Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
Does the OPC use the crucifix in the church? If not, are they opposed to it?
Answer:
Thank you for your question. The answer is, so far as I know, the crucifix is not used in OPC churches, and here is why:
1.The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4-6 and Deut. 5:8-10) forbids any picture or image of God, and that would include the Son of God, even as man. At any rate we do not know what Jesus looked like as there is no physical description of him.
2.The crucifix will always end up being an object of worship—regarded as holy. History teaches as much. The bronze serpent Moses made became an object of worship and was not destroyed till King Hezekiah did it (Numbers 21:9; 2 Kings 18:1-5). Roman Catholics have worshipped it, kissed it and held it to have mystical powers.
3.Christ did not remain on the Cross. In the Roman Church Christ is said to be resacrificed each time the Mass is celebrated. This is heresy; he died once for all—Hebrews 9:25-28.
We in the OPC have learned not to trust our idolatry prone hearts not to do the same as others have in the past. Hence, no crucifixes are used. So, yes, we are opposed to it.
You are right, of course. I am sorry.
Catholics idolizing objects? Say it ain’t so! That reminds me of a joke Luther once gave. At least, we HOPE it was a joke!
“A German, making his confession to a priest at Rome, promised, on oath, to keep secret whatsoever the priest should impart unto him, until he reached home; whereupon the priest gave him a leg of the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem, very neatly bound up in silk, and said: This is the holy relic on which the Lord Christ corporally did sit, with his sacred legs touching this ass’s leg. Then was the German wondrous glad, and carried the said holy relic with him into Germany. When he got to the borders, he bragged of his holy relic in the presence of four others, his comrades, when, lo! it turned out that each of them had likewise received from the same priest a leg, after promising the same secrecy. Thereupon, all exclaimed, with great wonder: Lord! had that ass five legs?”
No apology needed. I love all of my brother and sister Christians... no one else in this evil world loves us so we must love each other and HIM. I had someone once ask me if I loved liberal Christians. I responded that I had never known one. Every liberal that I have ever known was either an atheist or worshiped government and man.
LLS
All those who disagree with me are wrong because my opinions come from God.
All those who ask me to explain any inconsistencies in my thought are doomed, because those who live in the Spirit agree with me.
Augustine — Against Transubstantiation
On the Sacramental Language. The Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood “in a certain manner” of speaking.
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood.” (Augustine, Letters 98)
The Eucharist, which does not merely symbolize the body of Christ, but the entire church too, “not really consumed.” The invisible reality that it represents does not pass away.
“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
Sacraments being used symbolically to express spiritual truths. For example, the sacrament of the Holy Spirit, which is the oil.
“Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.” (Same as above)
Another, the sacrament of the kiss of peace:
“After that comes Peace be with you; a great sacrament, the kiss of peace. So kiss in such a way as really meaning that you love. Don’t be Judas; Judas the traitor kissed Christ with his mouth, while setting a trap for him in his heart. But perhaps somebody has unfriendly feelings toward you, and you are unable to win him round, to show him he’s wrong; you’re obliged to tolerate him. Don’t pay him back evil for evil in your heart. He hates; just you love, and you can kiss him without anxiety.” (Same as above)
The body and blood of Christ consumed through faith without eating or drinking.
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
The body of Christ not held by any believer, even in the sacrament.
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” (Augustine, Tractate 50)
Christ must be understood spiritually, not carnally.
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)
To believe in Christ is to eat the living bread.
“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)
This cannot be so if the ancients believed in Roman Catholic transubstantiation, which says that the elements are really and truly the body and blood of Christ.
Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that Christ was eating and drinking His own body and blood, and absurd to think that He will continue to do so even in heaven, as He says in the Gospel account (if your understanding were true).
Mat 26:26-29 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Notice also that Christ reverts to speaking of the “fruit of the vine” as just that, fruit of the vine, after it was all allegedly transformed into His blood.
This is all consistent with the normal Jewish mode of speaking in those days, which renders such things as the celebration of the Passover as “the passover of the Lord,” even though it is not literally happening again.
Great.way to think of the Mass.
The sacrifice is not re-created, it is the exact same sacrifice Re-presented
Catholics believe the verse; Rom 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Means that he dies once for all time.
Two places I have found it is in Lorraine Boettner's "Roman Catholicism" and pretty much any thing Tim LaHaye writes, most notably "Revelation Unveiled."
More useful quotes against Transubstantiation
Athanasius Anti-transubstantiation
On John 6:
“I saw an example of this in the Gospel of John, where treating concerning the eating of his body, and seeing many offended there by, he said, “Does this offend you, what if ye shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life.” He spake both of the spirit and the flesh, and made a distinction between his spirit and flesh, that not only believing in what was visible to their eyes, but also in his invisible nature, they might learn that the things which he said were not carnal, but spiritual : for, for haw many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world? For this reason, therefore, he mentions the Son of man’s ascension into heaven that he might draw them from the corporeal sense, and that they might understand, that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly nourishment and spiritual food given to them from above. For the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life. As if he had said, This my body which is shown to you and is given for the world, shall be given as food, so as to be imparted spiritually within each, and to become to each a safe guard against the resurrection of eternal life.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
Clement of Alexandria — Anti-Transubstantiation
Clement on John 6 – Eating of flesh and blood figures for faith.
“And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I)
(See Augustine on John 6, “Why dost thou ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.”)
The Word figuratively described by a multitude of elements, including wine.
“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? Who washes, it is said, His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:11 In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I)
Wine the symbol of the sacred blood
“The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood; but reproving the base tippling with the dregs of wine, it says: Intemperate is wine, and insolent is drunkenness. Proverbs 20:1” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book II)
Justin Martyr – Anti-transubstantiation
The Eucharist is bread and wine given in remembrance of Christ, not as a sacrament with which to merit salvation.
“The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were fore-known to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho,” said I, “that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypo, CHAPTER LXX)
Irenaeus – Anti-Transubstantiation
Consubstantiation (Two realities at once, rather than the elements merely appearing to be bread and wine, but actually being the real flesh and blood of Christ).
”But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18)
Against the misunderstanding that the bread and wine is actually flesh and blood:
“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: ‘How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?’” (Fragment 13)
Tertullian – Anti-Transubstantiation
On John 6, Flesh and Blood of Christ digested through faith. No literal enjoinment to eat Christ’s flesh.
“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: ‘The flesh profits nothing.’” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chpt. 37)
The bread and wine the figure of Christ’s body, against those who deny that Christ did not have a body.
“Having taken bread and having distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own Body by saying, ‘This is My Body’ — that is, the ‘figure of My Body.’ A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was in truth a body. Some empty thing, which is a phantasm, were not able to satisfy a figure. Or, if He pretended that bread were His Body, because in truth He lacked a body, then he must have given bread for us. It would support the vanity of Marcion, had bread been crucified! But why call His Body bread, and not rather a pumpkin, which Marcion had in place of a brain! Marcion did not understand how ancient is that figure of the Body of Christ, who said Himself through Jeremias: ‘They have devised a device against Me, saying, “Come, let us throw wood onto his bread,”’ — the cross, of course, upon His Body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:30:3)
Ignatius is making the same point in one of the quotes you wrested from him. As the Donatists were not those who merely refused the Eucharist. They didn’t believe that Jesus had a real body at all, and thus, from our standpoint, the Lord’s Supper makes no sense unless there was a real body for the elements to symbolize. Therefore it is a proof against those who deny that Christ had a body.
Origen – Anti-Transubstantiation
Against understanding John 6 “to the letter”
“If ye are the children of the church, if ye are well embued with the mysteries of the Gospel, and if the Word made flesh dwelleth in you, acknowledge what I say, because it is of the Lord, lest, not knowing it, you may not be known by him. Acknowledge that some things written in the holy books are figures, and therefore examine and understand the things which are said, as spiritual men : for if you receive them as carnal men, they injure you. There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him who does not understand spiritually the things which are said. For if you take this according to the letter, Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, this letter killeth” — (Origen, Homily 7, on the 10th chap, of Leviticus)
The Bread and Wine are types and symbols
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)
The bread and wine are images, symbols, commended as a memory to his disciples:
“But if, as these affirm, he had neither flesh nor blood, of what flesh and of what body and of what blood are the bread and cup which he delivered the images ? by these symbols he commended his memory to his disciples.” (Origen, The third Dialogue against the Marcionites)
Steve, AB is a very strong Catholic, and one of the best defenders of the faith you will meet. He was being facetious.
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
Seems that Paul has a different take on it than you do.
I prefer the word "Actual"
It has been my experience that many/ most protestants have a very difficult time grasping the concepts of infinity and eternity, especially in how they relate as characteristics or attributes of God.
Let’s look at the Greek
Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa
So, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou
Again, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body." Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
I'd say that's a faulty definition...Re-present means to present again...It does not mean to make present everywhere for all time...
I can't figure out how Catholics justify this and still claim to believe the scriptures...Clearly you guys do not...The scriptures state that there was one sacrifice that took place at a specific time and that it is forever done with...
The consecration of the host is completely unbiblical...Why is it not the Resurrection that is re-presented???
I don't mind that you guys have a religion and I don't mind how you guys chose to worship...But when your religion claims its religion is the Christian religion we read about in the bible, I (we) can't just stand by and say nothing...Because it clearly is not...
Where was God before He created the universe?
English doesn't really have a word for it - the theological word is 'Anamnesis'.
If English doesn't have a word for it, the reality of it then can't exist...Who invented the word Anamnesis??? Do the Germans have a word for it??? The Russians???
The word for made present is 'is'...Or 'am'...'Are'...Re-present isn't really a word...A concept was invented with the idea of Jesus never climbing down off the cross and a word was invented for it...
The sun is shining and it always has since it was created...The sun does not get re-presented everytime you look at it...
And then, what does eating the wafer have to do with Jesus on the Cross anyway??? Are you killing Jesus when you bite into the wafer???
Anamnesis does NOT mean “to make present.” It literally means “to remember again.” Plato uses the same word for one of his philosophical theories, meaning “to remember again” in this same basic sense.
The Catholics merely invent the meaning of words and give them new meanings to satisfy their theology. It is not so as used in the Greek and by the Greeks.
Yet, even when we quote directly from the catechism, criticism still is found to follow. The catechism, in many places, must be "interpreted" or put into simpler words. Many euphemisms and "code words" are utilized throughout and even Catholics must use their own understanding to explain the various doctrines to themselves and to others.
Case in point is the oft-argued Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Mass. Words such as "transubstantiated" and "made present" have to be parsed out and further explained. Catholics may say that the sacrifice of the Mass is a "re-presentation" of the same sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary or that the Mass carries the sacrifice forward into all time, making it effective for salvation, but it needs further expounding. VOLUMES of men's thoughts and opinions have been written to explain it all.
There is also an "order" by which Catholics make themselves ready for participating in the Eucharist that involves a recent confession and penance and only then can they righteously receive the body of Christ. The Mass and the reception of the sacrament of communion are said to be, in themselves, propitiatory for the satisfaction of sins. Catholicism makes the regular attendance at Mass and the reception of communion necessary for salvation.
I believe Scripture tells us that it is believing on Christ, having faith in him to save us from our sins, is what brings us salvation. The participating in the Lord's Supper observance is thereby done as Jesus said it was to be done - in remembrance of him, showing his death until he returns.
Your opinions? LOL! It's not about you, it is ALL about JESUS who has already spoken.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.