What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?
- Thread starter 1Thess521
- Start date
Paul says they are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” According to Numbers 35:27, Deuteronomy 21:8-9, 22:8, Ezekiel 35:6 and elsewhere in Scripture, to be “guilty of blood” means you are guilty of shedding innocent blood in murder. This is not the language of pure symbolism. This is the language of real presence.
All you can do is evade and deny. Thanks.
like j. kelly, you are also mere man.
but, i would give credence to what kelly writes than yours.
If you kill anyone you are guilty and there was a consequence. But you are trying to justify your false beliefs and bring in another topic. Jesus was using symbolic language not literal. Jesus would NEVER tell the apostles to break commandments which your view has them doing. Jesus said:
Matt 5
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Ps 14:1+
To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?
Lev 17:14
For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Just a few verses concerning not eating human flesh or consuming blood of any creature. Man is a creature. The law is here until heaven and earth disappear. Therefore, Jesus would not mean it literally. He meant it symbolically. He would not make cannibals out of the apostles as that would be breaking the law and then He would no longer be the spotless lamb.
I am not interested in your blood guilt as that is just you trying to divert and cover up your false RC beliefs.
I have answered all your questions and points that are not diversions. It is you once again bearing false witness against me. Break one law you break them all. If Jesus broke one law that would mean He broke them all. He did not break one law.
It is you who evades and denies the truth.
I have never said I was anything other than mere woman. I don't care if you do or not, I will not be responsible for your ignoring God's word on judgement day nor will the other non RC posters here, it will all be on your head.
yes, jesus will never tell anyone to break the commandments. when he said 'eat flesh and drink blood', he knew the symbolic meaning in those times as 'persecuting or assaulting anyone' (Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16). His jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” As you imply, Jesus never encouraged sin and maybe another reason why the Jews knew his words are literal, not symbolic.
Yep so the real presence is an RC fallacy, glad we finally agree.
dingoling.
Well-known member
[[
do you not know this was all those
"handwritings of Ordnances"
that were Grevious to be born that Christ freed you of;
it was not breaking any of the Commandments
ding;
how many times did you say you had read the Scriptures
is it up tp 60-65-70 by now
"And he (Peter) said unto them,
Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing
for a man that is a Jew to keep company,
or come unto one of another nation;
but God hath shewed me that I should not call
any man common or unclean.
29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying,"
do you not know this was all those
"handwritings of Ordnances"
that were Grevious to be born that Christ freed you of;
it was not breaking any of the Commandments
ding;
how many times did you say you had read the Scriptures
is it up tp 60-65-70 by now
Last edited:
dingoling.
Well-known member
Acts 10:13-15, "Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” "
Jesus said, "...this is my body....this is my blood of the covenant..." What God has made clean, you must not call profane.
Really. What commandments are those? I have read acts 10. God always changed the food commandments, as He was allowed to do. First we were only meant to be herbivores, then he allowed the eating of meat after the flood. The food had not been blessed for idols. God had made the food clean which you seem to not see.
Please show where God ever allowed man to eat another man? They are totally different things.
God was revealing to Peter a fact which Peter was ignoring that under the NC we are equals. He could dine with Cornelius and his family.
The Jewish people have always killed certain animals to eat since the flood, so it is not breaking a commandment to kill animals for food.
Last edited:
i said literal not symbolic as the jewish listeners understood it.
Yep I know but you did not prove your false claim. They would have understood it as symbolic not literal.
'Declaring Himself constituted a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. (Emphasis added)'... The Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 1
Really it is not his own body at all it was symbolic. Council of Trent just men, waste of time. Let us read what scripture says about Jesus and Melchizedek. Jesus was not a levite nor was Melchizedek. The thing is that they both changed the priesthood. This passage is confirming Jesus as a priest and also please note no need for daily sacrifices. He offered himself once and that was it. Nothing about bread and wine becoming his real body and blood to be consumed by cannibals at all.
Hebrews 7
11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.
23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
But I am sure you priests are mention in verse 28 they are weak and they need to offer sacrifices for their sins which makes them unclean.
A new day
Super Member
What you failed to notice in the chapter was that peter didn't actually kill and eat any of the animals that were in the sheet. In the context, God was showing peter that he should not think of the gentiles as inferior, but that the gospel message was for them, just as it was for the jews. Peter correctly understood the vision and the significance of the gentiles receiving salvation too.
In the OT God promised that through the messiah that the whole world would be blessed. The gospel message is the blessing God promised from the beginning.
As for food being kosher, and in regard to the rcc wafer
Mark 7:18-23
“Are you still so dull?” He asked. “Do you not understand? Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.
The above passages, show that the wafer rc's chew and swallow every sunday, has the reputation of wisdom in the rcc, but lacks any value in curbing self-indulgence.
It is sad to see how desperate RCs are to prove their false beliefs and how they misuse or ignore scripture.
RayneBeau
Well-known member
And what "authority" do you have to make your "declaration" about the poster?
RayneBeau
Well-known member
The bottom line of what is "really happening" today in the RCC, is that this Roman Catholic "sacrament" of the "Last Supper" is basically just one out of seven of the Roman Catholic Church's spiritual activities they provide which also includes Roman Catholic baptism, penance, confirmation, etc., but the 'sacrament' of the "Last Supper also demands the mandatory weekly Sunday participation in the Roman Catholic Mass.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
If you knew what we know, you would be craving the Eucharist and not worrying about this ?