Said I, Gerhard Ebersoehn, DHK, I haven't seen if you have answered me when I elsewhere made the point the Last Supper was NOT the Passover meal - for MANY reasons. How couls it have been the Passover meal when the Lamb of God's Passover had not yet been slain? Answered DHK, It is well known (despite your objections) that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted what we now call the "Lord's Supper" during the Passover meal. Of that there is no doubt. Christ is our passover lamb. Because He hadn't been led to the cross yet is irrelevant. You are reading too much into the Scripture. The meal was symbolic, as was every animal sacrifice in the Old Testament. Every animal sacrifice in the Old Testament looked forward to Christ. The blood that was spilt looked forward to the blood that Christ would spill on the cross. Thus John came on the scene and in John 1:29, seeing Jesus, he declared: John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Quote: Jesus said He is the Bread of Life - of life-usual too! implying the use of ORDINARY bread for the representation of Him during the Lord's Supper. This is a ludicrous argument. The feast was always with unleavened bread. The Lord's Supper is historically eaten with unleavened bread. History, commentaries of all denominational backgrounds attest to the same fact. Nothing but unleavened bread has ever been used in the elements of the Lord's Table in almost any denomination. The inconsistency comes when that same denomination holds to an unbiblical "tradtion" and drinks "leavened" wined, thus symbolizing corruption in the blood of Christ. What kind of logic you find in that I will never know. DHK It is pure assumption - in fact presumption, "...the Lord Jesus Christ instituted what we now call the "Lord's Supper" during the Passover meal. Of that there is no doubt."