- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not quoting 'inhouse' writers; I am quoting primary sources. Again Eusebius does not mention the Lord's supper. The Council of Nicaea, Constantine and Socrates Scholasticus (contemporaries of Eusebius) all say that the issue was about the celebration of the Paschal feast, not the Lord's supper. Again, I am not quoting historians with biased views; I am quoting history itself.
quoting 'inhouse', references to support ones own point of view is typical and hardly objective, but then again, objectivity is not going to win your argument , is it.
I don't recognise any of the people you have quoted. I have no idea what they base their conclusions on (do they have sources other than Eusebius?). I have looked on google and found lots of bizarre sites arguing the same thing you do. All of them show the same unwillingness to engage with Eusebius' writings critically and look at other documents. If you read Eusebius' other writings, you can see what he meant.
A point of clarification is needed. Each Eucharistic celebration is properly known as a paschal sacrifice because it is the memorial of Jesus Christ's sacrifice (and consequently, it is customary to sing 'Agnus Dei', or 'Lamb of God.) The Paschal feast however refers to a more specific liturgical day that commemorates the Christ's sacrifice and redemption. Of course, because of this significance of the Paschal feast, the Lord's supper is celebrated too and it is in fact compulsory for all Catholics to receive Communion that day. Again, there is no historical evidence that the Eucharist should be reserved for one day. The Roman church argued that the Paschal feast should be moved to the Sunday, not every Sunday.
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Klots of other bizarre references, like the new encyclopaedia Britannica, well isnt that just rich, it must be a conspiracy! the catholic, note that word Conrau, the catholic catechism is an 'inhouse', document!
I am not quoting 'inhouse' writers; I am quoting primary sources. Again Eusebius does not mention the Lord's supper, the Council of Nicaea, Constantine and Socrates Scholasticus (contemporaries of Eusebius) all say that the issue was about the celebration of the Paschal feast, not the Lord's supper. Again, I am not quoting historians with biased views; I am me unwillingness to engage with Eusebius' writings critically and look at other documents.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually, you didn't quote the encyclopedia of Britannica. Post the full article. The Britannica clearly lists Quartodecimanism under Easter controversies. Likewise, you didn't really quote Socrates who explicitly says that Quartodecimanism was a dispute about Easter.
lots of other bizarre references, like the new encyclopaedia Britannica, well isnt that just rich, it must be a conspiracy!
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau Ki quoted those parts which were expedient to my argument, as well as many others, Easter was unknown to Christ, the apostles and early christians and is essentially a pagan festival. It reprehensible of the catholic church to turn the memorial of Christ death into a pagan festival! That being said, they have also taken the simplicity and oneness of God and also adulterated it with pagan elements, therefore it should not be surprising they have done the same with this most sacred remembrance!
Actually, you didn't quote the encyclopedia of Britannica. Post the full article. The Britannica clearly lists Quartodecimanism under Easter controversies. Likewise, you didn't really quote Socrates who explicitly says that Quartodecimanism was a dispute about Easter.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI do not see how Easter is a pagan festival. 'Easter' is in fact a much later term and the usual and older term is 'pascha'. Again, you need to produce some proof that the quartodecimans considered the Pascal feast the same thing as the Lord's supper. None of the sites you referred to actually deal with this question. Only one of them explicitly refers to Eusebius but does not discuss what Eusebius meant by 'paschal feast'. (None of the sites you referred to are academic resources either.)
i quoted those parts which were expedient to my argument, as well as many others, Easter was unknown to Christ, the apostles and early christians and is essentially a pagan festival. It reprehensible of the catholic church to turn the memorial of Christ death into a pagan festival! That being said, they have also taken the simplicity and oneness of ...[text shortened]... therefore it should not be surprising they have done the same with this most sacred remembrance!
I don't know why you attack the Catholic Church on this one. The Orthodox churches which are equally old and with equal claims to apostolic succession have always understood the controversy to be about the Paschal feast, not the Lord's supper.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
On the internet I found this excerpt from the Britannica encyclopedia:
'Although the observance of Easter was at a very early period the practice of the Christian church, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy. The point at issue was when the Paschal fast was reckoned as ending. With the Jewish Christians, whose leading thought was the death of Christ as the Paschal Lamb, the fast ended at the same time as that of the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon at evening, and the Easter festival immediately followed, without regard to the day of the week. The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, unfettered by Jewish traditions, identified the first day of the week with the Resurrection, and kept the preceding Friday as the commemoration of the crucifixion, irrespective of the day of the month".'
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, article ‘Easter&rsquo😉.
Amazing what happens when people quote more than one sentence of an article.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
1 edit
I find this really hard to believe from you, Robbie. Your only evidence of Quartodecimanism comes from Eusebius. Given that Eusebius clearly states this is about Easter in another book, what evidence do you have that remains? Furthermore, why does it matter to you when Polycarp celebrated the Lord's supper, given that Polycarp also believed in an ordained ministry and the divinity of Christ? Given that you would have profound differences with Polycarp, why do you consider him any kind of authority on the celebration of the Lord's supper? Why do you not consider him a pagan charlatan as you do all the other church fathers?
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KApostasy Institutionalized
On the internet I found this excerpt from the Britannica encyclopedia:
'Although the observance of Easter was at a very early period the practice of the Christian church, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy. The point at le ‘Easter&rsquo😉.
Amazing what happens when people quote more than one sentence of an article.
Despite such protests, the Christians in Asia Minor became increasingly isolated on the issue of when to celebrate the Lord’s Evening Meal. Variations had crept in elsewhere. Some celebrated the whole period from Nisan 14 through the following Sunday. Others were holding the occasion more frequently—weekly on Sunday.
In 314 C.E. the Council of Arles (France) tried to force the Roman arrangement and suppress any alternative. The remaining Quartodecimans held out. In order to settle this and other matters that were dividing the professed Christians in his empire, in 325 C.E. the pagan emperor Constantine called an ecumenical synod, the Council of Nicaea. It issued a decree that instructed all in Asia Minor to conform to the Roman usage.
It is interesting to note one of the principal arguments advanced for abandoning the observing of the Memorial of Christ’s death according to the date on the Jewish calendar. A History of the Christian Councils, by K. J. Hefele, states: “It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom (the calculation) of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.” (Volume 1, page 322) To be in such a position was viewed as a “‘humiliating subjection’ to the Synagogue which irked the Church,” says J. Juster, quoted in Studia Patristica, Volume IV, 1961, page 412.
Those who celebrated the Memorial of Jesus’ death on the same day that he died were viewed as Judaizers. It was forgotten that Jesus himself was a Jew and that he had given the day its meaning by then offering his life in behalf of mankind. From then on, the Quartodecimans were censured as heretics and schismatics and were persecuted. The Council of Antioch in 341 C.E. decreed that they were to be excommunicated. Nevertheless, there were still many of them in 400 C.E., and they persisted in small numbers long thereafter.
Since those days, Christendom has failed to return to Jesus’ original arrangement. Professor William Bright admitted: “When a special day, Good Friday, came to be devoted to the commemoration of the Passion as such, it was too late to restrict to it the ‘paschal’ associations which St. Paul had connected with the sacrificial death: they had been freely applied to the Resurrection-festival itself, and a confusion of ideas established itself in the ritual language of Greek and Latin Christendom.”[—The Age of the Fathers, Volume 1, page 102.
yes you may be confused Conrau, the matter is really quite simple and perfectly clear i my mind, believe what you want.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirstly, I have no idea where this article comes from, who wrote and what the author's qualifications are. Secondly, the author does not deal with the primary documents which are the substance of our debate. The question is what did Eusebius mean when he said 'paschal feast' and 'feast of the Savior's passover'? This author does not deal with this question but rather takes it for granted that they are the same thing as 'Lord's supper' (although, I am not even sure that this author makes that claim.) Thirdly, it is hard to imagine that Eusebius, Socrates, Constantine, the Council of Nicaea were wrong and to imagine that the secondary sources, wikipedia, the Catholic encyclopedia and Britannica are all mistaken as well. There are just so many gaps here.
Apostasy Institutionalized
Despite such protests, the Christians in Asia Minor became increasingly isolated on the issue of when to celebrate the Lord’s Evening Meal. Variations had crept in elsewhere. Some celebrated the whole period from Nisan 14 through the following Sunday. Others were holding the occasion more frequently—weekly on Sunday.
...[text shortened]... Conrau, the matter is really quite simple and perfectly clear i my mind, believe what you want.
14 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KAll these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.
Firstly, I have no idea where this article comes from, who wrote and what the author's qualifications are. Secondly, the author does not deal with the primary documents which are the substance of our debate. The question is what did Eusebius mean when he said 'paschal feast' and 'feast of the Savior's passover'? This author does not deal with this question encyclopedia and Britannica are all mistaken as well. There are just so many gaps here.
do you recognise where this text comes from, who wrote it and what his/her objectives were?
let me ask you Conrau,
1.what were the early Christians observing on this day?
2. why is it termed, 'according to the gospel' and what significance does this have?
3. what is the significance, if any of the term here used, 'the fourteenth day of the passover'.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedo you recognise where this text comes from, who wrote it and what his/her objectives were?
[b]All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.
do you recognise where this text comes from, who wrote it and what his/her objectives were?
let me ask you Conrau,
1.what were the early Christians observing on this day?
2. why is it termed, ...[text shortened]... hat is the significance, if any of the term here used, 'the fourteenth day of the passover'.[/b]
Absolutely. It is the speech of Polycrates who is arguing that the paschal feast should be celebrated on the same day as the Jewish passover recorded in Scripture. What Polycrates does not say is 'The Lord's supper is to be observed only on the fourteenth day'. There is no such record anyway of anything of the like.
1.what were the early Christians observing on this day?
The paschal feast or the feast of the Savior's passover.
2. why is it termed, 'according to the gospel' and what significance does this have?
Because the paschal feast commemorates the same passover and so, as Polycrates reasons, it should be observed on the same day recorded in the Scripture. What Polycrates does not say is 'Lord's supper'. You would expect at least someone to mention it.
3. what is the significance, if any of the term here used, 'the fourteenth day of the passover'.
This is the date of the passover.
Robbie, can't you see the unbelievable arrogance in your opinion? Wikipedia is wrong; Britannica is wrong; all the primary documents are wrong.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
Again, the writings of Socrates Scholastic are very compelling. He is the first, it seems, to use the term 'quartodeciman' and he clearly links it to a controversy about Easter:
"In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath: yet they never separated from those who did otherwise, until Victor, bishop of Rome, influenced by too ardent a zeal, fulminated a sentence of excommunication against the Quartodecimans in Asia. Wherefore also Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by letter for his immoderate heat; telling him that although the ancients differed in their celebration of Easter, they did not desist from intercommunion. Also that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who afterwards suffered martyrdom under Gordian, continued to communicate with Anicetus bishop of Rome, although he himself, according to the usage of his native Smyrna, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, as Eusebius attests in the fifth book of his Ecclesiastical History."
I see no reason to doubt Socrates on this point.
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you noticed Rob how everyone you debate with ends up losing their patience with you at some point?! It doesn't matter whether they are a theist or an atheist, you can be sure as the sun will set that day you will somehow manage to wind someone up.
sorry your tone leaves much to be desired, im done, you may make many references to the Nicene fathers until you are blue in the face, every vestige of evidence point to the fact, that there is no mandate to celebrate Easter, it has no association with the passover, for it was a memorial to Christs death, not his resurrection. it was observed by the ...[text shortened]... culate until you are content, the matter is completely resolved in my mind, have a good evening!
It's without doubt a special talent.
14 Jan 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KThey were observing, the lords supper, for it is the only mandate given in scripture, you shall find no other! do you understand that Conrau? the text mentions that on the SAME DAY as the passover, ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL, deviating in NO RESPECT
[b]do you recognise where this text comes from, who wrote it and what his/her objectives were?
Absolutely. It is the speech of Polycrates who is arguing that the paschal feast should be celebrated on the same day as the Jewish passover recorded in Scripture. What Polycrates does not say is 'The Lord's supper is to be observed only on the fourteenth d inion? Wikipedia is wrong; Britannica is wrong; all the primary documents are wrong.[/b]
the context itself states this, as it mentions the feast was observed with unleavened bread, the same as the passover, the same as the Lords evening meal. It has nothing remotely to do with Easter, an essential pagan festival of which neither Christ nor the apostles mentioned, but it has everything to do with the lords evening meal. i resent your assertion of arrogance, its simply a process of deduction from the very text! but you cannot see it, for you are blinded by a dogma dating, not to Christ, not to the apostles, but to the apostate Nicene fathers.
citing texts looked up about Easter to support the false assertion that it was Easter is hardly objective considering there are hundreds of others which state it was the Lords evening meal! citing texts from the catholic church, sympathetic to the false assertion that this was Easter and responsible for the deviation, is hardly objective either!
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobthat is because my dear Noobster, truth has a potency all of its own!
Have you noticed Rob how everyone you debate with ends up losing their patience with you at some point?! It doesn't matter whether they are a theist or an atheist, you can be sure as the sun will set that day you will somehow manage to wind someone up.
It's without doubt a special talent.