Proper Christian living in a multi-religious context

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

Yes, I KNOW THAT. This is getting really frustrating. There is a difference between the Lord's supper and the feast of the passover (which is a day set aside for the celebration of an important event). Clearly Eusebius is referring to the latter. Your story MAKES NO SENSE. How does it make sense for Eusebius to say 'Polycarp argued that the Lord's supper should be kept once a year. The Pope could not persuade him. Then they celebrated the Lord's supper'. That makes absolutely no sense. If you believe that the issue was the Lord's supper, you must admit that Polycarp did a complete backflip -- which Eusebius clearly denies. WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, I KNOW THAT. This is getting really frustrating. There is a difference between the Lord's supper and the feast of the passover (which is a day set aside for the celebration of an important event). Clearly Eusebius is referring to the latter. Your story MAKES NO SENSE. How does it make sense for Eusebius to say 'Polycarp argued that the Lord's supper sh ...[text shortened]... hey celebrated the Lord's supper'. That makes absolutely no sense. WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?

why cant i see it, because its tosh, that's why. You have really no spiritual comprehension of what the passover of the Christ is, do you? its not Easter, its not a celebration of his resurrection, its a memorial of his death. Eusebius states that it was celebrated in Asia, handed down, through apostolic tradition and celebrated on the 14th day of the corresponding Jewish month of Nisan fourteenth, on a full moon. NOT AN EVERY DAY OCCURRENCE, why you cannot see that, i do not know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why cant i see it, because its tosh, that's why. You have really no spiritual comprehension of what the passover of the Christ is, do you? its not Easter, its not a celebration of his resurrection, its a memorial of his death. Eusebius states that it was celebrated in Asia, handed down, through apostolic tradition and celebrated on the 14th day of ...[text shortened]... rteenth, on a full moon. NOT AN EVERY DAY OCCURRENCE, why you cannot see that, i do not know.

I don't dispute what the passover means. Jesus Christ is the passover because he is the ultimate sacrifice for the atonement of sin. But Eusebius is talking about the feast of the passover.

Do you accept that Eusebius says that Polycarp could not be persuaded and that Polycarp celebrated the Lord's supper?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't dispute what the passover means. Jesus Christ is the passover because he is the ultimate sacrifice for the atonement of sin. But Eusebius is talking about the feast of the passover.

Do you accept that Eusebius says that Polycarp could not be persuaded and that Polycarp celebrated the Lord's supper?

no, it does not state the lords supper, this is what it actually states,

they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.

whether this is understood to be a simple mass, or the celebration of the lords evening meal i cannot tell , however, the context strongly suggests otherwise, for the distinction is clearly made between the lords evening meal (the feast of the Saviour's passover, the fourteenth day of the passover) and this simple communual partaking (the Eucharist).

you shall also note that there were observers who refused to partake, if this really was the lords evening meal, as it was, it was simply given out of respect, and would seem to be indicative of a simple mass. But, i could be wrong, although, even if i am, it changes nothing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, it does not state the lords supper, this is what it actually states,

they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church. ndicative of a simple mass. But, i could be wrong, although, even if i am, it changes nothing.

whether this is understood to be a simple mass, or the celebration of the lords evening meal i cannot tell , however, the context strongly suggests otherwise, for the distinction is clearly made between the lords evening meal (the feast of the Saviour's passover, the fourteenth day of the passover) and this simple communual partaking (the Eucharist).

Nope. Read again. The Eucharist, as described by St. Justin the Martyr, is the Lord's supper. It is the offering of bread and wine, consecrated as body and blood. The feast of the passover is something else completely.

Question: how do you know what Eusebius meant? He is in fact one of the Nicene fathers you have just derided in another thread. He is one of the fathers who made the Sunday observance compulsory. So how do you know he meant the same thing by 'paschal feast' as you do?

you shall also note that there were observers who refused to partake, if this really was the lords evening meal, as it was, it was simply given out of respect, and would seem to be indicative of a simple mass. But, i could be wrong, although, even if i am, it changes nothing.

The Mass is the Lord's supper. How can you be so ignorant?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
whether this is understood to be a simple mass, or the celebration of the lords evening meal i cannot tell , however, the context strongly suggests otherwise, for the distinction is clearly made between the lords evening meal (the feast of the Saviour's passover, the fourteenth day of the passover) and this simple communual partaking (the Eucharist).[/ ...[text shortened]... t changes nothing.

The Mass is the Lord's supper. How can you be so ignorant?[/b]

to you it is the lords supper, to me it is something entirely different, i would appreciate if you remembered that, rather than calling me ignorant, which i may be, but never the less, i dont need you telling me so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
to you it is the lords supper, to me it is something entirely different, i would appreciate if you remembered that, rather than calling me ignorant, which i may be, but never the less, i dont need you telling me so.

The question is not what I think is the Lord's supper nor what you think is the Lord's supper. The question is what Eusebius thought and, in turn, what Polycarp thought. Your interpretation of what Eusebius meant by 'paschal feast' is just plain wrong. It is not consonant with what the Nicene fathers believed nor with what St Justin the Martyr argued. If the dispute between Polycarp and the Roman church was about the Lord's supper, Eusebius would have called it the Eucharist not the paschal feast.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The question is not what I think is the Lord's supper nor what you think is the Lord's supper. The question is what Eusebius thought and, in turn, what Polycarp thought. Your interpretation of what Eusebius meant by 'paschal feast' is just plain wrong. It is not consonant with what the Nicene fathers believed nor with what St Justin the Martyr argued. If th ...[text shortened]... about the Lord's supper, Eusebius would have called it the Eucharist not the paschal feast.

no its not plain wrong, if the lords meal had been celebrated every day, of which there is no historical , at least in the Asiatic churches, and no a scriptural basis (breaking bread is not the same as the lords meal), then everyone would have partaken, that some refused is clear evidence that it was a matter of controversy and that quite simply, as i have stated and as is self evident from the text, the Asiatic churches did not celebrate it every day, as you have erroneously asserted. it is a practise of the church of Rome, not of the Asiatic churches at the time. do you see the difference? thus it matters not one bit whether Polycarp took the commune or not, it was meant as a peace offering, and he as a Christian, through, what can be construed as nothing more than a symbolic gesture, acquiesced. Not all did, for clearly, partaking of the lords evening meal, was not an every day occurrence in the churches of the east, who held, that due to apostolic tradition, it should be held on the same day as the passover.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not plain wrong, if the lords meal had been celebrated every day, of which there is no historical , at least in the Asiatic churches, and no a scriptural basis (breaking bread is not the same as the lords meal), then everyone would have partaken, that some refused is clear evidence that it was a matter of controversy and that quite simply, as ...[text shortened]... t, who held, that due to apostolic tradition, it should be held on the same day as the passover.

Again, you need to take off your JW lens. You might very well equate the paschal meal with the Lord's supper but the early Christian church did not. The Lord's supper was otherwise known as the Eucharist, as St Justin the Martyr clearly indicates. This is partly why the Council of Nicaea was called -- to set a precise date for the Pascal feast. The issue was entirely about Easter (in Italy, Easter is known as the 'Pasqua'😉. If you look at the history of Easter, you will clearly see the quartodecimans clearly labeled.

Yes, it really does matter that Polycarp took Communion. If the Lord's supper really was the issue and Polycarp took it, then how could Eusebius say 'Pope Sixtus could not persuade him. The controversy was not ended.'

So, again, the question really remains, how do you know that Eusebius meant 'the Lord's supper' when he wrote 'paschal feast'? The 'pascha' has in both Orthodox and Catholic churches been associated with Easter. So we have the paschal candle lit at the beginning of the season. How do you know Eusebius meant something completely different?

This is what wikipedia says about the Council of Nicaea and Easter:

After the June 19 settlement of the most important topic, the question of the date of the Christian Passover (Easter) was brought up. This feast is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances. As early as Pope Sixtus I, some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of Nisan. To determine which lunar month was to be designated as Nisan, Christians relied on the Jewish community. By the later 3rd century, however, some Christians began to express dissatisfaction with what they took to be the disorderly state of the Jewish calendar. These Christians argued that contemporary Jews were identifying the wrong lunar month as the month of Nisan, choosing a month whose 14th day fell before the spring equinox.[24] Christians, these thinkers argued, should abandon the custom of relying on Jewish informants and instead do their own computations to determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting the Easter festival within this independently-computed, Christian Nisan, which would always locate the festival after the equinox. They justified this break with tradition by arguing that it was in fact the contemporary Jewish calendar that had broken with tradition by ignoring the equinox, and that in former times the 14th of Nisan had never preceded the equinox.[25] Others, however, felt that the customary practice of reliance on the Jewish calendar should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error from a Christian point of view.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Separation_of_Easter_computation_from_Jewish_calendar

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, you need to take off your JW lens. You might very well equate the paschal meal with the Lord's supper but the early Christian church did not. The Lord's supper was otherwise known as the Eucharist, as St Justin the Martyr clearly indicates. This is partly why the Council of Nicaea was called -- to set a precise date for the Pascal feast. The issue wa ning of the season. How do you know Eusebius meant something completely different?

for the very reasons that i have given, in that it was a purely symbolic gesture, nothing more, as the text indicates, the fact that there were observers who refused to partake, based on their tradition of celebrating it annually, is also indicative that it was not celebrated every day, at least in the Asiatic churches who claimed to follow apostolic tradition.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is what wikipedia says about the Council of Nicaea and Easter:

[quote]After the June 19 settlement of the most important topic, the question of the date of the Christian Passover (Easter) was brought up. This feast is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of th ...[text shortened]... wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Separation_of_Easter_computation_from_Jewish_calendar

i have stated before, this is all very well, but i have my own mind and may at times, even be prepared to use it!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
for the very reasons that i have given, in that it was a purely symbolic gesture, nothing more, as the text indicates, the fact that there were observers who refused to partake, based on their tradition of celebrating it annually, is also indicative that it was not celebrated every day, at least in the Asiatic churches who claimed to follow apostolic tradition.

You are the only person I know who posits that Eusebius meant 'Lord's supper' by 'paschal feast'. I have to ask what your qualifications are that give authority to your stance. Basically, it is the world against you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have stated before, this is all very well, but i have my own mind and may at times, even be prepared to use it!

Well, I can be patient. When you decide to use it, maybe then post.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You are the only person I know who posits that Eusebius meant 'Lord's supper' by 'paschal feast'. I have to ask what your qualifications are that give authority to your stance. Basically, it is the world against you.

what authority, well well, isn't that interesting, well dig this my good man,

(2 Corinthians 3:5) . . .Not that we of ourselves are adequately qualified to reckon anything as issuing from ourselves, but our being adequately qualified issues from God,

🙂