dingoling.
Well-known member
Scripture doesn't answer it?
What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?
- Thread starter 1Thess521
- Start date
Prove that claim? Oh you can't because you would have to refer to fallible men.
Oh scripture does, I posted them. You have never explained those verses.
No evidencee that it is being said literally at all. No evidence of this so called change therefore it is symbolic.
dingoling.
Well-known member
If scripture tells us then what is there to explain?
dingoling.
Well-known member
Jesus' words are not evidence?
jesus instituted the eucharist in the last supper to maintain our union with him, remaining with us to make our way easier. this is the promise jesus made in john5: 55-56. it is in the eucharist that our union in Christ is maintained making us the sons of God (john1: 12-13) and despite our mortal frailty, hoping to be with God in heaven.
Then why don't you know the answer?
No they are evidence it is symbolic and not literal. If we go by your logic then Herod is a fox and Peter is Satan. You have a problem if you think Jesus needed to say now I am speaking symbolically otherwise His words are literal.
Ram Stella gets very upset if a person does not use capital letters for people's names. The Last Supper was a symbolic meal and Jesus was saying how He wanted His gift remembered. He was also prophesying what was going to happen. The RCC has destroyed the truth about the Last Supper and has Jesus becoming soiled by sin, they have Him breaking the commandments. If this happened then He would no longer have been the spotless lamb.
1Thess521
Well-known member
How would I explain......?
1) By appealing to Scripture that tells us what Christ death accomplished.
2) By showing that you are ignoring the context of your quote.
Who are the "they " to whom Ignatius is referring?
"The they Ignatius was talking about are Dosetists (Greek: dokesis). The word means, “to seem.” Docetism claimed that Christ did not exist in human form. And, as Ignatius points out, they claim He only seemed to suffer, to which Ignatius replied, “They only seem to be Christians.”
They do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ because they didn’t believe he truly suffered. And the Eucharist itself, Ignatius describes, is: “our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” In other words, the Eucharist is the celebration of the passion and resurrection of our Lord."
"It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius. They attempt to make it look as though the Dosetists objected to the Eucharist because they didn’t believe the bread and wine used to celebrate it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ. That simply isn’t true; rather, Ignatius conveys that the gift of God is eternal life made possible by the sacrifice of Christ. That sacrifice is what the Eucharist is all about. It is the sacrifice and suffering of Christ the Dosetists spoke against and, therefore, abstained from celebrating the Eucharist in which thanksgiving is offered for Christ’s passion."
Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence
By Brian Culliton Introduction The real presence doctrine is probably the most important doctrine to Catholics today because it is the nucleus of the Catholic mass. The doctrine insists that the eu…
onefold.wordpress.com
1Thess521
Well-known member
RE: propitiation, the forgiveness of sins, and the New Covenant; what was accomplished on the Cross?
The New Covenant
When did the new covenant go into effect?
Hebrews 9:
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.17For a will (diathéké) takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."
----------------------
Forgiveness of sin.
When was the penalty of sins paid for?
1 Corinthians 15:3
Christ died for our sins, according to Scriptures
1 Peter 3:18
Christ died for sins, once for all”
Hebrews 9:15
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant
Isaiah 53:
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors
------------------
Propitiation (the appeasement of God’s wrath)
When was the propitiation made?
Romans 5:7-9
7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Colossians 1:21-22
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—
--------------
Own the implications of your belief and follow through to where it leads.
and answer this question: (capitalized, bolded , highlighted, with large fonts, and with an arrow; so you don't miss seeing it)
QUESTION ---->RE: propitiation, the forgiveness of sins, and the New Covenant; what was accomplished on the Cross?
1Thess521
Well-known member
Correct:
A single sentence is not evidence if it is a literal or symbolic statement.
It becomes more apparent with every post that you are trying to strip the meaning from Scripture.
Last edited:
bluedog1us
Well-known member
Acts 20:28 NKJV — “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Ephesians 1:7 NKJV — In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
Colossians 1:20 NKJV — and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
Hebrews 13:12 NKJV — Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
1 John 1:7 NKJV — But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1Thess521
Well-known member
This is the view I suspected from Catholics
with the Last Supper, Christ's death means nothing to people.
and the Cross is secondary to the Last Supper
dingoling.
Well-known member
You posts only reveals the need for an official interpreter of scripture; someone who has the authority to give us the true meaning of scripture.
dingoling.
Well-known member
Well you are not even close to being right.
Stella1000
Well-known member
On the one hand we get condemned for having the Crucifix front and centre of the Mass, on the other hand we are told that Christs death means nothing to the Mass. It seems to me you've got it the wrong way around. It is nonCC's that have abandoned Christs death and abandoned the Eucharist as the source and summit of faith.
1Thess521
Well-known member
no; it reveals your lack of ability to reason through Scripture:
and it reveals your False presuppositions:
1) Symbolic language must be identified
2) propitiation , NC going into effect, and sin penalty paid, all took place at the Last Supper.
1Thess521
Well-known member
YOU posted this
Stella1000 said:
But it seems that Paul and the early Church itself put more emphasis on the Lords Supper than on the Cross in that case.
WE preach
Christ crucified