What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?

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
The context that I wrote that in was to show that if you say Catholics ignore the Cross then so does Paul. If you note the 'in that case'. I don't believe that to be true though.
 
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.
Well since neither one of has any authority.....
 
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."
That's such a stretch I've got a cramp now.

Well respected Protestant theologian JND Kelly speaking of the early Church...

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
 
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.
No that is rubbish. We can all clearly see the errors in the way you interpret scripture, your way has Peter as literally Satan, Herod as a literal fox, Jesus as a literal door etc. So your so called authorative interpretation has huge holes in it that a baby could see through.

You can only give an interpretation of your institution's poor interpretation of scripture.
 
Paul on the cross.

1 Cor 1:18

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Gal 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Rom 5:8

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us

Col 2:14

By canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Phil 28

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Rom 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


These are just some of the writings of Paul which show that the covenant happened at the cross and not the last supper.
 
''
Yep; as ding says:

dingoling. said:
Jesus' words are not evidence?

Matt.7:24
Wise man-----<vs>---Foolish Man
For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.​

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.

Gen.3:3
And the serpent said unto the woman,
Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil.

and Rome tells us they
"Know good from Evil"
 
----------Posters----------

the info you are looking for can be found in Moses

What was inside The Ark (Christ) ??????????

The Pot of Manna
and The Law of God, 2 Tables

#2:
What was on the outside; attached to the Ark,
the book of the Law
Deut.31:26


what was in the Most holy also ???
The Rod of Aaron; the 1st to Bud

============================================

What is the True Manna
"thou hast the words of eternal life."

=======================================

----------Korah's Rebellion-----------
Numbers 16

what did Korah want ???
equal authority;;

what does Rome claim for its self
it's Pope and traditions ??????
 
so you are just going to be a blank screen waiting for some one to tell you what to think?

Like I have said several times before without someone with authority then these debates will never end.

do you read movie reviews to find out if you liked the movie?
STEP UP!!
and reason through Scripture
I have already reasoned through scripture - that is why I am a Catholic and not a nCCs.
 
No that is rubbish. We can all clearly see the errors in the way you interpret scripture, your way has Peter as literally Satan, Herod as a literal fox, Jesus as a literal door etc. So your so called authorative interpretation has huge holes in it that a baby could see through.

You can only give an interpretation of your institution's poor interpretation of scripture.

The errors in interpretation of scripture are the nCCs and not the CC.
 
Like I have said several times before without someone with authority then these debates will never end.


I have already reasoned through scripture - that is why I am a Catholic and not a nCCs.
No one has said authority except God Himself. Your bad tree has no authority and its foul smelling fruits prove it doesn't, it does not even follow 1 Cor 5:11 concerning its bad fruits. Hmm so you have nothing except a bad tree pretending it has authority.

Yes we have seen how you reason, if Jesus said something, it is literally unless He said otherwise, this logic means Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a door etc.
 
The errors in interpretation of scripture are the nCCs and not the CC.
That is a false statement without proof. We have shown the errors in interpretation are the RCC. Name one apostle who prayed to the dead, who put Mary on a pedestal in scripture. No crickets.
A bad tree cannot interpret scripture correctly, its interpretations are flawed and full of errors. This has been pointed out by posters revealing the flaws in the catechism.

In this thread alone the imperfections in your interpretations have been revealed. Yep your way has Peter as Satan etc.
 
No one has said authority except God Himself. Your bad tree has no authority and its foul smelling fruits prove it doesn't, it does not even follow 1 Cor 5:11 concerning its bad fruits. Hmm so you have nothing except a bad tree pretending it has authority.

Yes we have seen how you reason, if Jesus said something, it is literally unless He said otherwise, this logic means Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a door etc.
No of the nCCs here have said authority. Who is God holding accountable?
 
No of the nCCs here have said authority. Who is God holding accountable?
Why do RCs keep making false claims about others, link to where one has seriously said they have said authority. God has told us we can understand His word. God holds us all accountable, that is another pointless question. Who do you think is not accountable for themselves.

We have His word, we can read it, we know what He wants us to do and not do, we also have our consciences, if we are really saved our minds have been changed and we have the guidance of the HS. Only a fool would think He will not hold each individual accountable. There will be no where to hide on the day of judgement.

As far as I have seen it is only RCs who need an authority, the RCC obviously doesn't allow them to think for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top