What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?

Buzzard

Well-known member
[[
Oh it is a diversion.

The eucharist is not the real presence at all, the LS had no salvific effect either and it is not the belief of Paul either.
Oh; Paul knew all about all dem dar other """""Gods"""""
and Sacrifices unto these other Gods (Demons)
see Mars Hill

That the reason he told the Bride

even tho its not an act of revelry,
it is a solemn sacrament.

but they could not partake of the Devils Table
and of the Lords also

Joshua says
If God be God then worship God
if Baal be your God; well then;
go worship Baal
 
Last edited:

ramcam2

Well-known member
They are not both sacrifices at all. The only real sacrifice that saves us is the one on the cross.
from an early protestant historian...

“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).
 

balshan

Well-known member
you just cannot accept that 'guilt of blood or blood guilt' means murder.
You cannot accept that your version of communion is actually cannibalism. I am not discussing blood guilt you brought that in as diversion. Make a new thread if you are obsessed with discussing it.
 

balshan

Well-known member
from an early protestant historian...

“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).
I do not care what a mere man writes, not even going to read it. I see that communion is a remembrance other wise it is cannibalism and breaking the commandments. It will not matter what you say, you have provided no evidence of a change.
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
ahhhh; Ram;
and it is the belief of paul, too.
can you show us where that is found
I Corinthians 10:16, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?"
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
I do not care what a mere man writes, not even going to read it. I see that communion is a remembrance other wise it is cannibalism and breaking the commandments. It will not matter what you say, you have provided no evidence of a change.
But you want us to care about what you write. What God has written is that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. You say that it is not his body and blood. Why should we care about what you write?
 

balshan

Well-known member
It is not rubbish, it is the blood of Christ - at least that is what Jesus said.
It is not the blood of Christ at all and the belief tht it is, is rubbish. Jesus also said Peter was Satan, Herod was a fox, He was a door etc. Jesus said must have context which Rcs ignore. Jesus would never tell anyone to break a commandment which your understanding has Him doing. Not only that there is no evidence of the change.

When the RCC examines so called miracles to call a person a saint, they expect evidence of the miracle. In the past in scripture if there is a physical change, there is always evidence. You have no evidence at all.
 

balshan

Well-known member
We have Jesus' words. We have the teaching of His Church. And we have faith that helps us believe what we cannot see.
No you don't have Jesus words because He was speaking symbolically. Your institution has been proven not to be His church as it fails to meet any of the scriptural tests, looks, requirements etc. You have faith in a man made institution and I see very clearly that it is full of false claims and teachings.

Your institution only passes one scriptural test and that is the one for the bad tree. So you have nothing.
 
Top