14 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobi thought you may appreciate that, i do not deny it, but this is simply a really stupid and unfounded assertion, that has turned a basically simple ceremony into an abomination.
LOL!!!!!!!!!
You wouldn't know truth if it came along and bit you on the backside.
You're a nice guy Rob, but goodness me you're living on another planet.
look it up for yourself Noobster, google, saviours passover and you shall see, it was originally observed on Nisan 14th on the corresponding Jewish month, that it was a simple and annual ceremony with wine and unleavened bread, how the catholic church in its anti Semitism moved the date and started celebrating it on another day, then every day, which eventually through the confusion has come to associate it with Easter, a pagan festival, with no scriptural mandate and no divine authority other than the church of Rome! is it any wonder people are put off religion with such underhanded and deviant practices?
if you want the real crux of the matter, go hear, although as an atheist it may be of little interest to you.
http://www.cogwriter.com/polycrates.htm
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KPolycrates:
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, in ...[text shortened]... fth book of his Ecclesiastical History."
I see no reason to doubt Socrates on this point.
1) Claimed to be a follower of the teachings passed on from the Apostle John
2) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings of the Gospel
3) Relied on the position that teachings from the Bible were above those of Roman-accepted tradition
4) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings passed down to him
5) Was then the spokesperson for many in Asia Minor
6) Claimed he and his predecessors observed the time of unleavened bread
7) Refused to accept the authority of Roman tradition over the Bible
8) Refused to accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome
9) Claimed that his life was to be governed by Jesus and not opinions of men
i wonder which one of these you may be averse to? and the real crux of the matter
Those who in our own times have revived the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, show us how much may be said on their side, and elucidate the tenacity of the Easterns in resisting the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance as to the Paschal, although they agreed to keep it "not with the old leaven."
http://www.cogwriter.com/polycrates.htm
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThey 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
They 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
the context itself states this, as it mentions the feast was observed with unleavened bread, the same ...[text shortened]... se assertion that this was Easter and responsible for the deviation, is hardly objective either!
Yes, Robbie. And I agree that the 14th has a much stronger biblical foundation. The Christian passover is clearly expressed in the Lord's supper and so the day of the Lord's supper was a special commemorative day. This does not prove however that the Lord's supper was only kept on the one day. It was certainly celebrated on the day commemorating the day of the Lord's supper but not exclusively on that day. The evidence is very obvious: Rome only asks Polycrates to move the feast to the next Sunday. If the dispute were exclusively about the celebration of the Lord's supper, they would have demanded it be celebrated every Sunday.
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.
I am not sure why you call Easter a 'pagan festival'. Easter is the Pascha. In Spanish, Easter is Pascua, in Italian Pasqua, in Portuguese Páscoa and in Romanian Paşti. n Dutch, Easter is known as pasen and in the Scandinavian languages Easter is known as påske (Danish and Norwegian), påsk (Swedish), páskar (Icelandic) and páskir (Faeroese). It has absolutely no pagan associations. The word 'Easter' seems to have a pagan origin (although not Roman pagan) but in all other languages it is perfectly innocent.
The accusation that I am blinded by the 'dogma dating' is very bizarre. As I have explained, it is not dogmatic. The Catholic Church can change the date (it is after all, only a commemoration and I hardly think God is fussed with dates). I hope the Church does change the date so that there will be agreement between Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
Again, you have to deal with the problem why Eusebius himself says that the dispute was about Easter.
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!
I didn't cite texts looking up Easter. I looked up 'quartodeciman' in several encyclopedias and they all took me to Easter. I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church only to show that for Catholics Easter is the name for the the Christian passover. You talk as if the two are separate events but for Catholics, and Orthodox Christians, they are one in the same. So when Eusebius says that the dispute was about the 'paschal feast' and the 'feast of the Saviour's passover', we naturally assume Easter and the onus is on you to prove they meant something radically different.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1) Claimed to be a follower of the teachings passed on from the Apostle John
Polycrates:
1) Claimed to be a follower of the teachings passed on from the Apostle John
2) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings of the Gospel
3) Relied on the position that teachings from the Bible were above those of Roman-accepted tradition
4) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings passed down to him
5) Was then ...[text shortened]... ey agreed to keep it "not with the old leaven."
http://www.cogwriter.com/polycrates.htm[/b]
Yes, although so did his opponents.
2) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings of the Gospel
Yes.
3) Relied on the position that teachings from the Bible were above those of Roman-accepted tradition
Yes, although in all fairness, it was not exclusively Roman.
4) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings passed down to him
Yes.
5) Was then the spokesperson for many in Asia Minor
Possibly, although Eusebius indicates some discord since there were clearly some who did not observe the Passover on this day and, therefore, the Asiatic churches had to send Communion to those parishes.
6) Claimed he and his predecessors observed the time of unleavened bread
Yes.
7) Refused to accept the authority of Roman tradition over the Bible
The dispute was more between Roman tradition and the Asiatic tradition. Polycrate's argument comes more from the authority of his predecessors, the apostles and his own family. Eusebius refers to peole in Caesarea, Jerusalem and Gaul who kept to the same Roman tradition.
8) Refused to accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome
Yes.
9) Claimed that his life was to be governed by Jesus and not opinions of men
Yes.
15 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KFacts about Passover: basis of Easter, as discussed in church year (Christianity): Easter:
[b]They 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
Yes, Robbie. And I agree that the 14th has a much stronger biblical foundation. The Christian passove ter and the onus is on you to prove they meant something radically different.[/b]
...;aster or astre, a festival of spring; the Greek and Latin Pascha, from the Hebrew Pesa;, “Passover.” The earliest Christians celebrated the Lords Passover at the same time as the Jews, during the night of the first (paschal) full moon of the first month of spring (Nisan 14–15). By the middle of the 2nd century most churches had...
it says it all!
source? encyclopaedia Britannica! you may wish to look it up!
http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/7779/Passover-as-discussed-in-church-year-Christianity
therfore let me state it for the record
the early christians celebrated the lords passover, the lords evening meal, also known as the pascha from the Hebrew for passover, on the annual festival at the same time as the Jews held the passover.
the church of Rome has deviated from this practice.
Easter is a spring festival, essentially a fertility rite, borrowed by Catholicism and given a very poor and thin veneer, which corresponds not to the death of the Christ, as the mandate has been given in scripture, but to his resurrection, on which no mandate has been given.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, can you comprehend that Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity is mostly European? So the fact that Easter was a festival of Spring means absolutely nothing.
Facts about Passover: basis of Easter, as discussed in church year (Christianity): Easter:
...ēaster or ēastre, a festival of spring; the Greek and Latin Pascha,from the Hebrew Pesaḥ, “Passover.” The earliest Christians celebrated the Lord’s Passover at the same time as the Jews, during the night of the first (paschal) full moo up ...[text shortened]...
http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/7779/Passover-as-discussed-in-church-year-Christianity[/b]$
I am glad however that Britannica indicates that the dispute was about Easter. Hopefully you will come to admit it one day.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFacts about Passover: basis of Easter, as discussed in church year (Christianity): Easter:the early christians celebrated the lords passover, the lords evening meal, also known as the pascha from the Hebrew for passover, on the annual festival at the same time as the Jews held the passover.
...;aster or astre, a festival of spring; the Greek and Latin Pascha, from the Hebrew Pesa;, “Passover.” The earliest Christians celebrated the Lords Passover at the same time as the Jews, during the night of the first (paschal) full moon of the first mon andate has been given in scripture, but to his resurrection, on which no mandate has been given.
You really are sneaky. You show that the early Christians celebrated the Lord's passover at the same time as the Jews. No one disputes that. Then you sneak the words 'Lord's evening meal' appositively as if everyone agrees that the feast of the Lord's passover and the Lord's supper are the same thing.
Easter is a spring festival, essentially a fertility rite, borrowed by Catholicism and given a very poor and thin veneer, which corresponds not to the death of the Christ, as the mandate has been given in scripture, but to his resurrection, on which no mandate has been given.
Prove it. I am skeptical. And even if it were true, it does not prove that the feast of the Passover is the same thing as the Lord's supper.
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau Kwhat is it about the etymology of the word pascha that you do not understand Conrau? we have the pascha lamb, the pascha moon, festival of the pascha, all meaning, passover! what it means Conrau, is that the catholic church has deviated from the simple ceremony that has been written in the gospel, as practised by the apostles, and supplanted it with a pagan celebration! now if they are willing to adulterate that, what else, or what other stones remain unturned!
Robbie, can you comprehend that Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity is mostly European? So the fact that Easter was a festival of Spring means absolutely nothing.
I am glad however that Britannica indicates that the dispute was about Easter. Hopefully you will come to admit it one day.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat is it about the etymology of the word pascha that you do not understand Conrau? we have the pascha lamb, the pascha moon, festival of the pascha, all meaning, passover!
what is it about the etymology of the word pascha that you do not understand Conrau? we have the pascha lamb, the pascha moon, festival of the pascha, all meaning, passover! what it means Conrau, is that the catholic church has deviated from the simple ceremony that has been written in the gospel, as practised by the apostles, and supplanted it with ...[text shortened]... n! now if they are willing to adulterate that, what else, or what other stones remain unturned!
Exactly. This is why in non-English churches, Easter is called the Paschal feast. This is why I have asked you several times why you think Eusebius meant 'Lord's supper' when he wrote 'Paschal feast'. Your interpretation does not accord with how these terms have traditionally been understood.
what it means Conrau, is that the catholic church has deviated from the simple ceremony that has been written in the gospel, as practised by the apostles, and supplanted it with a pagan celebration! now if they are willing to adulterate that, what else, or what other stones remain unturned!
You keep saying that but I do not see the evidence. The term 'Easter' definitely has pagan origins. I do not dispute that. However, the feast of Easter has in all other languages been known as the Pascha. I do not see how the Pascha could be called pagan. I will give you a few days to look through your Watchtower documents and whatever other inane anti-Catholic tracts you have.
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe content of your debate doesn't really appeal to me Rob, i'm not concerned abou the true origins of Easter. Easter to me means a four day weekend and chocolate.
i thought you may appreciate that, i do not deny it, but this is simply a really stupid and unfounded assertion, that has turned a basically simple ceremony into an abomination.
look it up for yourself Noobster, google, saviours passover and you shall see, it was originally observed on Nisan 14th on the corresponding Jewish month, that it was a ...[text shortened]... gh as an atheist it may be of little interest to you.
http://www.cogwriter.com/polycrates.htm
I just found it amusing that Conrau, who i think we can agree is definitley one of the more mild mannered posters on this forum, lost his patience and temper with you. It's a special gift you seem to have there Rob.
15 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhat about me Noobster my friend, i was up to three in the morning, twice, trying to get our erudite friend to see the errors of his ways! more than once i determined that i would petition the very stones to cry out as a witness against him. there are bite marks on the side of my monitor as well. i should be granted a sainthood for the patience i have shown, but no, its all my fault, i am the cause of frustration. I take solace that even the Christ himself was mocked and treated unjustly!
The content of your debate doesn't really appeal to me Rob, i'm not concerned abou the true origins of Easter. Easter to me means a four day weekend and chocolate.
I just found it amusing that Conrau, who i think we can agree is definitley one of the more mild mannered posters on this forum, lost his patience and temper with you. It's a special gift you seem to have there Rob.
yes , there is no doubt that Conrau is one of the more gentler debaters, and actually i really like his posts, they are always full of content, although, he has his moments of sensationalism as well. One must remember that it took almost 200 posts to actually get him to admit that the Christian passover, the last supper or the lords evening meal as we call it, was originally held as an annual event on the corresponding Jewish month of Nisan fourteenth, and then after this he wants to dispute that the Christian passover is not the same as the lords evening meal! it was too much, the parallels are there for all to see for those who are interested. its not my fault the old Nicene fathers messed with the word of the Christ, its not my fault that they have changed the dates, its not my fault they have deviated by usurping an essentially sacred festival in memorial of Christs death with a spring fertility rite.
you however are absolutely correct, it is foolish and vain to try to reason with such an approach and if i may be permitted a scriptural reference,
(2 Timothy 2:24-26) . . .But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, instructing with mildness those not favourably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, and they may come back to their proper senses. . .
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe fact is that I have always admitted that early Christians celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan. What I have denied is that this is equivalent to the Lord's supper. A critical reading of Eusebius' writing shows they cannot be. So while I believe that Polycarp celebrated the Paschal feast at the same time as the Jewish passover, I do not believe that he confined the celebration of the Eucharist to this day. The Paschal feast and the the Eucharist were and always have been distinct.
what about me Noobster my friend, i was up to three in the morning, twice, trying to get our erudite friend to see the errors of his ways! more than once i determined that i would petition the very stones to cry out as a witness against him. there are bite marks on the side of my monitor as well. i should be granted a sainthood for the patience i ...[text shortened]... e leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, and they may come back to their proper senses. . .
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Jan 10
2 edits
I think it might be helpful to summarise all the evidence just to focus the discussion.
Scripture
- Acts 2:46 and 20:7 indicate that the breaking of the bread had some liturgical significance. 20:7 shows that the early Christians came together on a Sunday. This has always been understood as an early Eucharistic celebration because the 'breaking of the bread' refers back to the gospel words 'He took the bread and broke it.'
- 1Cor10:16 indicates that people met on Sunday. St Paul does not refer to a Eucharistic celebration but rather to collections. In the early church and nowadays, the collection is carried out until the Eucharistic celebration.
Primary Sources
- St Justin the Martyr (writing circa 160) says that the celebration of the Eucharist is celebrated every Sunday and that this is a universal custom. He does not refer to it as the Christian Passover or the Paschal feast, suggesting that these are different to the Eucharist.
- St Ignatius writes to Polycarp and to the Smyrnaeans in two separate epistles (before the controversy in Rome) in which he says that the Eucharist is to be celebrated by a bishop or by someone entrusted with this mission when the bishop is absent. It suggests the Eucharist was a common observance such that bishops were often absent.
- Eusebius says in his Life of Constantine says that the controversy with the Asiatic church was about the celebration of Easter.
- The Council of Nicaea issues a date for the celebration of Easter and in its synodial letter says that the dispute with those following the Jewish observance was thus solved.
- Socrates Scholasticus, who seems to be the first to use the term 'Quartodeciman', says that the problem was about the date of Easter. He also says that despite the controversy all the churches celebrated intercommunion (and how can there be intercommunion, if as Robbie claims, the churches celebrated the Lord's supper on different days?)
Eusebius' Church History
- Eusebius distinguishes the Paschal feast from the Eucharist (which is otherwise known as the Lord's supper to many Christians). He says that the Eucharist was distributed outside the Paschal feast.
- Eusebius reports that Polycarp could not be persuaded to change the date. However, he also indicates that Polycarp willingly celebrated Communion before his departure. The controversy clearly then is not about the Lord's supper because Polycarp was fiercely opposed to a change in date (and claimed apostolic authority on this point) but took Communion.
- The opponents of Polycrates do not ask that he observe the Eucharist each Sunday but rather that he transfer the Paschal feast to Sunday. If the dispute were about the time to celebrate the Lord's supper, they would have asked that it be every Sunday.
Secondary Sources
- Wikipedia, Britannica, the Oxford English Dictionary and the Catholic Encyclopedia all say that Quartodecimanism concerned the date of Easter. None of these sources discusses the Lord's supper.
- The Paschal feast is otherwise known as Easter, not the Lord's supper.
- Polycarp and Melito of Sardis, whom Eusebius names as prominent Quartodecimans, were both canonised as saints. If they really did confine their Eucharistic celebration to one day of the year, in contrast to all the other churches, it is hard to imagine how they would be made saints.
- The Asiatic churches abandoned Quartodecimanism after the Council of Nicaea indicating that it was not such an important belief. If however it really meant that the number of Eucharistic celebrations went from 1 a year to 54, it is hard to imagine how they could have accepted it so placidly.
15 Jan 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kthere are of course counter arguments for each oner of these rather flimsy and ill conceived arguments, just by way of example, the very first one, supposes that every time the statement, 'bread is broken', it necessitates the rendering of a ceremonial nature, which as any one can see is utter nonsense, the correct rendering is a communal meal, and so it goes with the rest! to try to state that Paul went by the Gregorian calender is equally nonsense! for it is well known that it was the Apostate Roman catholic church which made Sunday a day of worship, and so it goes on and on, one after the other, we may blow these flimsy arguments away as one would the dust from a cover of a book.
I think it might be helpful to summarise all the evidence just to focus the discussion.
[b]Scripture
- Acts 2:46 and 20:7 indicate that the breaking of the bread had some liturgical significance. 20:7 shows that the early Christians came together on a Sunday. This has always been understood as an early Eucharistic celebration because the 'breaking 1 a year to 54, it is hard to imagine how they could have accepted it so placidly.[/b]
you cannot and i repeat this cannot even make the association of the Christs passover and the lords evening meal, therefore all else is ludicrous! believe what you want Conrau i shall continue to assert the same as i did at the beginning of the discussion, my only regret is that i expended so much time in coming to the same conclusion.