Posted on 02/23/2016 8:17:35 AM PST by Salvation
In the epistle for the Second Sunday of Lent (Phil. 3:17-4:1), St. Paul laments those whom he calls enemies of the cross of Christ: For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil 3:18).
What does it mean to be an enemy of the cross? And how do people end up in this condition of being inimical to the very thing and the very One who alone can save them? St. Paul not only laments the situation, but shows how they get into this condition. He does so in a very succinct way, in one verse, as we shall see below.
But first, let's rescue the word enemy from too narrow an understanding. In modern (American) English the word "enemy" tends to be associated with a distant foe, perhaps one with missiles aimed at us or armies ready to conquer us. It is often reserved for those who threaten our life or are opposed to us in the most extreme ways. In practice it is considered almost impolite to refer to difficult people who oppose us in some way as enemies.
Enemy comes from the Latin inimici. And while inimici is best translated "enemies," its roots are in (not) + amicus (friend). So our enemies are those who are not our friends, who oppose our values, who do not wish us well or stand ready to assist us.
This understanding helps us to grasp that enemies may be very close to home, not merely on distant shores. Enemies are not just those who plot the most serious hostilities against us. Thus, when Jesus tells us to love our enemies He has more in mind than just a distant group in some foreign land. He is also referring to those who are near--even within our own families--who are not friendly, who oppose us or the things and people we value.
So when St. Paul speaks of those who are enemies of the cross of Christ, he is not just referring to those who go around tearing crucifixes off walls or demanding that crosses be removed from public property. In his very brief description, St. Paul emphasizes an opposition that escalates from mere worldliness to the outright idolatry of comfort and pleasure. Indeed, if we take St. Paul seriously and are honest with ourselves, some of us who have crucifixes in our homes and march in processions with the crucifix before us as we sing "Lift High the Cross" might find that we are in some opposition to the cross.
So let's take a deeper look at St. Paul's description of the enemies of the cross of Christ. St. Paul describes the inimical stance of some in a fourfold way: Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things (Phil 3:19).
St. Paul, like many ancient authors, states the result first, followed by the causes. Because that is not the usual way to present a point of view, in the reflection that follows I am going to reverse St. Paul's order. By reversing his order, I will try to show how things can escalate so that one can become an enemy of the cross.
The text says, For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things (Phil 3:18-19).
St. Paul describes the escalation that can make a person more and more an enemy of the cross of Christ.
I. Foolish Preoccupations -- The text says that the enemies of the cross are characterized by having minds set on earthly things.
Of the threefold origin of temptation (the world, the flesh, and the devil), the world is understood not so much as a physical place in which we live, but as a mindset, a collection of thoughts, priorities, premises, values, and goals that are opposed to God and His Word. The fundamental values and priorities of this world include the amassing of possessions, power, prestige, and pleasure. Goals such as autonomy and instant gratification, and views rooted in materialism, secularism, anthropocentrism, secular humanism, utilitarianism, and utopianism are emphasized.
There are many in this world who not only accept these flawed premises and values, but also advance them. They do this because when one follows the world's agenda, one is frequently rewarded with wealth, access, popularity, and approval.
But we were not made for these things. The finite world cannot satisfy the infinite desires that are within us. The world may well grant us temporary comforts and benefits, but in the end it takes everything back and assigns us to a stone-cold tomb.
For this reason, having our minds set on earthly things is a foolish preoccupation. Scripture says,
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life--is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:15-17).
In a world that tells us to "scratch where it itches," there is going to be a cross of self-denial and of trusting God, who teaches us that we are made for more than mere trinkets. The world and devil promise pleasure now and then send you the bill later. The Lord speaks to sacrifice and discipline now and points to the fruits and blessings that come later.
To refuse this and insist exclusively on pleasure now is to become an enemy of the cross of Christ, who warns us to refuse to give our hearts over to the false promises and passing pleasures of this world. We are to crucify our excessive passions and desires (Gal 5:24). We are not to conform to the pattern of this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our mind, so that we may be able to test and approve what God's will is (Rom 12:2).
Historically, this has meant the cross and suffering for Christians who live this way. The world and the consensus it desires (and often demands) does not take lightly the rejection inherent in true Christianity. The long legacy of persecution and hatred of Christians demonstrates this. It is one thing to choose to live our values in a personal way, but it is quite another to stand opposed (as we must) to the excesses and errors of the world and to seek to snatch others from its illusions and false promises. Marketers, industrialists, politicians, advocacy groups, ideologues, and the like all depend on a widespread "buy-in" in order for their products, projects, and schemes to advance. If we are not easily manipulated by the fears, anxieties, and guilt that the world uses to separate us from our love and loyalty to God, and our basic sense of truth, we are "off-message." We must, therefore, be silenced, either by pressure to conform or through shame. And if these do not work, then persecution: the cross.
But Scripture warns us that such crosses must be endured. Jesus says, If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you (John 15:19-20). And St. James adds, You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).
Many Christians find resisting the world and its errant demands a cross too difficult to bear. It is easier to cave in to the world's demands, to "go along to get along." This can be done in a thousand little ways through small and growing compromises, or in larger, clearer ways in which one denies truths of the faith in order to receive the praise of men and the blessings that come with conformity to the ways of the world.
To the degree that this happens in our life, we subtly and increasingly become enemies of the cross of Christ. We refuse the self-denial that is necessary and foolishly set our mind on worldly things, which can neither save nor satisfy.
II. Festive Perversions -- The text says of the enemies of the cross that they glory in their shame.
As people deepen their alliance with the ways of the world, their initial compunction is gradually and steadily eroded by rationalization and by surrounding themselves with teachers who tickle their ears (2 Tim 4:3). St. Paul speaks of those who, on account of their sinfulness, suppress the truth. Claiming to be wise, they become fools as their senseless minds are darkened (Rom 1:18, 21).
And as the darkness deepens, not only do they move further away from repentance, but they actually glory in their shame. Of their lack of shame over sinful acts. St. Paul says, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (Rom 1:32).
And thus today we live in times of "gay pride" parades and the celebration of "gender diversity." Further, there are movies that glorify mob violence and political corruption and glamorize all sorts of evil. Some forms of music celebrate rebellion, hatred of authority, and misogyny. "Greed is good" was the theme of a movie about Wall Street in the late 1980s.
Being an enemy of the cross of Christ deepens in this stage. Not only are the crosses of self-control, self-discipline, and living within limits set aside due to human weakness, but now there is a prideful "doubling-down" in which one declares that what God calls sin ought instead to be celebrated.
This gradually becomes an outright mockery of the cross of Christ because it would seem to say that Jesus died for nothing, that the sins He died to save us from are not only not sins but are actually things worth celebrating.
These enemies of the cross see any limits as unreasonable. And if this weren't bad enough, as their inimical stance to the cross deepens they celebrate their rejection as a virtue of which to be proud. Their glory in their shame is a twisted and deformed version of tolerance; anyone who does not join in their celebration is guilty of one of the few sins left in their worldview: intolerance. Traditional biblical morality now becomes a form of hate, of intolerant bigotry.
This leads to a de facto rejection of God, at least the true God of Scripture:
III. Fallen Passions -- The texts says of the enemies of the cross, their god is their belly.
At some point the enmity toward the cross grows deep enough that the passions and pleasures of the world reach a godlike status, and indulging them becomes in effect a form of idolatry. All human beings struggle at some level with unruly passions and desires. But as long as we struggle and engage in the battle we are still clinging to the cross. Having rejected the cross by outright glorying in their shame, enemies of the Cross now begin to imbue their sins with a kind of godlike quality.
We know how easily money can become like a god to some; they give their whole life over to its acquisition. For them it is the most worthy and valuable thing they have. It is at the center, where God properly belongs.
In the sexual arena the idolatry is more subtle, but it is still evident in the way some talk. Consider that many today attribute their sexually irregular state to God Himself. They say, "God made me this way" and speak of sins and sinful desires as a gift from God. Some equate their desire with the very voice of God; the simple fact that they have a desire must mean that God put it there, and if God put it there it must be good.
In this way a fallen and disordered desire is thought to come from the very voice and will of God, and should therefore be accorded the reverence and obedience due to God Himself.
In this third stage, those who entertain such notions have entered idolatry's clutches. In effect, they reinvent God and ignore His actual revelation in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. But a reinvented god is not the one, true God, and to worship and obey such a false god is idolatrous.
IV. Final Place -- The text says of these enemies of the Cross: their end is destruction.
Only the true Christ and His true cross can save. Those who stand opposed to the cross embrace a poor destiny indeed. An old litany says, "Sow a thought, reap a deed. Sow a deed, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." And so we see how our stances deepen within us, either for or against God.
It is therefore a serious matter to permit enmity for the cross to grow within us in any way. It begins with simple weakness and aversion to the more difficult and narrow way of the cross. Then we begin to surround ourselves with teachers who assure us that our sins aren't all that important or even that we can outright celebrate our sins. This then leads to a growing form of idolatry in which we reinvent and reimagine God, going so far as to call our sinful desires godly. The final stage is destruction, for a fake god, an idol, cannot save us. Only the One true God, who told us to take up our cross daily, can save us.
Beware the tendency to become an enemy of the cross of Christ. Spare us, O Lord, from our foolish tendency to substitute false religion. With St. Paul and all the saints may I be determined to know nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified
Thanks anyway but I am aware of all of that.
No need to google something I already know, and that doesn’t address the issue I was discussing with you.
You didn’t answer my question, no problem I’m used to the diversions when posters don’t want to reveal what ever it is they fear.
It seems to be a mountain out of a molehill as you even state that using verse #s has become indispensable as technical references for Bible study.
Yet you seem to go out of your way to make them out to be un-Catholic to consider. Maybe because Catholics didn’t think of it first? I dunno and is of no consequence.
My pilgrimage is over and has been for decades back when I became a Christian and a member of the REAL body of Christ.
Catholicism seems to follow the We’re on our way but aren’t there yet, but fully saved born again Christian folks don’t as we have assurance of salvation as Jesus promised.
Scripture references available upon request.
We take Jesus at His Word and are not influenced away from it by the doctrines of Catholicism.
No problem you skirting the request to post the quote from a/or Catholic version as it has been shown and acknowledged even by Catholics to have errors.
There are a few Catholic posters that discount everything someone says if they make thypos or grammatical errors but I don’t do that. It’s childish as it’s easy to see what is meant even with thypos or other minor errors as one types.
Oh and just a hint about your blue font in many of our posts.
It would be easier to read if it wasn’t posted as a block of text without paragraph or at least line breaks.
Would have helped with the royal (purple) text in your reply I am responding to but I made an effort to read it.
BTW when I read the Bible I pretty much ignore the verse numbers unless I wish to reference them to help those that are lost to see the way to a relationship with Jesus that leads to everlasting life with God.
They serve as line breaks and make the text more readable.
Imagine if the whole bible was only printed as a giant wall of text?
That would be almost as bad as what was done in the past by Catholicism, not letting the “little” people have copies of the Bible and killing those that tried to make them available.
Some here still tell us OTC Christians that we should only accept the interpretations of the Bible done by Catholics but we prefer the Holy Spirit over the declarations of fallible men.
Never, fella. The disciples at the Last Supper were all Jews, still under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant, and ordained to observe Seder, Jesus not yet having fully fulfilled The Law. The wine could only be at that point a symbol of The Blood of the New Covenant. There was no overlap of the two. And People of The Way, the Company of the Committed were not denominated "Christians" until long after, in the Antioch of Syria. So your question has no foundation and is irrelevant.
What difference does your queston make. Without some kind of direct connection, what one did in another thread has no bearing on what that person is doing here, today, in this thread.
What is your purpose in bringing this up?
So, you did not answer the question... Here it is again. We can’t go further until you answer this simple question. I am asking YOU:
What do YOU mean by Jewish Law?
Do you commit sin(s) on an hourly basis? Daily? Weekly?
Do you think you can just go on and on and on like that?
The bottom line is we are all sinners on a daily basis. We can never be good enough to earn Heaven.
The shed blood of Christ does indeed cover ALL of our sins. Big ones....little ones. It doesn't matter it you say it or think it....it's still a sin. Ephesians 2:1 makes this point clear.
Colossians 2:13-14 tells us our sins have been nailed to the cross and that they have been removed. The Greek behind the word removed means rubbed out...gone. All of our sins.
The shed blood of Christ is more than sufficient to cover any sin we commit. If it's not, then we have a problem.
I have business so a reply to your latest inanity will come later, Until then imardmd1 is well worth you reading,
Jesus is not explaining the wafer in John 6. He is explaining Himself as the source of life. His incarnation and His atonement were essential in providing that life, so there is no gnosticism here. But the means of acquiring it is not to eat His flesh as men understand that, but to feed on His words, that is, to have faith in Him, and what he has done for us.
I have not been following this thread much but that is obvious and alone is consistent with the rest of Scripture in which spiritual life is never obtained by physically eating anything, nor is that said to spiritually nourish souls, but it is by believing the gospel message with effectual faith that one has his heart purified by faith and is born again. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-11) And it is the word that is said to "nourish" souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, by which the pastors are to "feed the church," (Acts 20:28,32) the primary ordained charge being prayer and to "preach the word." (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2) Thus nowhere in the life of the church (Acts onward, which is interpretive of the gospels) is the Lord's supper preached as the means of regeneration, or even sees much emphasis or centrality, in stark contrast to Catholicism.
Nowhere (unlike preaching, praying, fellowship etc.) is consuming the elements preached as a means of grace or remedy for the many spiritual problems in the many places such are dealt with, nor is consuming them commended as a testimony to their faithfulness, including in the Lord's critiques of the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2+3 (nor is submission to the pope mentioned as such). And nowhere do we see a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests" offering the elements as an sacrifice for sin, or being charged with doing so as part of their distinctive ordained functions, in contrast to preaching the word.
And in the only book (outside of the mention of the "feat of charity in Jude 1:14) in which the Lord's Supper is manifestly mentioned in the life of the church (1Co. 10:14-33; 11:20-34) then the focus is not on the nature of the elements, but on body of Christ which the Lord purchased with His sinless shed blood. And which death, and the love behind it, believers are to remember and thus show/declare/proclaim (1Co. 11:26) till He comes by sharing food, "breaking bread" with each other as being members of that body. In contrast to which was that of eating selfishly eating independently, with some being full and others hungry, which effectively was to "shame them which have not," (1Co. 11:21,22) treating them as if they were outcasts, completely contrary to the very thing that they were supposed to be remembering and thus showing. And thus Paul says that in reality they really were not coming together to eat the Lord's Supper, (1Co. 11:20) as such did not effectually recognize/discern the Lord's body as consisting of every believer, but hypocritically took part in it to their own condemnation. (1Co. 11:26-29)
Even if one want to argue that this description does not deny the literalistic understanding of the Lord's supper, the contextual reality is that it is church as the body of Christ that is the focus here (and proceeds into the next chapter) and was not being effectually recognized/discerned. Even the notes to the Catholic NAB states,
It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12).
The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25) - http://www.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11:27#54011027-1
In John 6, which does not even mention the Lord's Supper, RCs emphasize Jn. 6:53,54, invoking it as being as much the absolute imperative that other "very verily" commands convey, yet as such it would exclude all those who reject the literalistic position, which thus is a denial of modern Rome which generally affirms properly baptized Prots as born again (separated) brethren. But as RCs interpret their church differently, which criticizing use when we do so as regards Scripture, there are some who deny what Lumen Gentium affirms, or hold it as non-binding, since in their judgment it contradicts historical teaching. Yet in this case then at least they would be consistent with their use of John 6:53, though inconsistent with Scripture.
Their other common argument is that of Jews who took the Lord literally not being given an explanation otherwise, but which is nothing new, as the Lord let such go one believing that "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19) referred to the physical temple, esp. since He just cleaned house with it, and which misapprehension resulted in that being a charge at His trial.
Moreover, the Lord's reference to water, which was taken to be physical, was never given much of an explanation outside of it springing up to give one eternal life, which in isolation a devout literal thinking cultist could argue would be the result of physically drinking this water.
Yet in response to the query "How can this man give us his flesh to eat," the Lord does give explanation, first by making it analogous to how the Lord Jesus lived by the Father: "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) And as He stated how we are to live is clear: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4) then thus the Lord - once again using metaphor which abounds in John - stated that obeying that word, doing the Father's will was His "meat." "But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:32-34)
And what alone is consistent with Scripture in regards to the two interpretations is that it is by ingesting the word of God, as to "eat them" (Jeremiah 15:16) letting "these sayings sink down into your ears" (Luke 9:44) in faith then one finds life, (Acts 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and lives by the word-made-flesh by living by every word of God, "letting the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom. (Colossians 3:16)
Furthermore, while carnal seekers (which here had come looking for another free physical feeding) once again understood the Lord as speaking of the physical, the Lord further explained,
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (John 6:61-64)
Note that there was nothing in the Lord's words about somehow eating Christ physically yet it not being His actually bloody flesh, which requires the Neoplatonic Cath explanation, but under the purely literal take then the Lord would be offering His actual flesh, which was what the departing Jews found troubling, and thus if the Lord ascended then this flesh would no longer be here to offer. But rather than linking this to the Lord's Supper, which John conspicuously does not do and never mentions the "take eat, this is my body" words seen in the synoptic gospels, instead the Lord speaks that which is consistent with the rest of John and the NT, which is never that of literally physically consuming anything in order to obtain spiritual life, but that the transcendent "words that I speak unto you, they are spirit," by which cannot one how hears them and believes can obtain spiritual life, versus needing a priest and transubstantiated elements to consume. That the use of metaphorical language here alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture is abundantly evident;
Consider first that David distinctly said drinking water was the blood of men, and thus would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.
And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)
To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,
The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)
And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)
While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)
But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)
Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)
Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)
John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
Therefore the metaphorical use of language for eating and drinking is well established, and which the apostles would have been familiar with, and would have understood the Lord's words by, versus as a radical new requirement that contradicted Scripture, and required a metaphysical explanation to justify.
More by God's grace.
Finally, I appreciate your patience and work here, but for devout RCs all must be made to conform to her teaching, no matter how specious, thus the often recourse to bare assertions or spitwads when reproved.
If error is being posted, truth is going to be posted.
If no one ever posts the truth, then how can anyone know the truth and how can error be exposed?
I await the documentation about the infighting over which books were going to be included in the first place.
IOW, you have to work at your salvation to try to attain it.
It's really a shame that so many people are being snowed into thinking that's the way to get to heaven because they are going to find out the hard way someday, that that is wrong.
We are saved THEN sanctified. Only the saved are sanctified, set apart when they are saved.
We cannot be sanctified into salvation.
Are you cross threading there?
To use this verse to say that Jesus spent much of the chapter insisting that His flesh is "meat indeed" is something that Rome has done.
Jesus stated FLATLY; in verse 29; what the REQUIREMENT of GOD was.
To come along later in the same chapter and try to emphasize something about meat is; well; just silly.
Dang!
A bunch of Catholics agreeing about something that Rome came up with!
WHOODA thunk!
Too bad that the book Rome assembled says something else:
John 6:47 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
--Hal9000
And it was magically transmogrified into the newly invented Communion; which is NOT listed at all in Acts 15.
Strange that you'd ask this question and then give Scripture describing what the JEWISH experience had been.
Perhaps a careful reading of Acts 15 can shed light on the answer.
REALLY?
Daily versus annually??
Did the early Catholics have such a POOR attention span that the ritual had to done DAILY or they'd FORGET?
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.