What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?

but God Incarnate entered into our time:
The Resurrections was not before the Crucifixion

and there is a crystal clear on when the NC went into effect:
the NC was not effect prior to a death

and as the OP asked:

What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?​

Can you give a clear answer?
Jesus made real his death on the cross at the Last Supper.
 
answered again
We are saying that the contents of the cup is not the literal Jesus blood of the covenant.
We are saying that contents of the cup is represents Jesus blood of the covenant.
I'm curious to know your position on the bodily resurrection of Christ? Literal or a metaphor?

If you do believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, despite it being unsupportable scientifically, could you not apply the same to covenantal cup?
 
So before He made His death real on the cross it was already real. Do you actually read what you post? Oh I get it you mean his death on the cross was only symbolic and not real?
Yes, Jesus can make his death on the cross real at the Last Supper.
 
you accidently said something true
"Jesus made real his death on the cross at the Last Supper."
Because at the Last Supper it was symbolic!!

Thank you for that!!!

If the LS never happened: the plan of salvation would have continue on with His REAL death on the Cross
No, it was real in the sense that it was truly his blood that he shed on the cross that was the content of the cup at the Last Supper.
 
thank you again;
you are right ; it truly was His blood shed on the Cross with His death.
The Last Supper was not truly His blood (in the real sense)

That is why nothing salvific happened at the Last Supper
It was truly his blood in the real sense at the Last Supper. That agrees with Jesus words, "...this is my blood of the covenant..."
 
thank you again;
you are right ; it truly was His blood shed on the Cross with His death.
The Last Supper was not truly His blood (in the real sense)

That is why nothing salvific happened at the Last Supper
Do you celebrate the Last Supper as per Jesus instruction and if so why? What important meaning does it 'represent' to you?
 
It was truly his blood in the real sense at the Last Supper. That agrees with Jesus words, "...this is my blood of the covenant..."
so was the "real" blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins at the Last Supper or the Cross?
so was the "real" blood poured out as a propitiatory sacrifice at the Last Supper or the Cross?
 
are you testing ME?
Are you pretending you have no idea of my beliefs ?
How many 100s of times I have referred to Jesus as God-Incarnate.
I have said NOTHING to lead a thinking person to believe otherwise..


STEP UP and stop acting like this is your first day here.
It is just a diversion, a fake out, an attempt to cover up their lack of authority and there rubbish post 41
Yes, Jesus can make his death on the cross real at the Last Supper.
Rubbish. It can not be real before it happens. So his death on the cross was fake, not real. Gotcha.
 
Matthew 13:33
Another parable spake he unto them;
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven,
which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal,
till the whole was leavened
.​
Do you celebrate the Last Supper as per Jesus instruction and if so why? What important meaning does it 'represent' to you?
No; I do as Paul said
written to the Bride, not the Great whore of Revelation
-----------The Feast of Unleavened Bread--------------

1Cor.5:8
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,
neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness;
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.​

Know ye not Stella;
Passover was part of that Feast
There was no "Leaven" in the words of Christ

Jn.6:68
Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.​

Rome is not invited
eat of the "Bread Leavened" by the woman;
and you will die

that's the reason Paul wrote;
and he wasn't speaking of having lunch with the folks at work
nor Sunday dinner with the family
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world,
or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters;
for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company,
if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator,
or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner;
with such an one no not to eat.​

why would Paul say that
Jude tells us

Jude 1:12
These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you,
feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water,
carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit,
twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame;
wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever
.
 
think really clear on this:
If the Last Supper did not happen:
would the plan of salvation be different?
IOW Is the Last Supper required for anyone to be saved?
Would the plan of salvation be different? Yes.

Required for salvation? Well it didn't seem to be required for the thief on the cross. So no, not absolutely required.

The Eucharist is the new manna from heaven. The OC manna physical nourishment for the Jewish people, the NC manna provides for our spiritual nourishment. So it is very essential for our journey to the heavenly Zion.
 
think really clear on this:
If the Last Supper did not happen:
would the plan of salvation be different?
IOW Is the Last Supper required for anyone to be saved?
This strikes me as a bit like the perennial conundrum Protestants have. Was the arc of the Covenant even necessary? Was Mary's role in the economy of salvation even necessary? Was the Last Supper even necessary? Protestant doctrine seems reliant on negating really important moments of Scripture.
 
This strikes me as a bit like the perennial conundrum Protestants have. Was the arc of the Covenant even necessary? Was Mary's role in the economy of salvation even necessary? Was the Last Supper even necessary? Protestant doctrine seems reliant on negating really important moments of Scripture.
No this shows the perennial problem of the false claims and beliefs of the RCC. Then they get upset when the flaws in their arguments are revealed. The post is not negating really important moments of Scripture at all, that is a false claim. But no surprise.
 
Back
Top