What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?

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.
By moving propitiation, the new covenant going into effect, and sins being paid, from the Cross to the Last Supper you diminish the Cross.
 
This strikes me as a bit like the perennial conundrum Protestants have. Was the arc of the Covenant even necessary?

you mean, the Ark? yes, it was necessary under the OLD covenant in the Law of Moses.
Was Mary's role in the economy of salvation even necessary?

Yes, to bear Jesus Christ in His humanity and raise Him to adulthood, along with her lawful husband, Joseph. But Mary doesn't save and believing in the 4 Marian Dogmas--which are nowhere found in Scripture, not even a hint--is not necessary for salvation.
Was the Last Supper even necessary? Protestant doctrine seems reliant on negating really important moments of Scripture.
We don't "negate" really important moments of Scripture. But Jesus did command that we partake of the Lord's Supper, proclaiming His death until He comes again. And we do, every Sunday.

But it is Catholicism that negates really important moments in Scripture--like ignoring all of those verses that show that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by any works we have done, whether works done in righteousness or works of the Law. Your church ignores those.
 
You keep steering us down your own line of reasoning but the words of Jesus, that I don't think you have adequately addressed, is that contents of the cup is his blood of the covenant.

A different approach would be to ask ourselves what does scripture say is the blood of the covenant (NC)?

The only thing that scripture refers to as the blood of the covenant is the contents of the cup that the disciples drank. Are you saying that contents of the cup is not Jesus blood of the covenant?
At the last supper, did Christ slice off a piece of His flesh, and drained some of His blood into the cup for them to eat and drink? He had not yet died for our sins, nor had He shed any blood. So how could the last supper save anyone?
 
At the last supper, did Christ slice off a piece of His flesh, and drained some of His blood into the cup for them to eat and drink? He had not yet died for our sins, nor had He shed any blood. So how could the last supper save anyone?
You didn't answer my question.
 
you mean, the Ark? yes, it was necessary under the OLD covenant in the Law of Moses.


Yes, to bear Jesus Christ in His humanity and raise Him to adulthood, along with her lawful husband, Joseph. But Mary doesn't save and believing in the 4 Marian Dogmas--which are nowhere found in Scripture, not even a hint--is not necessary for salvation.

We don't "negate" really important moments of Scripture. But Jesus did command that we partake of the Lord's Supper, proclaiming His death until He comes again. And we do, every Sunday.

But it is Catholicism that negates really important moments in Scripture--like ignoring all of those verses that show that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by any works we have done, whether works done in righteousness or works of the Law. Your church ignores those.
I thought they had Mary as the ark?
 
By moving propitiation, the new covenant going into effect, and sins being paid, from the Cross to the Last Supper you diminish the Cross.
But it seems that Paul and the early Church itself put more emphasis on the Lords Supper than on the Cross in that case.

1 Corinthians 11 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves.

Why would such a memorial have lasted 2000 years if not for the fact of Christs sacrifice being it's very core?
 
I
But it seems that Paul and the early Church itself put more emphasis on the Lords Supper than on the Cross in that case.

1 Corinthians 11 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves.

Why would such a memorial have lasted 2000 years if not for the fact of Christs sacrifice being it's very core?
The Lords Table is a memorial of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself. Why has the Passover lasted this long? Its been around thousands of years longer than the Lords Table. But it too is a memorial God instituted for a purpose.
 
I

The Lords Table is a memorial of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself. Why has the Passover lasted this long? Its been around thousands of years longer than the Lords Table. But it too is a memorial God instituted for a purpose.
No, you are not correct. The bread and wine are what Jesus said it was - his body and his blood of the covenant. They are not symbolic.
 
John 6:60
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this,
said,
This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Matt.13:36​
36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house:​
and his disciples came unto him,​
saying,​
Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.​
.....​
Now Christ adds to it​
44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field;​
..​
45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man,
seeking goodly pearls:​
...​
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net,
that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:​
..​
51 Jesus saith unto them,​
Have ye understood all these things?​
They say unto him,​
Yea, Lord.​
52 Then said he unto them,​
Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven
is like unto a man that is an householder,
which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

John 6:60
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this,
said,
This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

these men can
Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven

==================================================
now another tid-bit of info
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net,
that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:​

Where did Paul go, looking for goodly branches
he could graft into the Good Native Olive tree?????

that was cast into the sea,
yep; the Church of the Gentiles = the RCC
and gathered of every kind:
what did Christ say that would happen to the Bad Fish????

What did Paul say would happen to the Bad Branches????
=============================================================

and One more piece of info
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net,
that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:​

What would become of the branches / not chosen
or the fish not caught in the net
and those cast away ??????
back Home to Rome

Rev.13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea,
having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns,
and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard,
and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion:
and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

-The Church of Christ --<vs>-- The Church of the Gentiles
Matt.20:25​
But Jesus called them unto him, and said,​
Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,
and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you:​

and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

===========================================
as Christ said;
Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven

as wise man builds his house on the Rock
a foolish on the sand

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea,

.........................
 
Last edited:
Matt.13:52
52 Then said he unto them,
Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven
is like unto a man that is an householder,
which bringeth forth out of his treasure
things new and old.

Song of Solomon 7:11
Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field;
let us lodge in the villages.

12 Let us get up early to the vineyards;
let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear,
and the pomegranates bud forth:
there will I give thee my loves.

13 The mandrakes give a smell,

(Idolatry, Superstition and witchcraft)
--------But at our gates are ------------
every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven
is like unto a man that is an householder,
which bringeth forth out of his treasure
things new and old.
and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits,
new and old, which I have laid up for thee,
O my beloved.
 
No, you are not correct. The bread and wine are what Jesus said it was - his body and his blood of the covenant. They are not symbolic.
That makes RCs cannibals whether they like it or not, that also means they are breaking the commandment not to consume blood. They clearly are symbolic.

I mean if it was real the wine should taste like blood for a start and it doesn't.
 
and they murmured against Moses
and when they murmured against Moses
they Murmured against God

Matt.13:45
45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man,
seeking goodly pearls:
Who, when he had found one pearl of great price,
went and sold all that he had, and bought it
.

and the fruit from Preaching of the One (1) Pearl from the Housetops,
"the just shall live by Faith"
amongest the RCC would be, result in this

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net,
that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind
:

Do you really think the "Merchant Man" Christ spake of
did not have the blessing of Christ ???????
===================================

Oh; to be so greatly Blessed as Martin Luther
to be the one chosen, to give the message for his time
thats up there close to Moses himself

To murmer against Luther
is to murmer against The Chosen of God
to do so is
"to murmer against God"
 
I

The Lords Table is a memorial of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself. Why has the Passover lasted this long? Its been around thousands of years longer than the Lords Table. But it too is a memorial God instituted for a purpose.
Passover is also a feast that traditionally transcends time. A Jewish ecumenist says...

"The Jewish conviction that at the Seder past events become present today is something that can resonate strongly with Catholics. The Catholic concept of anamnesis corresponds to the Hebrew term zecher. Both refer to the use of ritual to make the past a lived present reality."

So as Passover made the lamb the atonement for the freedom of their people who become one and the same with every Jew at the table, so the Eucharist makes Jesus atoning sacrifice one and the same with those who are 'at the table'. Both are more than representations.
 
so you have no intention of reasoning through Scripture
you have ZERO answers for any passages that contradicts your views.

ding: "it rained all night long"
thess: " why are there no puddles, why is the morning grass dry?"
ding; "I am not really going down this path of numerous questions. " "it rained all night long"

Scripture: the contents of the cup is the blood of the covenant
ding: is the blood of the covenant symbolic?
thess: the contents of the cup is symbolic of Jesus blood shed on the cross.
ding: Scripture doesn't say that the blood Jesus shed on the cross is the blood of the covenant, it says that the contents of the cup is the blood of the covenant. So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic?
 
Scripture: the contents of the cup is the blood of the covenant
ding: is the blood of the covenant symbolic?
thess: the contents of the cup is symbolic of Jesus blood shed on the cross.
ding: Scripture doesn't say that the blood Jesus shed on the cross is the blood of the covenant, it says that the contents of the cup is the blood of the covenant. So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic
Because NOTHING salvific happened at the Last Supper
 
Scripture: the contents of the cup is the blood of the covenant
ding: is the blood of the covenant symbolic?
thess: the contents of the cup is symbolic of Jesus blood shed on the cross.
ding: Scripture doesn't say that the blood Jesus shed on the cross is the blood of the covenant, it says that the contents of the cup is the blood of the covenant. So how can the blood of the covenant be symbolic?
Just when I thought the silliness could not get worse, but.......
 
Back
Top