Commandments should not be followed ...

[BRB]

When I stand before my Lord He will not ask me from which camp I have come.

And my answer will not change. To accept, trust, embrace what is He said He came into this world to do (and not to do; Jn. 3:17; 12:46-48), and that He accomplished it perfectly. And upon that belief it is written that God Himself, in response, justifies the believer, “as a gift,” “by His grace,” through the power of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

Actually your Lord will expect you & all] to belong to his Church. Christ always called men publicly to become Disciples in his Church. ‘Individual’ Christianity is not a credible calling from the Lord. We are either disciples … or we don’t belong to Christ.

Monks living in isolation are not as effective as when orgainzed in social communities. The Church learned this early on. An idle mind is the devil’s workshop … so the saying goes

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

What I find very interesting is that the Bible says we will be judged according to our deeds (i.e.you will reap what you sow) and yet whenever the Bible explicitly discusses what that involves, it rarely talks about rewards:

John 5:28-29

28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; (those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Were Teflon here he should accuse you of “ripping the verses from their context.”

Back up to Christ’s “shift” in v24:**John 5:24-27

24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.**Christ clearly says that the believer ***”does not come into ***[krisis], that is, judgment, damnation, condemnation.”

Will the believer be in attendance at the judgment? He will be; however, ”he does not come into condemnation, but has passed out of death into life.”

IOW, his commonwealth, or citizenship prior to, and, at the time of the judgment, is in heaven (Php 3:20).25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.This further squares with Paul (Eph 2:5; Col 2:13), and Luke (Lk 15).26 “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.Earlier, in v21, Christ asserts that the Father has given Him the authority to give life to whom He wishes, as well as to execute judgment (Jn 5:21; cf 1 Cor 15:45).

mikeledes:

Before this judgement seat, both the righteous and the wicked stand. Christ the Judge then lists the good deeds performed by the righteous. Then he hands out their rewards… oh … wait, what rewards? I’m not denying that God gives rewards, which can also be given to Christians while still on earth. But when the Bible says “judged according to works” and actually discusses the scenario, it makes no mention of rewards. It only talks about eternal life or eternal damnation.

Mt 25:34 squares with Paul’s teaching concerning the timing of the sheep’s selection by the Father, as well as Paul’s teaching concerning one of the purposes of the sheep’s selection.

The teaching of the two intersect in many places (man’s deadness in sin, the necessity of the Father’s drawing to Christ those whom He gave to the Son in eternity past; the necessity and sufficiency of grace and faith in God’s testimony concerning the Son cf Jn 1, 5, 6, 10; Rom 9, Eph 2, etc.) thus reinforcing Paul’s assertion that it’s Christ who taught Him the gospel.

I’ve said it before, and say again that the Lord certainly expects His saints to do good works; He also expects them to know that it’s not those good works which provide their entrance into His kingdom—but grace.

Moreover, Christ is a far greater Savior, than I am a sinner (Heb 7:25; cf 1 Cor 1:21).

 

[mikeledes]

None of it applies to me, Michael. I’m afraid you’re not going to be able to put this guy in any theological box. Not that I haven’t learned a great deal from both sides of the arguments. But I am not required to identify with any theological labels. When I stand before my Lord He will not ask me from which camp I have come.

It really doesn’t matter whether you consider yourself Arminian or not. Once you consider faith a matter of free choice, all of the Calvinist arguments against libertarian freedom and salvation apply to you as well.

I know you want to lasso me into discussion on those issues, but I find your asking me what it means to “believe in the Lord” to be of far weightier concern. To believe in Him is to accept, trust, embrace what He has promised through Christ and that He has the power to deliver, perfectly, according to His grace, that which He has promised.

This was demonstrated by Abraham when, based solely on God’s promise to him concerning Isaac, he believed he would receive his son back from the dead through resurrection (Heb. 11:17-19). He believed “in” the Lord way back in Gen. 15:6. He believed He would do what he promised and had the power to accomplish it.

Prior to Gen. 15:6 it was the Lord who always approached Abraham, and Abraham responded. But in Gen. 15:6 a phenomenal thing occurred: In faith, Abraham turned and approached the Lord, and the Lord responded.

Far more than Abraham we have this divine testimony given directly to us preserved in Holy Writ:Rom. 3:21 "But now apart from the law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all sinned and {continually} fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"Your next question will be what it means to believe “in” Christ. And my answer will not change. To accept, trust, embrace what is He said He came into this world to do (and not to do; Jn. 3:17; 12:46-48), and that He accomplished it perfectly. And upon that belief it is written that God Himself, in response, justifies the believer, “as a gift,” “by His grace,” through the power of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

What did Abel, Noah, and all of the saints living under the Old Covenant believe in?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

Re-read Paul on difficulties he experienced keeping the Jewish laws. Christ released Paul from legalistic Judaism … and freed him via spirit of Christ.

Ive read Paul a few times. Lets get down to brass tacks, my friend. Freeing someone of the Law does not free them TO break the commandments. It frees them from the bondage of sin which, apart from the grace merited upon the cross, we are unable to keep. Big difference.

Paul didn’t desire to break the Big 10. But, he did anyway.

Ambiguous claim - are you speaking of before his conversion or afterward. If the latter, please provide proof of your claim.

Once he became Christian he was freed from the penalty of his sin. He was not free to break the law with impunity, – but, he now was under grace of Christ and not Moses.

Not free to break the law in what sense? Is there an eternal consequence to breaking the law with impunity? If not, then you have said nothing with your “he was not free to break the law”. And to sum up your position, your point in regards to Christian conduct and whether we should follow the commandments is …what? Yes, No or irrelevent?

Christ gave us a new standard to follow … the Beatitudes. Paul picks up on these new Christian standards of morality … and teaches these rather than the OT Mosaic legalism of Pharases/Saducees.

Yup - and guess what? That new standard is HARDER to follow than the Commandments alone. Not only cant we actually commit adultery, we have to avoid even looking at a woman with lust. Christ did not “do away” with the law from the perspective that the law defines moral conduct. The difference now is that we have the Holy Spirit to empower us to live as Christ lived.

Again … the OT law is good, but only to the degree it points up our sins. Christianity is not founded on legalism … but, grace. Christians don’t desire to be lawbreakers … they are generally the most moral/forgiving persons in any given society. But, they think first of NT rules of Christ … rather than OT Mosaic code.

You need to focus on translating theology into something workable, practical and relevant - otherwise its useless. How does your articulation of the fact that we “think first” of NT rules change our actual behavior in relation to the 10 Commandments.

 

[ellammcg]

Not free in what sense - is there an eternal consequence to breaking the law with impunity?

My pastor discussed this issue last night. He said that we run the risk of our consciences being seared and having our dearest possessions, family members, health, and even life taken from us but that there are no eternal repercussions except loss of rewards (i.e. crowns to lay at Christ’s feet). Oh, and where you live in heaven could be affected as well.

 

[Philthy]

I had more I wished to say in this paragraph but ran out of time…

That new standard is HARDER to follow than the Commandments alone. Not only cant we actually commit adultery, we have to avoid even looking at a woman with lust. Christ did not “do away” with the law from the perspective that the law defines moral conduct. He did away with the dietary laws and what not, and Scripture is explicit on this: “It is not what enters you which defiles you, but what comes out from within you which defiles you. He thus declared all foods clean.”(cf Mark 7:19-22) He then goes on to explain how those things which come from within - envy, greed, lust etc - which defile us. Guess what? In one sentence he is abolishing the “law” (dietary, etc) and in the same breath he is upholding the validity of the “law” (10 Commandments) as a rule of life. The NT has plenty of examples where the Mosaic dietary laws, circumcision etc are no longer binding on Christians. Where, ever, is it even hinted at that we are now "free to break the 10 commandments? Nowhere. In fact, the NT is chock full of repeated admonitions to “live a life worthy of your calling” and the big 10 are repeatedly reaffirmed anytime they are discussed.
No, we are not “free” to sin because of what Christ has done. The difference now is that we have the Holy Spirit to empower us to live as Christ lived.

 

[BRB]

new standard is HARDER to follow than the Commandments alone. Not only cant we actually commit adultery, we have to avoid even looking at a woman with lust. Christ did not “do away” with the law from the perspective that the law defines moral conduct. The difference now is that we have the Holy Spirit to empower us to live as Christ lived.

.

Indeed. No dispute with this observation.

Suddenly those law loving Jews were faced with NT moral standards that were impossibly difficult to keep. Christ wanted to shake the ‘legal tree’ and show man that living w/o sin was not in the cards.

Except, now Christ tells them he offers solution to their/our sin dilemma. Not what they wanted to hear. Not the King they wished to reign over them. Christ desired love/mercy shown on the Sabbath. Jews preferred traditional laws of Moses instead.

We must forgive in order to be forgiven. We must be merciful if we expect to receive mercy, etc… etc. To the extent we judge others … by that measure we will be judged.

So if we hold others [Protestants] to keeping all the Mosaic law [laws we can’t keep ourselves] as taskmasters … God will judge us under that same law. If we show love/mercy and beg forgiveness of fellowman as disciples of Christ … we will be judged under grace.

So says Paul/James … so says Christ. So it is written, so it will be done.

 

[Teflon93]

I have no idea, I’m not a “Fundamentalist” as you define it on this thread. Maybe you could ask one in your neighborhood. Or ask your wife, wasn’t she involved in one of those churches you describe?

Yes, she was, and thankfully is now in the Church Christ founded.

Personally, I have the Scriptures, they’re sufficient.

Not based on your inability to respond to Matthew 5, Matthew 25, and others. The Scriptures are certainly sufficient, but your interpretation is incoherent, inconsistent, and utterly lacking.

Just as the Ethiopian said it would be.

If you examine my posts I’ve answered them all.

You most certainly have not.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=612

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3949026&postcount=595

But you’re like the Pharisees who kept asking the blind man, in unbelief, exactly how he received his sight.

I am sorry for your disability—perhaps you could have somebody read the sentences to the left of the question marks in the posts above, and the others you’ve ignored, such as my repeatedly asking whether or not you believe Christ to be one in being with God. Do you?

Condemning it? I merely asked the question about being a mortal sin. Why always so defensive? You seem extraordinarily bitter.

Perhaps the person reading my posts to you is emoting overmuch.

If one goes fishing rather than Sunday mass, wouldn’t that be in the eyes of your church a “mortal sin?” If he decides to sleep in because he stayed out late drinking (I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood) then I would say that’s full knowledge and consent. Wouldn’t you?

I would, provided they knew Sunday Mass was obligatory and missing it without sound cause a sin.

I don’t know why you think one needs to grow up in a Catholic neighborhood to know people who stay out late drinking. I live in the Bible Belt and there is no shortage of Baptists who do the same down here, particularly children of pastors.

You’ve got millions upon millions of professing Catholics out there dead in mortal sin, based on its own law(s), plus the Mosaic law it imposes upon its devotees.

What, they’re not keeping kosher too?

You’ll have to show me the evidence for your “millions and millions” number, particularly since you’ll also have to show that none of these got to Confession either. Not to mention the “full knowledge and consent” thing.

No wonder you’re so terrible at identifying the saved!

It’s all very legalistic (by nature), but what amazes me is that based on your many tirades that make up your posts, you seem to despise and mock any kind of disciplined lifestyle. Is this the fuel behind your extreme bitterness?

In addition to not reading my posts and not reading the Catechism, you haven’t read my profile. I’m an Air Force Academy graduate and spent 9 years in the Air Force. I seriously doubt you’re going to out-discipline me, especially given your histrionic and undisciplined use of the English language.

Whoops, there I go with hate-filled diatribes again!

It is true that legalism creates a world of contradictions. It puts itself under many laws, rules and regulations, but then creates all sorts of loopholes to live around them. Very fascinating to examine. This was the very thing Jesus confronted the Pharisees about regarding their traditions (one of the favorite words of Catholicism).

You would know all about legalism, not having the benefit of the freedom offered through the sacraments.

Tef., in the end I will stand before the judgment seat of Christ on my own. The value of my works will be revealed as through fire, and those of value will receive reward. But I myself have been saved by grace alone, through faith alone, through the One who took my judgment in my stead. All in accordance with a substitutionary Sacrifice. Oh, but you don’t believe in that concept.

It is not what I believe which you had better worry about, brother.

And in the end, Tef., you too will be standing alone. You’ll have no priest, Pope or prelate at your side. Divine grace, or the rejection of it, determines which judgment one will stand, Christ’s for works examined for reward, or the White Throne where one’s eternal estate has already been determned.

What makes you think I’ll be standing alone? Haven’t you read Matthew 25 yet, after all the references?

As Christ notes there, works of love will be what determines our fate. I hope that love will be awakened within you, brother, and that you will be standing with me on that glorious day.

 

[Teflon93]

You’re a new convert, don’t be fooled by the claims of Catholic unity.

I won’t—since we all recognize the authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth and have the Catechism to bind us, we’ve got the real thing.

Remember, Sandusky—envy is a deadly sin.

Don’t be fooled by the claims of Catholic unity.

Congratulations on your discovery of CTRL-C and CTRL-V. Next we shall work on quote tags.

I’ve read that exchange; I would suggest that you consider that what you said, and the conclusion you’ve reached is of such absurdity that moondweller doesn’t deem it worthy of a response, and has chosen instead to leave you caressing your illusion, all the while chuckling to himself everytime you reintroduce it—I know I do.

Really? I’m wounded.

Here’s the reasoning:

1. God gave the Ten Commandments to man (Exodus 20)
2. Christ and God are one in being.
3. Therefore, the Ten Commandments are Christ’s as well.

Note also that this inference is borne out by Christ’s own testimony, where he advises keeping the Commandments to enter eternal life (Matthew 19) and further reveals the command to love.

Thus, the answer to the OP, once again, is “We are to follow the Commandments.”

But don’t worry—I’ll keep chuckling at your inability to respond.

What I know is that I have all of the truth God wants His people, and thus His Church to have recorded in His scripture, that I am saved, and that I cannot lose that salvation—according to the testimony, all of those things are true.

If the testimony is your flawed interpretation of Scripture, I’d advise you to avoid sin at all costs, my friend, lacking the sacraments you need to save you from such things.

Perhaps invincible ignorance will protect you. I certainly hope so, since you’re going to owe me a beer on the other side.

 

[Teflon93]

Originally Posted by sandusky
I’ve read that exchange; I would suggest that you consider that what you said, **and the conclusion you’ve reached is of such absurdity that moondweller doesn’t deem it worthy of a response, **and has chosen instead to leave you caressing your illusion, all the while chuckling to himself everytime you reintroduce it—I know I do.

tell me how absurd it is to respond to my question of whom I should believe Paul or moondweller?

Paul says Love fulfills the Law

Moon says faith fulfills the Law

Moon aslo cant answer me on how his faith is any different than the demons:shrug:

You don’t understand, Odell—per Sandusky we’re simply to presume that whenever Moondweller doesn’t address a question it is because he has such a devastating riposte prepared that we are better off not being favored with a response.

In Texas, they call that posture “all hat, no cowboy.”

 

[Teflon93]

No, Paul was ‘fast tracked’ by Christ at a later date. Paul’s Christian education was unique — but no less genuine or apostolic than received by the other 11.

Indeed, he appears to be the 12th man … the one needed to bring Christianity to the gentiles.

Sure—Scripture please.

 

[Teflon93]

Very perceptive. Protestants uniformly love Paul’s letters and theology.

Catholics on the otherhand, seem to experience angst accepting Paul as the equal of the other 11… plus Matthias.

Catholics, are the other hand, are celebrating the Pauline Year, and canonized the Apostle as a saint.

Why, we even continue to name our children after him, and sometimes even pray to him.

Protestants don’t love ALL of St Paul—I’ve posted many passages here which are on the bottom of the Protestant wish list, Paul calling for the unity of the Church, love, warning us not to approach the Eucharist unworthily, etc.

We have no trouble accepting St Paul—what we do have trouble accepting is Protestants anachronistally distorting Paul to justify the heresy of the people they REALLY admire.

 

[Teflon93]

This is Paul’s message in a nutshell. Come on Catholics … lets get back on the target of Christian message, the spirit which gives life. The legalistic law has been removed like a monkey from our backs.

Disobedience is the monkey very much on your backs, which you have turned upon the Church Christ founded and its sacraments.

You need to read St Paul’s epistles, written in the cause of unity and love.

It’s the Pauline Year in the Catholic Church—feel free to come to Mass and learn about St Paul!

 

[Teflon93]

Please show quotes from your “non-truncated” Bible where it literally states that one’s love is credited (reckoned) to him, by God, as righteousness?

Why, Moondweller, that’s extremely legalistic language for you to use.

Why don’t you simplify it for the non-lawyers?

 

[Teflon93]

Re-read Paul on difficulties he experienced keeping the Jewish laws. Christ released Paul from legalistic Judaism … and freed him via spirit of Christ.

You may wish to reread him yourself—St Paul’s sin before conversion was a lack of love. The trouble with the Law was that it did not expose this as a sin.

Paul didn’t desire to break the Big 10. But, he did anyway. Once he became Christian he was freed from the penalty of his sin. He was not free to break the law with impunity, – but, he now was under grace of Christ and not Moses.

This is a very Manichaean view. God gave Moses the Law, which St Paul rightly describes as “glorious”. He did not view the Jews as being under “the grace of Moses”; Moses wasn’t God, nor did he make the Law up himself. If you make it to heaven, you may be seeing Moses—don’t lie about him!

Christ gave us a new standard to follow … the Beatitudes. Paul picks up on these new Christian standards of morality … and teaches these rather than the OT Mosaic legalism of Pharases/Saducees.

As noted many times above, St Paul still advised keeping the Commandments, and used them as the yardstick of sin. While we’re on the beatitudes, perhaps you’d care to respond to this from Matthew 5 (Moondweller won’t):

43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

What is the reward for loving as Christ commands us to do? What is the penalty if we do not?

Again … the OT law is good, but only to the degree it points up our sins. Christianity is not founded on legalism … but, grace.

Okay, I’m not going to post the Catechism again. Look it up yourself, then show us where the Church teaches legalism rather than salvation through grace.

Christians don’t desire to be lawbreakers … they are generally the most moral/forgiving persons in any given society. But, they think first of NT rules of Christ … rather than OT Mosaic code.

Which is why they don’t teach the Ten Commandments in Sunday school…hey, waitaminute!

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

I won’t—since we all recognize the authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth and have the Catechism to bind us, we’ve got the real thing.

Remember, Sandusky—envy is a deadly sin.

And, if I envied you at all, I would be guilty of that sin.

Teflon93:

Congratulations on your discovery of CTRL-C and CTRL-V. Next we shall work on quote tags.

You are clever.

Teflon93:

Really? I’m wounded.

**Here’s the reasoning:

1. God gave the Ten Commandments to man (Exodus 20)
2. Christ and God are one in being.
3. Therefore, the Ten Commandments are Christ’s as well.**

Thank you for telling me what I’m sure I’ve known for much longer than you’ve known it.

Teflon93:

Note also that this inference is borne out by Christ’s own testimony, where he advises keeping the Commandments to enter eternal life (Matthew 19) and further reveals the command to love.

He certainly told the young ruler to keep the commandments to enter eternal life; however, the young ruler was self-deceived in thinking that he had.

Perhaps you’re not and have kept them perfectly; I don’t know.

Teflon93:

Thus, the answer to the OP, once again, is “We are to follow the Commandments.”

I’ve never said it wasn’t.

Teflon93:

But don’t worry—I’ll keep chuckling at your inability to respond.

And I at your inability to comprehend a response.

Teflon93:

If the testimony is your flawed interpretation of Scripture, I’d advise you to avoid sin at all costs, my friend, lacking the sacraments you need to save you from such things.

My interpretation of scripture is accurate enough to know that I have eternal life, and that eternal life once given is not rescinded, and that sacrament-keeping is not a means to eternal life,
but grace.

Teflon93:

Perhaps invincible ignorance will protect you.

IMO, the notion of invincible ignorance is, in itself, ignorant in that it falsely assumes that God, who created all things, and who upholds all things by the word of His power, is unable to ensure the hearing of the Gospel by those He has chosen to save (Acts 16:9-10; 18:9-10), while at the same time, withholding it from others (Acts 16:6-8).

Teflon93:

I certainly hope so, since you’re going to owe me a beer on the other side.

If you’re ever coming to the Los Angeles area, let me know ahead of time; I’ll give you my number and, if my schedule permits, buy you one then—provided you get your anger under control.

 

[Teflon93]

If you’re ever coming to the Los Angeles area, let me know ahead of time; I’ll give you my number and, if my schedule permits, buy you one then—provided you get your anger under control.

You had better get your tendency to bear false witness under control—the Commandments are still the yardstick of sin, you know.

 

[guanophore]

Very perceptive. Protestants uniformly love Paul’s letters and theology.

Catholics on the otherhand, seem to experience angst accepting Paul as the equal of the other 11… plus Matthias.

Really? How do you see that?

This is Paul’s message in a nutshell. Come on Catholics … lets get back on the target of Christian message, the spirit which gives life. The legalistic law has been removed like a monkey from our backs.

It is not Catholics that are purporting that we are under law, or that it is anything but the life giving Spirit that enables us to fulfill the Law through the Love of Christ, which is at work within us to will and to do HIs good pleasure. Catholics are not “legalistic” about sin, but we do call it what it is, and we don’t pretend that Paul does not mean what he said when he lists all the violations of the commandments, and states that persons who do such things DO NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM.

 

[sandusky]

How is it we’ve never met and yet you know me. Must be the bond of unity we have in the Spirit and our exceeding joy of the grace of God in the Person and work of Christ.

Amen.

 

[Teflon93]

we don’t pretend that Paul does not mean what he said when he lists all the violations of the commandments, and states that persons who do such things DO NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM.

That’s an important passage, Guanophore, which those of us who love St Paul surely wish to see again:

13": For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

“14”: For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

“15”: But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

“16”: This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

“17”: For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

“18”: But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

“19”:** Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

“20”: Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

“21”: Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. **

Why, these even resemble the Ten Commandments!

Is St Paul saying that those who violate the Commandments shall not enter into eternal life?

“22”: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

“23”: Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

And here are the virtues we are to display.

This is very similar to the Catechism passages I posted earlier in this thread.

No wonder the Catholic Church is celebrating the Pauline Year, given how his teachings have informed our theology and practice.

Such as the Eucharist, another of Christ’s commandments which must be followed lest we have no life within us:

1 Corinthians 11:

23": For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

“24”: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

“25”: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

“26”: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

“27”: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

“28”: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

“29”:** For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body**.

“30”: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.