Amos 3.3, a thoughtful verse: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Philip James

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
4,276
3,092
113
Brandon
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
But those who partook of it clearly understood that it was purely symbolic

Really? On what do you base that assertion?

Rather, perhaps they understood it as the fulfillment of this:

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.


Certainly Ignatius of Anticoch who learned these things directly from the apostles and was made bishop of the Church in Antioch understood it this way.

'They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.' (Letter to the Smyrneans)

And Ignatius is commended by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna:

'The letters of Ignatius which were sent to us by him, and others as
many as we had by us, we send unto you, according as ye gave charge;
the which are subjoined to this letter; from which ye will be able to
gain great advantage. For they comprise faith and endurance and every
kind of edification, which pertaineth unto our Lord. ' (to the Philipians)

And of course Smyrna is commended by our Lord:

To the angel of the church in Smyrna, write this: " 'The first and the last, who once died but came to life, says this:

"I know your tribulation and poverty, but you are rich.

Peace!
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Really? On what do you base that assertion?
It is really quite simple.

There was Jesus physically in the flesh, taking the unleavened bread of the Passover meal and presenting it to his disciples as His body. There could be absolutely no doubt that they saw it as SYMBOLIC of His body, just as they saw the fruit of the vine in the cup as SYMBOLIC of His blood. There was no cannibalism involved here, just spiritual truth.

The RCC perverted this and tried to deceive its adherents that somehow a fallible human priest could magically take *the host* (not unleavened bread but a sacrificial victim) and convert it into Christ, and then sacrifice Him on an altar!
 

RainAndIceCream

Active Member
May 26, 2020
223
166
43
I woke up like this
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3.3

Food for thought...
3 Shall two walk together, except they have agreed?
I would say, no. If I am walking by myself would I walk in the company of someone lets say, dressed as a Satanist while being very vocal about their contempt for God? No.

I will say, at least in my observation of reading the whole chapter of Amos 3, that it does well to destroy the prosperity gospel under discussion at this time elsewhere. Was that on purpose, or just God's quirky sense of humor?
 

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,232
113
North America
3 Shall two walk together, except they have agreed?
I would say, no. If I am walking by myself would I walk in the company of someone lets say, dressed as a Satanist while being very vocal about their contempt for God? No.

I will say, at lesat in my observation of reading the whole chapter of Amos 3, that it does well to destroy the prosperity gospel under discussion at this time elsewhere. Was that on purpose, or just God's quirky sense of humor?
@RainAndIceCream The verse can be looked at contextually; and as one which stands on its own in quotation it is very memorable also. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RainAndIceCream