They claimed they were believers, Ruth, but were actually unbelievers. It's just the same with Romanists. They claim to be believers but they are not. They are false brethren just as those who held those heretical beliefs among the congregation of Corinth.  And the reason they weren't waiting for one another is because they were hungry.  Why do you suppose they were hungry?  If we don't understand Paul's alluding to the fact that they had been fasting, then we miss the whole point.  Obviously, he commanded them not to come hungry and to eat at home.  So it wasn't a matter of their being too poor to have food to eat, but that they purposely came hungry, and the reason for that is that they were fasting.  There is not a lick of indication that the Savior commanded anyone to fast before the Supper, and yet to this day, Catholics still do this if even for just an hour before, as if it is some sort of "holier" way of doing it.  Well, this tradition arises from the pagan practices surrounding the perpetual victim of their sacrifices.  Many of the Corinthians were former pagans, and not all of them understood the Gospel properly even if they said they "believed" "it", so they treated the Supper in the same way they treated their previous sacrifices.  Their behavior belied their claims of belief--some among them were walking in heresies which caused the Supper not to be the Lord's Supper.  In other words, for those who clung to these heresies, it no longer was the Supper of Jesus Christ.  So just what supper was it then?  It was a supper of a different kind in their own minds--not the Supper that was intended.  What was it then?  Why is it that Paul admonished them to "flee idolatry" in the very chapter prior to chapter 11 where he rebukes them about their sham of a Supper, even going so far as to remind them of the incident of Baal Peor where the Israelites ate the sacrifices of the dead?

6Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

 7Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

 8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

 9Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

 10Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

 11Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

 12Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

 13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

 14Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 1 Cor. 10


What is Paul's meaning behind "him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall"?  Paul is speaking of falling away into IDOLATRY, the same kind of idolatry committed by the Israelites.  He is telling them to examine just what it is that they believed lest it be idolatry.  Why, why is Paul saying all this, then in the very next chapter he talks about the heresies going on in regard to the Supper.  This is not just some disjointed speeches Paul is giving here.  There is a clear and methodical outline to what Paul is saying, and the theme of what he is saying is "FLEE IDOLATRY". 

Furthermore, why is it that Jesus Christ in His Revelation mentions this very incident of Baal Peor, Balaam and Balak in one of the letters?  Then in that very same letter to Pergamum He speaks rather of an invisible Manna--that is, as opposed to that of eating the sacrifices of the dead, to that of committing fornication with another "gospel" which is the Doctrine of Balaam?  So yes, as soon as the Gospel began to be preached among the Gentiles, there were Gentile "believers" who viewed the Gospel as yet another version of the Mystery Cult--of the eating of the sacrifices of the dead.  This is the very reason that Rome is called MYSTERY BABYLON, MOTHER OF ALL HARLOTS.  Did not the princes of Israel lie with such harlots connected to the eating of the sacrifices of the dead?  It's all connected, from beginning to end.  Temple prostitution was connected with the eating of the sacrifices of the dead, and this type of religion was called Mystery Cultism, and the sacrifice of the dead, was the dead god who was their perpetual victim because those gods were subject to death, but they were believed to reincarnate.  This reincarnation could not take place without the queen of heaven.  Why was the perpetual victim subject to death?  He was subject to death because he represented the SUN.  Mystery Cultism is SOLAR WORSHIP.  Consider what you see when you look at a monstrance, when a priest raises that disk from the belly of the cup, showing the rising sun.  Yes, the dots are all there, we just need to connect them. 

RESPONSE TO POST BELOW:

Well, apparently the false believer who had fornicated with his father's mother proved he was not yet washed, not yet sanctified, and not yet justified until he repented.  And why did Paul say this:

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.   1 Cor. 15

He certainly was recognizing the possibility of those among them that had "believed" "in vain", that is, that they had an empty (vain) belief,  just like the one spoken of by James.  And then there is this:


4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

 10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

 11Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

 12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?  1 Cor. 15

No true believer would say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but apparently there were some among them that believed this.  And given the fact that Paul had to repeat the circumstances of Jesus Christ's resurrection, their saying there was no resurrection included the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  These were FALSE believers, who believed something other than the Gospel that had been preached to them by Paul, choosing to believe those false apostles which Paul would address in his second letter to them.

Next, we must ask ourselves why these false believers who professed Jesus Christ, who ate the Supper, did not believe Jesus Christ resurrected.  The answer is very simple.  Their old god(s) never resurrected--they reincarnated.  Therefore, these false believers believed in a different Jesus Christ--one who did not resurrect from the dead, but one who reincarnated--in the Supper elements, just as their old god(s) had done.  This is evident by the portion of Paul's writing speaking about their question about what form one would have who resurrects (15:35).  And this was just after Paul said this:

34Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.  (v. 34) 

All of that congregation were professed believers of Jesus Christ, but not all of them were genuine believers.  Some believed in another "christ" manufactured according to their old traditions.  There is plenty of evidence in their letters to show this.  This is why Paul rebuked them by saying "some have not the knowledge of God".  A true believer does not just know the I AM, but he is known by the I AM.  It is only those who say, Lord, Lord, but do not know Him to whom He says, Go away, I never knew you. 

Now Romanism has--so to speak--the best of both worlds.  They do not deny the resurrection on the surface, something which is rife within Romanism--claiming a truth, but belying that truth by their tradition, just as the Pharisees did.  By having retained the tradition of reincarnation, this is tantamount to denying the resurrection.  This is the very reason that Romanists dwell so much on a still-suffering-on-the cross "Christ".   As long as Romanists continue to believe in the Supper elements being the actual flesh, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ, they shall remain at the cross where only death was.  They shall not be able to get beyond the grave to the Resurrection. 


Edited 10 times by ryld 11/20/11 8:11 PM.