Proper Christian living in a multi-religious context

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then St Justin has deviated from the pattern set and handed down by John.

Ah, no. As I have said before, Polycarp and the Asiatic churches disputed when the feast day of the death and resurrection should be commemorated -- not when the Lord's supper should be celebrated. You should do some independent research. Polycarp and the Asiatic churches all celebrated the Lord's supper on each Sunday. There is universal consensus on this.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, I concede that the apostles practiced the passover as faithful Jews; I do not concede that they only celebrated the Lord's supper once a year. Acts 20:7, referring to the breaking of bread, clearly indicates that the Lord's supper was celebrated at other times.

unbelievable, you are ignoring both the historical and the scriptural basis for the refutation of this, i call the very stones out as a witness against you in this regard, common sense and decency wave like a huge banner above this self evident truth!

The passover that Eusebius is referring to is not the passover of the Jews, but the passover of our Christ, (the feast of the Saviour's passover), what is the passover of our saviour? is it the passover of the Jews, clearly no, for the Law was nullified, Christ was the fulfilment of the Law, and the passover lamb.

(1 Corinthians 5:7-8) . . .For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed.

(Revelation 5:12) . . .saying with a loud voice: “The Lamb that was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing.”

what is the significance of terming Christ as the passover lamb? is it of no significance, does the Jewish archetypical celebration have no bearing on this phrase what so ever and Paul is simply speaking abstractly? A precedent had been set and it is not without significance, unless of course you wish to dismiss Paul words, that he terms the lords evening meal, as the celebration of 'Christ our passover'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is the significance of terming Christ as the passover lamb? is it of no significance, does the Jewish archetypical celebration have no bearing on this phrase what so ever and Paul is simply speaking abstractly?

Why does it not have any significance? Because StPaul was jewish? Why else did he use jewish connotation?

Why do you dismiss parts of the bible when you hold others important? Is this what JW culters do? chose what parts of the bile has significance and what is not?

So when I say that the creation myth is not what really happened you say that "Yes, you might be right there, this passage is not of any significance now when we know the evolution theory."

Who else can sy that this part has significance, and this part has not? The all mighty robbie?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
unbelievable, you are ignoring both the historical and the scriptural basis for the refutation of this, i call the very stones out as a witness against you in this regard, common sense and decency wave like a huge banner above this self evident truth!

The passover that Eusebius is referring to is not the passover of the Jews, but the passover of aul words, that he terms the lords evening meal, as the celebration of 'Christ our passover'.

The passover that Eusebius is referring to is not the passover of the Jews, but the passover of our Christ, (the feast of the Saviour's passover), what is the passover of our saviour? is it the passover of the Jews, clearly no, for the Law was nullified, Christ was the fulfilment of the Law, and the passover lamb.

Sure. But Eusebius clearly distinguishes the paschal feast from the Eucharist. He reports in the passage I quoted that the Eucharist was distributed outside the paschal feast. Again, you seem unable to make this simple mental distinction between a festal day and the Lord's supper which, as St. Justin the Martyr's writing indicates, had a tradition of being celebrated on Sunday (St. Justin the Martyr is writing at about 150CE and was born one generation from the apostles.)

what is the significance of terming Christ as the passover lamb? is it of no significance, does the Jewish archetypical celebration have no bearing on this phrase what so ever and Paul is simply speaking abstractly? A precedent had been set and it is not without significance, unless of course you wish to dismiss Paul words, that he terms the lords evening meal, as the celebration of 'Christ our passover'.

Of course Jesus is the passover. He is the paschal lamb who takes away the sins of the world. This is why Revelations talks about Jesus as 'the lamb'. His blood is the seal of the new covenant. This is exactly why Christians have never confined their celebration of the Lord's supper to the day of the Jewish passover. Jesus the new paschal sacrifice replaces the old pascal sacrifice of the old covenant so we do not celebrate it on one particular day of the year. Certainly the early Christians debated when the feast of the passover should be celebrated but not the Lord's supper.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The passover that Eusebius is referring to is not the passover of the Jews, but the passover of our Christ, (the feast of the Saviour's passover), what is the passover of our saviour? is it the passover of the Jews, clearly no, for the Law was nullified, Christ was the fulfilment of the Law, and the passover lamb.

Sure. But Eusebius clearly disti ...[text shortened]... crifice of the old covenant so we do not celebrate it on one particular day of the year.[/b]

oh my goodness, Eusebius states that it was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the new moon, which, unless it has escaped your notice, does not happen every day!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh my goodness, Eusebius states that it was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the new moon, which, unless it has escaped your notice, does not happen every day!

Eusebius clearly states that the dispute was about the pascal feast, not about the celebration of the Eucharist. If it was about the latter, the dispute would have been so controversial that it would receive at least some mention of it on Wikipedia or the Catholic Encyclopedia -- at least somewhere. But I can find absolutely no evidence of that.

I mean, Polycarp is recognised as a saint. The Asiatic churches were renowned for their orthodoxy, bringing the great Cappodician fathers. The idea that they only celebrated the Lord's supper once a year would have been so flagrant that it would have brought all their good repute into controversy. You simply do not know what the 'pascha' means in this context.

I can't believe how dishonest you are. You are basically saying that St. Polycarp vociferously argued that the Lord's supper should be restricted to one day of the year, that this custom was handed down by the apostle John, and yet St. Polycarp took communion before leaving? Are you serious?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Eusebius clearly states that the dispute was about the pascal feast, not about the celebration of the Eucharist. If it was about the latter, the dispute would have been so controversial that it would receive at least some mention of it on Wikipedia or the Catholic Encyclopedia -- at least somewhere. But I can find absolutely no evidence of that.

I mean, ...[text shortened]... e apostle John, and yet St. Polycarp took communion before leaving? Are you serious?

and yet my dear Conrau, that is what Eusebius is saying, as i have already shown. its not dishonesty, its a simple statement of fact! Go away and research, our Lords passover, if you please!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet my dear Conrau, that is what Eusebius is saying, as i have already shown. its not dishonesty, its a simple statement of fact! Go away and research, our Lords passover, if you please!

You simply do not understand what Eusebius is saying. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. He clearly states that the Eucharist was celebrated outside the pascal feast and that St. Polycarp himself, the main proponent of keeping the feast on the 14th day, celebrated Communion with St. Ignatius in Rome.

Now I have done research. I have looked in encyclopedias and in reference books. I have looked through google and I have not found any evidence that Eusebius was saying that the Eucharist was celebrated only once a year. Such a claim would have been astounding to Eusebius who wrote around the time when the Sunday Eucharist was decreed as mandatory.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You simply do not understand what Eusebius is saying. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. He clearly states that the Eucharist was celebrated outside the pascal feast and that St. Polycarp himself, the main proponent of keeping the feast on the 14th day, celebrated Communion with St. Ignatius in Rome.

Now I have done research. I have looked ...[text shortened]... o Eusebius who wrote around the time when the Sunday Eucharist was decreed as mandatory.

all these are naturally interpretations sympathetic with your , shall we say, 'leanings', towards the catholic church, you may state and believe what you shall, my statements stand!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all these are naturally interpretations sympathetic with your , shall we say, 'leanings', towards the catholic church, you may state and believe what you shall, my statements stand!

Fine. Show me a non JW article which proves it. Because your story makes no sense. If the dispute were really about when the Lord's supper should be celebrated, why would he not have said 'They disputed when the Eucharist should be celebrated'. You are no historian. You do not know fourth century history. So how do you know what Eusebius meant by the pascal feast?

Granted, writings from the Catholic Church will likely defend the Catholic position. But, as far as I have seen, no Catholic encyclopedia or resource has given any indication that there is any need for a defense. Everyone agrees that the dispute was about the date of the feast of the death and resurrection.

Here are some articles:

Quartodecimanism (from the Vulgate Latin quarta decima in Leviticus 23:5,[1] meaning fourteen) refers to the custom of some early Christians celebrating Pasch (related to modern Easter) beginning with the eve of the 14th day of Nisan (or Aviv in the Hebrew Bible calendar), which at dusk is Biblically the "LORD's passover".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism

Again, the dispute is about Easter.

Quartodecimans. Early Christians who observed Easter on 14 Nisan, the same day as the Jewish Passover, rather than the following Sunday.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Quartodecimans.html

A careful reading of the evidence shows that an annual Lord's Supper was not the issue, neither was Easter, or at least what we think of as Easter. No one was arguing that the Lord's Supper should only be kept once a year. And no one was arguing over Easter bunnies and colored eggs.

Furthermore, none of the Quartodecimans claimed that it was wrong to celebrate Jesus' resurrection. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that both Polycarp and Anicetus celebrated Jesus' resurrection. Polycarp's claim seems to have been that the best day to do so was on Nisan 14. Anicetus argued for Sunday.

What is more intriguing for us is that Polycarp claimed his practice came to him from the apostle John. In other words, Polycarp essentially argued that the practice of celebrating Jesus' resurrection on Nisan 14 was an apostolic practice, at least for the apostle John. His argument was not so much scriptural as it was traditional.

Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, chapters 23 to 25, makes it plain that the Quartodeciman controversy involved in part when to celebrate Jesus' resurrection. He tells us that the churches in Asia Minor, focusing on the crucifixion as of primary importance, argued for Nisan 14 as the day to commemorate the entire story of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. The church at Rome, focusing on the resurrection, argued that there was no need to depend on the Jewish calendar and that Sunday was the most appropriate day of all.
...
What happened next we would have thought extraordinary. Irenaeus' letter records that Polycarp and Anicetus took the Lord's Supper together. It didn't matter to them what season or day it was. Taking the Lord's Supper together symbolically showed their unity in Christ. After this, "they parted from each other in peace."
The issues that separated the Quartodecimans from other Christians were over the timing of their customs, not the value of the customs or the timing of the resurrection. Initially, those holding differing views considered each other Christian. They understood each other to be a part of the body of Christ. To display their unity they took the Lord's Supper together whatever the date.
...

http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/holidays/passover.htm

Originally posted by Conrau K
Here are some articles:

Quartodecimanism (from the Vulgate Latin quarta decima in Leviticus 23:5,[1] meaning fourteen) refers to the custom of some early Christians celebrating Pasch (related to modern Easter) beginning with the eve of the 14th day of Nisan (or Aviv in the Hebrew Bible calendar), which at dusk is Biblically the "LORD's passover".
the date.
...

http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/holidays/passover.htm

ummm i dont know if you have umm noticed, but i have my own mind and well, my own powers of reasoning. am i not also able to look at the text of Eusebius and draw my own evaluations from it ? nor do i accept the references, they are clearly erroneous, the apostles would never celebrate an essentially pagan festival such as Easter, why? not solely because it is a fertility rite borrowed from paganism, because they were commanded to commemorate Christ's death, not his resurrection! there is no mention of Easter, there is no mention of the so called crucifixion, its all just pure and utter unadulterated bumf!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm i dont know if you have umm noticed, but i have my own mind and well, my own powers of reasoning. am i not also able to look at the text of Eusebius and draw my own evaluations from it ?

But you are drawing the wrong conclusions. Look at the context:

1. The opponents of St Polycarp ask that they transfer the feast to the following Sunday. If the dispute were really about the Lord's supper, they would have asked for it to be celebrated every Sunday, as St Justin the Martyr had indicated was the norm (checking the dates, St Justin the Martyr wrote this at the same time as these events and in fact would have know Polycarp.)

2. Eusebius clearly distinguishes the paschal feast from the Eucharist. He tells that the Eucharist was to be distributed outside the paschal feast, clearly something separate from the Lord's supper.

3. St Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist with St Irenaeus. If the issue were about the Lord's supper (and Eusebius indicates that Polycarp continued the practice), why would he then immediately celebrate the Eucharist? Eusebius says 'Polycarp could not persuade the Pope, nor the Pope, Polycarp. The controversy was not ended.' Yet is the Lord's supper were the issue, why would Polycarp have then celebrated it?

4. St. Polycarp is recognised as a saint. If St. Polycarp had really opposed the Church, as you claim, on an issue so fundamental to liturgical life, why would he have been canonised as a saint?

5. Eusebius wrote during the time when Sunday observance of Mass was made legally mandatory by the Emperor. So why wouldn't he have sought to comment on this further?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm i dont know if you have umm noticed, but i have my own mind and well, my own powers of reasoning. am i not also able to look at the text of Eusebius and draw my own evaluations from it ? nor do i accept the references, they are clearly erroneous, the apostles would never celebrate an essentially pagan festival such as Easter, why? not solely b ...[text shortened]... ere is no mention of the so called crucifixion, its all just pure and utter unadulterated bumf!

Who is celebrating a pagan festival? The issue here is the paschal feast (some cultures call this Easter, other don't.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
But you are drawing the wrong conclusions. Look at the context:

1. The opponents of St Polycarp ask that they transfer the feast to the following Sunday. If the dispute were really about the Lord's supper, they would have asked for it to be celebrated every Sunday, as St Justin the Martyr had indicated was the norm (checking the dates, St Justin ...[text shortened]... ally mandatory by the Emperor. So why wouldn't he have sought to comment on this further?

is it the terminology that is phasing you, he states, and i will say this for the last time, 'the passover of our Christ'.