomination was the apostle Paul in? Finally, what denomination was Jesus Christ in?

 

In a completely separate post, I will outline how little knowledge opponents of the Sabbath have. As an example, I will give the argument of an adversary on fey under my text:

 

“Cóż, niestety nie wszyscy rozumieją różnice między Nowym Przymierzem we krwi Chrystusa a Starym Przymierzem z pod góry Horeb. I spory są o literę a nie o Ducha. Łukasza 5:53 Nowe wino należy wlewać do nowych buraków…”

 

Pomijam literówkę, ale jak wielka to niewiedza utożsamiać dekalog ze Starym Przymierzem. Jeśli mamy utożsamiać dekalog ze Starym Przymierzem, to można także ignorować przykazanie drugie, które jest kością niezgody między protestantami a katolikami…