OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 06:57:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?  (Read 21382 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« on: January 29, 2010, 01:35:40 PM »

Grace and Peace,

An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Al Lipscomb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian, Diocese of Miami and the Southeast
Posts: 38


« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2010, 02:07:33 PM »

I would say that based on the Gospel of John, starting in Chapter 13, that the passover had not yet started when that meal was served. The lack of a mention of a lamb being served at the meal would also not be passover.
Logged

---
AA4YU CISSP
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2010, 02:16:43 PM »

Grace and Peace,

An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

If you are arguing with an Orthodox, why are you asking about Protestants? Huh

The Gospel of John makes it clear that he was not celebrating Passover. 19:14.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2010, 02:27:04 PM »

I would say that based on the Gospel of John, starting in Chapter 13, that the passover had not yet started when that meal was served. The lack of a mention of a lamb being served at the meal would also not be passover.

Yes, this appears to be the default Eastern position but John 13 seems to mirror passages in the other three Gospels (Mt. 26:1; Mk. 14:1; Lk. 22:1). The other three Gospels continues later in their chapters to show the arrival of passover and the preparation of the meal (i.e. lamb) by the Apostles.

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. (Mat 26:17-19)

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? (Mar 14:12)

And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luk 22:13-19)


When I first encountered this position, I was pretty shocked because it the first time that I thought I found a 'tradition' that might suggest to me that Orthodoxy is using a pious filter to pretext a greater distinction between Judaism and Christianity by reinterpreting the Sacred Text in this way...

I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2010, 02:30:39 PM »


If you are arguing with an Orthodox, why are you asking about Protestants? Huh

The Gospel of John makes it clear that he was not celebrating Passover. 19:14.

It seems to me that Orthodox are by and large 'scripted' in their replies... I hate to say it but I don't think they would respond critically even if it didn't make sense to them...

No disrespect intended.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Al Lipscomb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian, Diocese of Miami and the Southeast
Posts: 38


« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2010, 02:46:41 PM »

Well it may be the "default Eastern position", but I come from a background of 47 years in the Protestant church and am not yet a member of the Eastern Orthodox. I simply took your question and looked up the verses in the Bible.

If you look at the verses you sited, the actual passover meal seems to be in the future. Jesus wants to eat the passover with his disciples, but the hour has come and he will not be able to. The Jewish ceremony of passover was a multiple day affair due to the amount of preparation required.

And of course if you look at the picture of the passover and the placement of the blood of the lamb, it would make sense that in its place (on the day of) we would have the new lamb and the blood on the Cross instead of the door frame. Jesus was the fulfillment of (and replacement) of the passover.
Logged

---
AA4YU CISSP
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2010, 02:48:27 PM »

Well it may be the "default Eastern position", but I come from a background of 47 years in the Protestant church and am not yet a member of the Eastern Orthodox. I simply took your question and looked up the verses in the Bible.

If you look at the verses you sited, the actual passover meal seems to be in the future. Jesus wants to eat the passover with his disciples, but the hour has come and he will not be able to. The Jewish ceremony of passover was a multiple day affair due to the amount of preparation required.

And of course if you look at the picture of the passover and the placement of the blood of the lamb, it would make sense that in its place (on the day of) we would have the new lamb and the blood on the Cross instead of the door frame. Jesus was the fulfillment of (and replacement) of the passover.


Actually, it seems like the passover is just past... look at Luke 22...

Excerpts from Luke 22:
"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 02:57:25 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,453



« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2010, 02:56:46 PM »

Grace and Peace,

An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?
I'm still a bit confused why a Roman Catholic would ask a question about Protestant belief on an Orthodox board Huh

Or are you just trying to argue with ALL your Orthodox Friends  Smiley ?
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2010, 03:00:02 PM »

Grace and Peace,

An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?
I'm still a bit confused why a Roman Catholic would ask a question about Protestant belief on an Orthodox board Huh

Or are you just trying to argue with ALL your Orthodox Friends  Smiley ?

I want to know what those with an unbiased objective study of the scriptures think... Wink I know what Catholics say and what Orthodox say... neither seems correct to me so I'm asking Protestants what they think... why is that a problem?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:00:32 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2010, 03:05:11 PM »

Well it may be the "default Eastern position", but I come from a background of 47 years in the Protestant church and am not yet a member of the Eastern Orthodox. I simply took your question and looked up the verses in the Bible.

If you look at the verses you sited, the actual passover meal seems to be in the future. Jesus wants to eat the passover with his disciples, but the hour has come and he will not be able to. The Jewish ceremony of passover was a multiple day affair due to the amount of preparation required.

And of course if you look at the picture of the passover and the placement of the blood of the lamb, it would make sense that in its place (on the day of) we would have the new lamb and the blood on the Cross instead of the door frame. Jesus was the fulfillment of (and replacement) of the passover.



Actually, it seems like the passover is just past... look at Luke 22...

Excerpts from Luke 22:
"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

Erev Pesach
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13375.msg285218.html#msg285218
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:05:43 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2010, 03:10:20 PM »

It seems to me that Orthodox are by and large 'scripted' in their replies... I hate to say it but I don't think they would respond critically even if it didn't make sense to them...

No disrespect intended.

LOL!  Then why are you bothering to discuss ANYTHING with us on this board?  

Quote
Yes, this appears to be the default Eastern position...

No.  This is the carefully considered position of many Scripture scholars, regardless of confession!


Quote
I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.

That's probably just because it is your "default position" to think in such a way.  Wink
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:25:02 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2010, 03:11:08 PM »


As I've said before, John's Gospel seems to leave out the 'entire' supper... I don't believe that should be used for us to fill in whatever we want. As I've stated already, Luke clearly points out that it was 'after' the Passover... John's Gospel seems to be missing this...

Excerpts from Luke 22:
"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:12:11 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2010, 03:14:32 PM »

I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.

That's probably just because it is your "default position" to think in such a way.  Wink 

Sure, I don't like to contradict Scripture... which is why I'm interested in 'everyones' position. I don't want to simply trust myself with the interpretation. I do know how I read it and, as it stands, I don't agree with the Orthodox Commentary.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2010, 03:22:12 PM »

I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.

That's probably just because it is your "default position" to think in such a way.  Wink

Sure, I don't like to contradict Scripture... which is why I'm interested in 'everyones' position. I don't want to simply trust myself with the interpretation. I do know how I read it and, as it stands, I don't agree with the Orthodox Commentary.




This is the carefully considered position of many Scripture scholars, regardless of confession!


« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:25:27 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2010, 03:29:13 PM »

This is the carefully considered position of many Scripture scholars, regardless of confession!

I heard you but I continue to see no reason to interpret it in any other way that how St. Luke does...
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Al Lipscomb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian, Diocese of Miami and the Southeast
Posts: 38


« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2010, 03:31:09 PM »

With all the detail Luke provides there still seems to be a lamb missing from the meal described. Since the Jewish day began at 6:00pm, it would seem that they are eating a meal on the evening of the day the lamb would have been sacrificed after sunrise, then cooked. The lamb would have been eaten after the next sunset, the next day, which was the Passover in sight.

 
Logged

---
AA4YU CISSP
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2010, 03:38:58 PM »

With all the detail Luke provides there still seems to be a lamb missing from the meal described. Since the Jewish day began at 6:00pm, it would seem that they are eating a meal on the evening of the day the lamb would have been sacrificed after sunrise, then cooked. The lamb would have been eaten after the next sunset, the next day, which was the Passover in sight.

So when we read this, you don't interpret 'So they prepared the Passover'... as preparing the lamb...? When Jesus says 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again....' you don't interpret this as 'after' he had just eaten the the Passover with his Apostles...? And so you don't interpret this... 'after the supper' as 'after' the Passover He had just eaten that He 'will not eat again'...?

Honestly guys and gals, I find this weird.

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:39:51 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Al Lipscomb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian, Diocese of Miami and the Southeast
Posts: 38


« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2010, 03:52:10 PM »

I interpret it based on John's account which gives further clarification as to the day.

Of course Mark also has it pretty clearly laid out in 14:1:

"Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. For they said, “Not during the feast, so there won’t be a riot among the people.”

Logged

---
AA4YU CISSP
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2010, 03:56:10 PM »


Must be lying then, although I recall long hours standing while John 13-8 is read every Great and Holy Week.  I think it starts (13:2) "And supper being ended..."

Quote
I don't believe that should be used for us to fill in whatever we want.

No, it's not. So I'm sticking with what the Church teaches.

Quote
As I've stated already, Luke clearly points out that it was 'after' the Passover... John's Gospel seems to be missing this...

Excerpts from Luke 22:
"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

I read it the first time.

Actually, it seems like the passover is just past... look at Luke 22...

Excerpts from Luke 22:
"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

Erev Pesach
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13375.msg285218.html#msg285218
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 03:57:08 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2010, 04:02:07 PM »

I interpret it based on John's account which gives further clarification as to the day.

Of course Mark also has it pretty clearly laid out in 14:1:

"Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. For they said, “Not during the feast, so there won’t be a riot among the people.”

See I look at John 14:1, the same as, Mt. 26:1; Mk. 14:1 and Lk. 22:1... a prelude to the actual feast.


Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh
, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude. Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. (Luk 22:1-7)

John's Gospel appears to be missing any detail of when the actual day came. Of course, he is missing the entire feast. I have always been taught to use what is more specific in the text to illuminate what is less specific, not the other way round.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2010, 04:04:59 PM »

Must be lying then, although I recall long hours standing while John 13-8 is read every Great and Holy Week.  I think it starts (13:2) "And supper being ended..."

You seem to take personal offense to my inquiry. I'm sorry about that but I placed this in the Protestant section.

But you point out what I am talking about 13:1 to 13:2 before Passover and then it jumps to after the supper... strange.

Quote
No, it's not. So I'm sticking with what the Church teaches.

No, one is telling you otherwise. 'I' the one who is inquiring here. I'm not asking you to do anything. My OP wasn't even directed toward Orthodox.  Undecided
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 04:08:27 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2010, 04:08:48 PM »

Grace and Peace,

An Orthodox Friend of mine argued with me that Jesus wasn't celebrating the Jewish Passover during the Last Supper. Upon reading all four Gospels it seemed pretty clear to me that he was...

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?
I'm still a bit confused why a Roman Catholic would ask a question about Protestant belief on an Orthodox board Huh

Or are you just trying to argue with ALL your Orthodox Friends  Smiley ?

I want to know what those with an unbiased objective study of the scriptures think... Wink I know what Catholics say and what Orthodox say... neither seems correct to me so I'm asking Protestants what they think... why is that a problem?
I agree that this is a strange question. Do you want to know what our opinion is? Or do you want to know what our opinion of the various Protestant opinions is? You'll notice that there is no Catholic-Protestant Discussion board here. There's a reason for that. This forum is for the discussion of Orthodoxy, and this board in particular is for the discussion of Orthodoxy as it relates to the Protestant faiths. I think we need some clarification here, especially considering that you are neither Orthodox nor Protestant.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2010, 04:19:02 PM »

Of course it was a supper in the perspective of Passover.  It had the sorts of the Passover celebration, the breaking of bread, and the drinking of the cup, but it was not the actual Passover seder because it took place on Thursday evening, not Friday evening. The lams were not killed yet, according to St. John, the death of Christ took place the next day, Friday, while the lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple.

But all this is not the point.  The connection with Passover is not the meal, but the sacrifice. The lambs being slaughtered in the Temple are of the Old Covenant, the Lamb being sacrificed on the cross is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

The Orthodox Church even goes on to teach the Last Supper is not the essence of the Eucharist. The full essence of the Eucharist is not our reenactment of a meal, but our participation in the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming.  Eternal actions.

I guess what I am saying is that the old Passover was changed into a new Passover, a NEW PASCHA), (not a sader turned into the last supper).  

On Easter we sing in church: Today Christ the Redeemer has been revealed to us as a Pascha, a sacred Pascha, a new and holy Pascha, a mystical Pascha, a most honorable Pascha, a blameless Pascha, a great Pascha, a Pascha for the faithful, a Pascha which has opened for us the gates of Paradise, a Pascha which sanctifies all the faithful.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 04:19:38 PM by AWR » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2010, 04:30:53 PM »


I agree that this is a strange question. Do you want to know what our opinion is? Or do you want to know what our opinion of the various Protestant opinions is? You'll notice that there is no Catholic-Protestant Discussion board here. There's a reason for that. This forum is for the discussion of Orthodoxy, and this board in particular is for the discussion of Orthodoxy as it relates to the Protestant faiths. I think we need some clarification here, especially considering that you are neither Orthodox nor Protestant.

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

The other Gospels seem to be very clear on the point that it was just after the Passover. To argue from the weakest Gospel to be authoritative seems to contradict the other three, I've never been taught to do that.

Also, my wife, my father and my brother are all Baptists. I get in Scriptural discussions often. I'm not unfamiliar with their point of view.

Why does John's Gospel trump the other three in your exegesis? I don't understand that...
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2010, 04:35:21 PM »

I interpret it based on John's account which gives further clarification as to the day.

Of course Mark also has it pretty clearly laid out in 14:1:

"Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. For they said, “Not during the feast, so there won’t be a riot among the people.”

See I look at John 14:1, the same as, Mt. 26:1; Mk. 14:1 and Lk. 22:1... a prelude to the actual feast.


Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh
, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude. Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. (Luk 22:1-7)

John's Gospel appears to be missing any detail of when the actual day came. Of course, he is missing the entire feast. I have always been taught to use what is more specific in the text to illuminate what is less specific, not the other way round.


Then you are going to have a problem with Luke, as he only speaks of one Passover, whereas St. John speaks of three in Christ's earthly ministry, along with other feasts that mark the three years of His public preaching.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2010, 04:41:07 PM »

Of course it was a supper in the perspective of Passover.  It had the sorts of the Passover celebration, the breaking of bread, and the drinking of the cup, but it was not the actual Passover seder because it took place on Thursday evening, not Friday evening. The lams were not killed yet, according to St. John, the death of Christ took place the next day, Friday, while the lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple.

But all this is not the point.  The connection with Passover is not the meal, but the sacrifice. The lambs being slaughtered in the Temple are of the Old Covenant, the Lamb being sacrificed on the cross is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

The Orthodox Church even goes on to teach the Last Supper is not the essence of the Eucharist. The full essence of the Eucharist is not our reenactment of a meal, but our participation in the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming.  Eternal actions.

I guess what I am saying is that the old Passover was changed into a new Passover, a NEW PASCHA), (not a sader turned into the last supper).  

On Easter we sing in church: Today Christ the Redeemer has been revealed to us as a Pascha, a sacred Pascha, a new and holy Pascha, a mystical Pascha, a most honorable Pascha, a blameless Pascha, a great Pascha, a Pascha for the faithful, a Pascha which has opened for us the gates of Paradise, a Pascha which sanctifies all the faithful.



It seems that Jesus has His last Passover among His Apostles... and yet He seems to elude to doing it again... until 'it' finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.


"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover." ... They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.' ... In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying..."

Are you saying that He is 'closing the Old Law' (i.e. Sedar) to fulfill it with the Eucharist?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2010, 04:43:15 PM »


Then you are going to have a problem with Luke, as he only speaks of one Passover, whereas St. John speaks of three in Christ's earthly ministry, along with other feasts that mark the three years of His public preaching.

How is that a problem? Luke seems to focus on 'this passover' because it is where the Eucharist (Last Supper) is instituted. My point is in John's Gospel this 'last passover' seems to be 'passed over'...  laugh
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2010, 04:44:35 PM »

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.
Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2010, 04:50:55 PM »

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.
Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Yes, that is easy path... just discard it as 'heresy' and you don't have to deal with 'real' people asking 'real' questions. Gotcha.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2010, 04:55:03 PM »

^ Have you read this other thread that deals with the Orthodox POV?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13375.0.html
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2010, 04:59:37 PM »

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.
Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Obviously he wanted the input and feedback of resident protestants here at OC.net. He wasn't asking you (the Doxies) he was asking us (the Protties on OC.net). Is it really that hard to comprehend? Why are you giving the guy down the road and tried to exclude protestants being sought for input???
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2010, 05:01:21 PM »

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.
Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Yes, that is easy path... just discard it as 'heresy' and you don't have to deal with 'real' people asking 'real' questions. Gotcha.
Oh, we like real people to ask us real questions about the Orthodox Faith. However, we generally stay away from playing arbiter to which heresy is more correct.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2010, 05:10:48 PM »

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Obviously not that familiar, or you wouldn't resort to cheap caricatures.

To argue from the weakest Gospel to be authoritative seems to contradict the other three, I've never been taught to do that.

"From the weakest Gospel?"  Is that really necessary?  How about "from the least detailed about the meal" or "from the most ambiguous account IMO?"  You're not going to encourage meaningful discussion on the topic with comments like "the weakest Gospel."

Also, my wife, my father and my brother are all Baptists. I get in Scriptural discussions often. I'm not unfamiliar with their point of view.

Right.

Why does John's Gospel trump the other three in your exegesis? I don't understand that...

I suppose John's Gospel gets a lot of respect from the Orthodox because:

1. It starts the earliest ("In the beginning") and ends the latest ("If it is my will that he remain until I come...") of the Gospels (heck, it starts earlier than Genesis).
2. It's the Gospel of Love
3. It seems to be written to supplement the other accounts, adding in words and actions that were left out by the other Gospels.
4. It is well used by the early Church writers and Fathers.
5. It focuses on our relationship with God (very ethereal, no? it's why he gets the eagle symbol)
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2010, 05:12:09 PM »

^ Have you read this other thread that deals with the Orthodox POV?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13375.0.html

No Father I haven't, but I sure will take a peek at it...  Smiley
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,532


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2010, 05:14:12 PM »

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.
Noram I trying to push you away, but if you don't want to know our opinion, why are you asking us? You won't get "the Protestant opinion"--as you yourself ought to know, Protestants are too widely varying in their beliefs to categorise like that. So my best advice is if you want to know what your family members believe, ask them. I doubt you'll find many Orthodox who have studied heresies enough to be able to give you such a detailed explanation as you are requesting.

Obviously he wanted the input and feedback of resident protestants here at OC.net. He wasn't asking you (the Doxies) he was asking us (the Protties on OC.net). Is it really that hard to comprehend? Why are you giving the guy down the road and tried to exclude protestants being sought for input???
A Catholic comes to an Orthodox discussion board, finds some of the resident Protestants, asks them a question about Scripture, and says to his Orthodox hosts, "I don't want your opinion."  It's like denying the vast Orthodox majority who visit this site access to a thread on their own forum.  That strikes me as rather rude.  If ignatius, a Catholic, really wants to dialogue with Protestants about what they believe, I would think that there are other discussion forums outside of OC.net where he doesn't have to cut his hosts out of the conversation.
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2010, 05:25:41 PM »

Ignatius,

Some protestants hold to a distinction between this meal and the Passover Seder proper, as obviously does the Orthodox. Some do not.
I am one of those who does not. The text itself is clear, this was a passover meal. There is no need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions. The Bible clearly says it was a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion -- as you so thoroughly cited.

Also, the internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder. Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder. That our misleading. No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further. If it looks like a seder, taste like a seder, & feels like a seder it's probably because IT WAS a seder.

However, it is understandably confusing when people then read about the sacrificial offerings the following day. And questions crop up about whether there was a lamb or not (as the text it not explicit either way). I understand their need to rationalize an explanation therefore. However, what some forget (or perhaps do not realize) is that the Jewish day starts at sundown (so the day of Passover had indeed already come) and that there was a dual observance of the passover among the Jews. The majority keeping the feast on the twilight following the day of Passover, a minority keeping the feast on the twilight inaugurating the day of Passover. Obviously Jesus used this ambiguity of which twilight to feast on to both keep the feast and to then fulfill it later that day.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 05:34:31 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2010, 05:28:52 PM »

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Obviously not that familiar, or you wouldn't resort to cheap caricatures.

My caricature was an attempt as brevity not it insult.

Quote
To argue from the weakest Gospel to be authoritative seems to contradict the other three, I've never been taught to do that.

"From the weakest Gospel?"  Is that really necessary?  How about "from the least detailed about the meal" or "from the most ambiguous account IMO?"  You're not going to encourage meaningful discussion on the topic with comments like "the weakest Gospel."

Yes, these are far better descriptions of my intent than 'weakest'...


Quote
Why does John's Gospel trump the other three in your exegesis? I don't understand that...

I suppose John's Gospel gets a lot of respect from the Orthodox because:

1. It starts the earliest ("In the beginning") and ends the latest ("If it is my will that he remain until I come...") of the Gospels (heck, it starts earlier than Genesis).
2. It's the Gospel of Love
3. It seems to be written to supplement the other accounts, adding in words and actions that were left out by the other Gospels.
4. It is well used by the early Church writers and Fathers.
5. It focuses on our relationship with God (very ethereal, no? it's why he gets the eagle symbol)

The whole of Scripture should have the same weight shouldn't it?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2010, 05:30:31 PM »

I want to know what those with an unbiased objective study of the scriptures think... Wink I know what Catholics say and what Orthodox say... neither seems correct to me so I'm asking Protestants what they think... why is that a problem?

Protestants, unbiased? Bwahahahahahahaha! That's funny!  laugh  laugh

Tell us another one! Come on! Tell us another one!  Roll Eyes
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2010, 05:33:59 PM »

A Catholic comes to an Orthodox discussion board, finds some of the resident Protestants, asks them a question about Scripture, and says to his Orthodox hosts, "I don't want your opinion."  It's like denying the vast Orthodox majority who visit this site access to a thread on their own forum.  That strikes me as rather rude.  If ignatius, a Catholic, really wants to dialogue with Protestants about what they believe, I would think that there are other discussion forums outside of OC.net where he doesn't have to cut his hosts out of the conversation.

Have a pity party, will ya?  Tongue

Besides, he clarified rather emphatically that he wasn't cutting out Orthodox views or comments, only that he was rather familiar with them and was particularly curious about Protestant views. You are simply making to much of his asking for non-Orthodox input. And, as an aside, it seems quite telling as to the depth of real fraternity you extend to us believers outside the Orthodox church. Yeah, I took it as an affront. You see, Ignatius was not attempting to cut out Orthodox input, only to especially seek out Protestant input. You and Y-man are the ones seeking to cut out input from the likes of me. And why? Because this is a predominately Orthodox board? Then why permit us here in the first place? Like I said, telling...  Angry  Embarrassed
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2010, 05:40:34 PM »

Ignatius,

Some protestants hold to a distinction between this meal and the Passover Seder proper, as obviously does the Orthodox. Some do not.
I am one of those who does not. The text itself is clear, this was a passover meal. There is no need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions. The Bible clearly says it was a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion -- as you so thoroughly cited.

Also, the internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder. Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder. That our misleading. No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further. If it looks like a seder, taste like a seder, & feels like a seder it's probably because IT WAS a seder.

However, it is understandably confusing when people then read about the sacrificial offerings the following day. And questions crop up about whether there was a lamb or not (as the text it not explicit either way). I understand their need to rationalize an explanation therefore. However, what some forget (or perhaps do not realize) is that the Jewish day starts at sundown (so the day of Passover had indeed already come) and that there was a dual observance of the passover among the Jews. The majority keeping the feast on the twilight following the day of Passover, a minority keeping the feast on the twilight inaugurating the day of Passover. Obviously Jesus used this ambiguity of which twilight to feast on to both keep the feast and to then fulfill it later that day.



Hi there Cleopas,

Do you have the break down of the actual Sader Dinner and how does it parallel the evening of the Last Supper? Also, as I pointed out... the institution of the Eucharist seems to happen 'after' this supper... do you see this as a continuance of the Sader or as a 'new' institution all together?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2010, 05:43:47 PM »

My caricature was an attempt as brevity not it insult.

Noted.  Thank you for clarifying.

Yes, these are far better descriptions of my intent than 'weakest'...

You are welcome.

The whole of Scripture should have the same weight shouldn't it?

Nope.  It can't.  Christ's coming into the world, His Death, and His Resurrection changed existence as we know it - hence, we can't look at the OT without the lenses of the New.  The Gospels become for us the Rosetta Stone of the OT, translating God's plan in the language of our lives.  It's not to say that all Scripture isn't important - far from it, all scripture IS important.  But to hold everything at the same level wouldn't be very, well, Orthodox of us.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2010, 05:44:50 PM »

Do you have the break down of the actual Sader Dinner and how does it parallel the evening of the Last Supper?

Someone else has posted it here before... I'll see if I can track it down.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2010, 05:55:27 PM »

Hi there Cleopas,

Do you have the break down of the actual Sader Dinner and how does it parallel the evening of the Last Supper?

Not handy I don't, but you might try Levittdotcom.

Quote
Also, as I pointed out... the institution of the Eucharist seems to happen 'after' this supper... do you see this as a continuance of the Sader or as a 'new' institution all together?

I actually see the institution of the eucharist happening with the supper. The reference to "after supper" refers again to ceremonial stages of the seder, and helps to indicates which seder cup (the after supper cup, or the 4th in the seder) Christ chose to represent His blood. So, I definitely see it (though designated "after suppe"r) as a continuance of the seder.

However, as an aside, I do not believe the full seder meal or celebration is obligatory for believers (though quite illuminating when seen) -- only those elements thereof which Christ ordains as uniquely referring to Him and His sacrificial offering of Himself as our passover.


Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,532


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2010, 05:58:16 PM »

A Catholic comes to an Orthodox discussion board, finds some of the resident Protestants, asks them a question about Scripture, and says to his Orthodox hosts, "I don't want your opinion."  It's like denying the vast Orthodox majority who visit this site access to a thread on their own forum.  That strikes me as rather rude.  If ignatius, a Catholic, really wants to dialogue with Protestants about what they believe, I would think that there are other discussion forums outside of OC.net where he doesn't have to cut his hosts out of the conversation.

Have a pity party, will ya?  Tongue

Besides, he clarified rather emphatically that he wasn't cutting out Orthodox views or comments, only that he was rather familiar with them and was particularly curious about Protestant views. You are simply making to much of his asking for non-Orthodox input.
I think you're overlooking his statements that he finds Orthodox responses generally too scripted and biased and therefore unreliable, that he's coming to you and other Protestants because he thinks that only you have a truly unbiased understanding of the Scriptures.  This sounds to me like a rejection of what we have to say, a cutting out of Orthodox views or comments.  If he doesn't like our answers, what motivation do we have to share them with him?

And, as an aside, it seems quite telling as to the depth of real fraternity you extend to us believers outside the Orthodox church. Yeah, I took it as an affront. You see, Ignatius was not attempting to cut out Orthodox input, only to especially seek out Protestant input. You and Y-man are the ones seeking to cut out input from the likes of me. And why? Because this is a predominately Orthodox board? Then why permit us here in the first place? Like I said, telling...  Angry  Embarrassed
The simple answer is that this has nothing to do with any desire to limit input from the likes of you, such desire as does not actually exist.  We would just simply like it if ignatius would not openly reject Orthodox input on his questions, that if he's going to ask a question soliciting Protestant feedback, he be a bit more welcoming of the points of view of his Orthodox hosts.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2010, 06:00:21 PM »


Quote
The whole of Scripture should have the same weight shouldn't it?

Nope.  It can't.  Christ's coming into the world, His Death, and His Resurrection changed existence as we know it - hence, we can't look at the OT without the lenses of the New.  The Gospels become for us the Rosetta Stone of the OT, translating God's plan in the language of our lives.  It's not to say that all Scripture isn't important - far from it, all scripture IS important.  But to hold everything at the same level wouldn't be very, well, Orthodox of us.

That sound completely reasonable. But are we to interpret the Gospel in a way that we make them contradict one another? I'm sure you would agree, no. Which is why I am inquiring into this problem that I am having. It seems completely 'clear' to me that Luke is stating that the institution of the Holy Eucharist was right after the Passover. I understand that if we are counting days from our Lords death on the Cross to his Resurrection on Sunday Morning every Gospel will not 'add' up. I understand that but it seems pretty clear that John's Gospel lines up with all the others except for the gap between 13:1 and 13:2...

So when I look at the 'rest' of the Gospels, I am convinced with a great deal of certainty that they are all carrying on with the the same Passover.

Now, I'm not Jewish nor do I know how the Sader Dinner is observed but I thought, and correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this Feast several days? 7 or 8?  Huh

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #45 on: January 29, 2010, 06:02:27 PM »

Hi there Cleopas,

Do you have the break down of the actual Sader Dinner and how does it parallel the evening of the Last Supper? Also, as I pointed out... the institution of the Eucharist seems to happen 'after' this supper... do you see this as a continuance of the Sader or as a 'new' institution all together?

If anyone has a dispute with the Wiki article on the Passover Seder, speak now... Otherwise:

Order of the Seder
Table set for the Passover Seder

Ur'chatz (wash hands)

Karpas (appetizer)

Yachatz (breaking of the middle matzah)

Magid (The telling)

Ha Lachma Anya (invitation to the Seder)

Mah Nishtanah (The Four Questions)

The Four Sons

"Go and learn"

Kos Sheini (Second Cup of Wine)

Rohtzah (ritual washing of hands)

Motzi Matzo (blessings over the matzot)

Koreich (sandwich)

Shulchan Orech (the meal)

Tzafun (eating of the afikoman)

Bareich (Grace after Meals)

Kos Shlishi (the Third Cup of Wine)

Note: The Third Cup is customarily poured before the Grace after Meals is recited...

Eliyahu ha-Navi (cup of Elijah the Prophet)

Hallel (songs of praise) - 4th Cup is consumed after the Hallel

Nirtzah
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 06:05:29 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2010, 06:04:12 PM »

The simple answer is that this has nothing to do with any desire to limit input from the likes of you, such desire as does not actually exist.  We would just simply like it if ignatius would not openly reject Orthodox input on his questions, that if he's going to ask a question soliciting Protestant feedback, he be a bit more welcoming of the points of view of his Orthodox hosts.

That was never the point. I just didn't want to get bogged down in repeated Orthodox Apologetic and Polemics. I'm really burned of on that in the Catholic section here.

I like Fr. George's advice and input because he's not calling me a heretic or whatnot and actually trying to be helpful. I'm not a cool-aid drinker on this subject. I want to ask questions and probe the subject matter.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,532


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2010, 06:08:20 PM »

The simple answer is that this has nothing to do with any desire to limit input from the likes of you, such desire as does not actually exist.  We would just simply like it if ignatius would not openly reject Orthodox input on his questions, that if he's going to ask a question soliciting Protestant feedback, he be a bit more welcoming of the points of view of his Orthodox hosts.

That was never the point. I just didn't want to get bogged down in repeated Orthodox Apologetic and Polemics. I'm really burned of on that in the Catholic section here.

I like Fr. George's advice and input because he's not calling me a heretic or whatnot and actually trying to be helpful. I'm not a cool-aid drinker on this subject. I want to ask questions and probe the subject matter.
You don't think his point of view "scripted"?  Or are you arguing not so much with the substance of so many Orthodox responses here as you are with the manner in which they're presented?
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2010, 06:08:50 PM »



Order of the Seder
Table set for the Passover Seder

Ur'chatz (wash hands)

Karpas (appetizer)

Yachatz (breaking of the middle matzah)

Magid (The telling)

Ha Lachma Anya (invitation to the Seder)

Mah Nishtanah (The Four Questions)

The Four Sons

"Go and learn"

Kos Sheini (Second Cup of Wine)

Rohtzah (ritual washing of hands)

Motzi Matzo (blessings over the matzot)

Koreich (sandwich)

Shulchan Orech (the meal)

Tzafun (eating of the afikoman)

Bareich (Grace after Meals)

Kos Shlishi (the Third Cup of Wine)

Note: The Third Cup is customarily poured before the Grace after Meals is recited...

Eliyahu ha-Navi (cup of Elijah the Prophet)

Hallel (songs of praise) - 4th Cup is consumed after the Hallel

Nirtzah


Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder... Do some look at Our Lord's Cup as being 'added' to the whole cup count? Are there four cups or just three?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2010, 06:11:15 PM »

You don't think his point of view "scripted"?  Or are you arguing not so much with the substance of so many Orthodox responses here as you are with the manner in which they're presented?

No, he clearly appears to draw from a deep well. He is not posting 'canned' responses and they brow beating everyone to simply accept it or you are a heretic. That is just not compelling, you know?

I mean, I hear to 'learn' something even if I'm not Orthodox yet. Kinda the way St. Basil handles things.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2010, 06:40:55 PM »

Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder...

Actually, I don't see that at all.  There are too many parts omitted from the Seder in the gospels, and the breaking of bread followed by a cup of wine don't exist in the order, and certainly not after the meal. 

Do some look at Our Lord's Cup as being 'added' to the whole cup count? Are there four cups or just three?

There are 4 - the 4th is consumed after the Hallel (see the note in the post above).

I thought there was a post (or a link to an article) that made a good case for it being the Pre-Passover meal (i.e. not the Seder) based on the structure.  I just can't seem to find it (yet).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,532


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2010, 06:41:59 PM »

You don't think his point of view "scripted"?  Or are you arguing not so much with the substance of so many Orthodox responses here as you are with the manner in which they're presented?

No, he clearly appears to draw from a deep well. He is not posting 'canned' responses and they brow beating everyone to simply accept it or you are a heretic. That is just not compelling, you know?
So, your objection is not so much to Orthodox responses in general as it is to the responses of specific Orthodox posters on this forum  (other than Fr. George)?

I mean, I hear to 'learn' something even if I'm not Orthodox yet. Kinda the way St. Basil handles things.
Just curious...  How do you see St. Basil handling things, or is that the subject of another concurrent thread?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #52 on: January 29, 2010, 06:49:34 PM »

Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder...

Actually, I don't see that at all.  There are too many parts omitted from the Seder in the gospels, and the breaking of bread followed by a cup of wine don't exist in the order, and certainly not after the meal.   

It should be noted that, although Christ was a "contrarian" when it came to many standards (like not doing merciful acts on the Sabbath, and whatnot), He also followed religious ritual closely (going to the Temple at appointed times, synagogue participation, etc.) - and few days were as strict about ritual as the Passover (Yom Kippur among them), which insists on a particular order & practice even if one is alone.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2010, 07:16:36 PM »

Are you saying that He is 'closing the Old Law' (i.e. Sedar) to fulfill it with the Eucharist?
Are you saying that He is 'closing the Old Law' (i.e. Sedar) to fulfill it with the Eucharist?

That is very close to what I’m saying. The Law was the center of Old Covenant life, and the Eucharist is the center of the Church's life. Everything in the Church leads it, and all things in the Church flow from it. It is the completion of all of the Church's sacraments. It is the foundation and the purpose of all of the Church's institutions and doctrines.

In the Old Covenant, as you know, Passover celebrated their deliverance by God from Egyptian slavery. It included the sacrifice of a lamb, and the partaking of the Seder that included part of the sacrificed lamb. This lamb brought to remembrance the lambs back in Egypt; their blood brushed on the doors to stay the destroying angel. Not symbolic, this sacrificed lamb accomplished the deliverance of the people of God for yet another year, and the Seder, established the reality of communion with God. Back then every Jew made it a point to be in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover at least once.

Because they were in Jerusalem, it seems that the disciples expected to celebrate the actual Passover meal with their Lord. But they did not expect Jesus Christ, at a supper, offering Himself as the Lamb of the world. Some think that this was a meal called “the berakoth”.  I don’t know, it was not the Seder, but it was connected to Passover as an early Passover pre-meal of some kind.

Nonetheless the Passover meal was transformed by Christ into an act done in remembrance of him: of his life, death and resurrection as the new and eternal Passover Lamb who frees men from the slavery of evil, ignorance and death and transfers them into the everlasting life of the Kingdom of God. Even if it was not the actual Passover meal.
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 29, 2010, 07:19:13 PM »

My apologies, I inadvertently referred to the cup we bless as the 4th cup. It is not. It the 3rd cup -- the after supper cup.

This is indicated in the basic Passover hagaddah Fr. George cited (which btw, I see nothing to contest on a cursory reading, not that I would otherwise,).

Order of the Seder

...

Shulchan Orech (the meal)

Tzafun (eating of the afikoman)

Bareich (Grace after Meals)

Kos Shlishi (the Third Cup of Wine)

Note: The Third Cup is customarily poured before the Grace after Meals is recited...

Consider that the eating of the afikoman (unleavened bread) at the end of the meal, is followed by the cup of blessing.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 07:22:45 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,954


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2010, 07:29:51 PM »

^Yes, but:

a) The afikoman's ritual breaking (what seems to be indicated by Jesus' actions in the breaking - with the special blessing and all) actually takes place before the meal; the only breaking at the point of consumption is for distribution.
b) There is a prayer of grace separating the afikoman (dessert) from the 3rd cup, which is not present in the Biblical account of the Mystical Supper.
c) It seems odd to make a major statement/change using the dessert matzoh rather than at the Motzi Matzoh or during the meal itself.

I don't know - there is too much missing from the biblical account IMO to use it (the Gospels) as proof that Jesus was indeed eating the Seder with His Apostles.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2010, 10:19:00 PM »

Aramaic shows the apostles and Jesus ate LEAVENED bread. Unleavened bread (or worse...crackers which  have seen protestants use!) is a Western fiction, much like grape juice instead of wine.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2010, 10:23:43 PM »

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Obviously not that familiar, or you wouldn't resort to cheap caricatures.

To argue from the weakest Gospel to be authoritative seems to contradict the other three, I've never been taught to do that.

"From the weakest Gospel?"  Is that really necessary?  How about "from the least detailed about the meal" or "from the most ambiguous account IMO?"  You're not going to encourage meaningful discussion on the topic with comments like "the weakest Gospel."

Also, my wife, my father and my brother are all Baptists. I get in Scriptural discussions often. I'm not unfamiliar with their point of view.

Right.

Why does John's Gospel trump the other three in your exegesis? I don't understand that...

I suppose John's Gospel gets a lot of respect from the Orthodox because:

1. It starts the earliest ("In the beginning") and ends the latest ("If it is my will that he remain until I come...") of the Gospels (heck, it starts earlier than Genesis).
2. It's the Gospel of Love
3. It seems to be written to supplement the other accounts, adding in words and actions that were left out by the other Gospels.
4. It is well used by the early Church writers and Fathers.
5. It focuses on our relationship with God (very ethereal, no? it's why he gets the eagle symbol)
6. It presupposes the other three, and caps them (another way of saying no. 3).
7. It is the only one which insists on being written by an eyewitness (St. Matthew doesn't so state, St. Luke explicitely denies it, and St. Mark neither states nor does Tradition teach it was written by an eyewitness).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 29, 2010, 11:17:59 PM »

Our Lord Jesus Christ was a first born son. As such, he would have had to observe the Firstborn Fast on the eve of Pesach (14 Nissan). But if Pesach falls on Shabbat (Saturday- ie, Friday evening), the Firstborn Fast is not observed on the Thursday before (12th Nissan) but on the Thursday before that (5th Nissan), and then the Firstboorn was obligated to hold a "siyyum massekhet" (obligatory festive meal) on Thursday 12th Nissan to break the fast (remember, the day begins at sunset). This may be what Christ was doing at the Last Supper.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2010, 11:45:21 PM »

I would say that based on the Gospel of John, starting in Chapter 13, that the passover had not yet started when that meal was served. The lack of a mention of a lamb being served at the meal would also not be passover.

Yes, this appears to be the default Eastern position but John 13 seems to mirror passages in the other three Gospels (Mt. 26:1; Mk. 14:1; Lk. 22:1). The other three Gospels continues later in their chapters to show the arrival of passover and the preparation of the meal (i.e. lamb) by the Apostles.

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. (Mat 26:17-19)

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? (Mar 14:12)

And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luk 22:13-19)


When I first encountered this position, I was pretty shocked because it the first time that I thought I found a 'tradition' that might suggest to me that Orthodoxy is using a pious filter to pretext a greater distinction between Judaism and Christianity by reinterpreting the Sacred Text in this way...

I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.



When I was a protestant I did not see Jesus eating the passover meal.  The passover preperation took a long time, not a one day event.  Part of the preperation is a meal the night before to do a "dress rehersal" and to educate.  This may very well be the reason the term preparing for the passover meal is spoken the way it is in the other 3 accounts.  When Jesus set down they were still preparing for the meal.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 11:45:56 PM by Mivac » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #60 on: January 30, 2010, 01:28:57 AM »

Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder...

Actually, I don't see that at all.  There are too many parts omitted from the Seder in the gospels, and the breaking of bread followed by a cup of wine don't exist in the order, and certainly not after the meal.

Hmmm... I was reading study note in several Bibles seem to argue that this is the Seder dinner... sure there are a lot of 'details missing' but I'm wondering if the authors are simply 'assuming' we know the Seder and only illuminating what Christ instituted 'new'...  Huh

Quote
Do some look at Our Lord's Cup as being 'added' to the whole cup count? Are there four cups or just three?

There are 4 - the 4th is consumed after the Hallel (see the note in the post above).

I thought there was a post (or a link to an article) that made a good case for it being the Pre-Passover meal (i.e. not the Seder) based on the structure.  I just can't seem to find it (yet).

I don't know anything about Jewish tradition Father. If you, or anyone, can illuminate me about this I would appreciate it.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Al Lipscomb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian, Diocese of Miami and the Southeast
Posts: 38


« Reply #61 on: January 30, 2010, 09:45:29 AM »

I did a Google search on "Did Jesus celebrate passover" and found dozens of positions on the subject. Many Protestants hold that Jesus did not celebrate the Passover. At least one even claimed that Jesus celebrated the Passover a day early because of his knowledge of what was about to happen. So to answer the original question: Yes.

Of course you then get into the problem that there is no one Protestant position on just about anything.
Logged

---
AA4YU CISSP
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #62 on: January 30, 2010, 11:02:43 AM »

I did a Google search on "Did Jesus celebrate passover" and found dozens of positions on the subject. Many Protestants hold that Jesus did not celebrate the Passover. At least one even claimed that Jesus celebrated the Passover a day early because of his knowledge of what was about to happen. So to answer the original question: Yes.

Of course you then get into the problem that there is no one Protestant position on just about anything.


Hi Al,

My only problem with all these 'positions' is that they don't seem in reflect the 'plain' interpretation of the Sacred Text:

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. (Mar 14:12-25)

The NIV states it this way...

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "God into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, "The teacher asks: 'Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there."

The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me one who is eating with me."


So it is the 'first day of of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb'... What do we expect a devout Jew to do on this day? Why are they asking him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover" if they aren't even going to eat it? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Right after this talk about preparing the Passover, they are eating... on the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread... what are they eating? This seems odd that we are working so hard to avoid the clear possibility that he is actually eating the Passover meail. I agree with Cleopas that if it looks like the Seder on the Feast of Unleavened Bread... I have to think that it is the Seder Dinner.

I don't see any Biblical Commentary by the NIV Study Bible that reaches 'any conclusion' the conclusion Orthodox seem very adamant to reach that this is some 'other' meal that just so happens to be on the 'First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread'... Seriously? Huh

I'm going to be looking at some older sources today but it looks pretty plain to me that, at least, Protestant Biblical Scholars seem to present only 'one' conclusion. Could you offer me a link to a commentary that doesn't interpret this as 'the' Passover? So far the NIV Study Bible 'clearly' notes that this 'is' the Passover. The Zondervan Bible Commentary also 'clearly' points this out. John Wesley commentary 'clearly' points this out. Also, Rev. George Leo Haydock's Notes within the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible 'clearly' interpret this as the Passover.

So, it seems that outside of Orthodox Commentary... which seems to rely on the 'absence' of detail in the Gospel of St. John and at the expense of the rest of the Gospels detail that this was 'not' the Passover Meal but some later meal or some earlier meal even though the other three Gospels clear point out that these events happened 'on' the First Day of the Feast. I don't get it...
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #63 on: January 30, 2010, 03:00:43 PM »

Is the Orthodox position so insistent because if it was the Passover meal then it would not place the Resurrection on Sunday?
Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #64 on: January 30, 2010, 04:34:58 PM »

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
Al Lipscomb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian, Diocese of Miami and the Southeast
Posts: 38


« Reply #65 on: January 30, 2010, 04:46:58 PM »

Your question was
Quote from: ignatius
Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

When I find you answers that say "yes" you want to tell me why you disagree with them. I am not them and am not debating them or you. I found another forum where this exact subject is being debated (coincidence I am sure). Everyone is sure the Bible clearly supports their position. I was a Protestant for 40+ years of my life so I have some idea of what is believed by them.

If that is not your position on what happened I have no issue with that.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 04:47:26 PM by Al Lipscomb » Logged

---
AA4YU CISSP
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #66 on: January 31, 2010, 12:34:00 AM »

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet...  laugh
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #67 on: February 01, 2010, 01:48:42 PM »

Aramaic shows the apostles and Jesus ate LEAVENED bread. Unleavened bread (or worse...crackers which  have seen protestants use!) is a Western fiction, much like grape juice instead of wine.
Ah, but the liturgical use of grape juice made Mr. Welch a very wealthy man.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #68 on: February 01, 2010, 02:25:29 PM »

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet...  laugh

Read Chapter 6.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #69 on: February 01, 2010, 02:41:16 PM »

There have been attempts to align the synoptics and the Johannine account so that the actual date of the Last Supper remained a Seder, but on a different calendar (the Essenes), thus stretching out the period in between that and the Crucifiction (which took on place on Passover).

I am neutral on whether or not the Last Supper was an Essene Passover (or more likely, a pre-Passover meal) - but the New Testament clearly does NOT use the word for unleaevend bread. So the NT is agnostic as well on the issue of leaven in the bread. I do believe that it is Jewish tradition to remove leaven from the household several days before Passover, so I don't think you can hold up the NT as proof of either leavened or unleavened bread, only that they used the word for ordinary bread to describe what was consumed. "I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."

http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2007/05/14/the-date-of-the-last-supper/

To those who belong to the Syrian traditions, could you elaborate on this:

Quote
My friend Scott Hahn agrees with the pope on this question. Scott touched on the Jaubert solution in his essay The Fourth Cup, which I heartily recommend:

I find the supposed conflict between the synoptics and John is resolved to my satisfaction by Annie Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965). She argues two calendars were operative in Christ’s time and accepts the ancient Syriac testimony of a “Holy Tuesday” institution of the Eucharist. Granted, there are difficulties in that, but her work helps harmonize the five trials of Jesus (Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and Pilate), which fit much easier into a Tuesday to-Friday time frame than in a Thursday-midnight-to-morning frame.

Interesting Pope Benedict quote:

Quote
The majority of exegetes were of the opinion that John was reluctant to tell us the true historical date of Jesus’ death, but rather chose a symbolic date to highlight the deeper truth: Jesus is the new, true Lamb who poured out his Blood for us all.

In the meantime, the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John’s account is historically precise.

Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.
In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.

Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb – no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself, his Body and his Blood. Thus, he anticipated his death in a manner consistent with his words: “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10: 18).

At the time when he offered his Body and his Blood to the disciples, he was truly fulfilling this affirmation. He himself offered his own life. Only in this way did the ancient Passover acquire its true meaning.

In his Eucharistic catecheses, St John Chrysostom once wrote: Moses, what are you saying? Does the blood of a lamb purify men and women? Does it save them from death? How can the blood of an animal purify people, save people or have power over death? In fact, Chrysostom continues, the immolation of the lamb could be a merely symbolic act, hence, the expression of expectation and hope in One who could accomplish what the sacrifice of an animal was incapable of accomplishing.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 02:46:43 PM by John Larocque » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #70 on: February 01, 2010, 02:58:03 PM »

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet...  laugh

Read Chapter 6.

Yeah, I know but was talking about the specific Last Supper... err.. Last Feet Washing...  laugh
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #71 on: February 01, 2010, 03:02:18 PM »

Interesting Pope Benedict quote:

Quote
The majority of exegetes were of the opinion that John was reluctant to tell us the true historical date of Jesus’ death, but rather chose a symbolic date to highlight the deeper truth: Jesus is the new, true Lamb who poured out his Blood for us all.

In the meantime, the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John’s account is historically precise.

Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.
In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.

Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb – no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself, his Body and his Blood. Thus, he anticipated his death in a manner consistent with his words: “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10: 18).

At the time when he offered his Body and his Blood to the disciples, he was truly fulfilling this affirmation. He himself offered his own life. Only in this way did the ancient Passover acquire its true meaning.

In his Eucharistic catecheses, St John Chrysostom once wrote: Moses, what are you saying? Does the blood of a lamb purify men and women? Does it save them from death? How can the blood of an animal purify people, save people or have power over death? In fact, Chrysostom continues, the immolation of the lamb could be a merely symbolic act, hence, the expression of expectation and hope in One who could accomplish what the sacrifice of an animal was incapable of accomplishing.

Where is this taken from? Which book?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2010, 03:15:08 PM »

Google, I guess, is your friend. Hahn's book is metnioned above. But here's another Jaubert reference:

http://bible.org/question/was-last-supper-passover-seder

Quote
4. In the light of recent researches into the influence of separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days, it is now possible to consider again the older submissions of P. Billerbeck and J. Pickl that the two strata of Gospel evidence may be harmonized on the assumption that both are understandable, with each reflecting a different tradition. Billerbeck and Pickl distinguished between the Pharisaic date of the Passover which Jesus used and the Sadducean dating a day earlier which lies behind the Fourth Gospel. This was dismissed by critics as lacking in supporting evidence, but the Dead Sea Scrolls show that there were divergent calendars in use in heterodox Jewry, and it is possible that separate traditions were, in fact, in vogue at the time of the passion. Mlle A. Jaubert has recently reconstructed the events on this basis so as to harmonize the data of the Gospels and early liturgical witnesses (in her book The Date of the Last Supper, E.T. 1965. See for an acceptance of her thesis, E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke2, NCB, 1974, pp. 249f. and Mlle Jaubert’s later contribution in NTS 14, 1967-8, pp. 145-164.

Again, the Syrian Holy Tuesday tradition interests me.

The Pope Benedect speech, noted on the blog, dates from a 4/5/2007 homily:
http://www.zenit.org/article-19341?l=english
http://compassionate-planet.blogspot.com/2009/10/jesus-did-not-eat-lamb-at-passover.html

I love this section:

Quote
Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb and without a temple; yet, not without a lamb and not without a temple. He himself was the awaited Lamb, the true Lamb, just as John the Baptist had foretold at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry: "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Jn 1: 29).

And he himself was the true Temple, the living Temple where God dwells and where we can encounter God and worship him. His Blood, the love of the One who is both Son of God and true man, one of us, is the Blood that can save. His love, that love in which he gave himself freely for us, is what saves us. The nostalgic, in a certain sense, ineffectual gesture which was the sacrifice of an innocent and perfect lamb, found a response in the One who for our sake became at the same time Lamb and Temple.

Thus, the Cross was at the centre of the new Passover of Jesus. From it came the new gift brought by him, and so it lives on for ever in the Blessed Eucharist in which, down the ages, we can celebrate the new Passover with the Apostles.



Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2010, 03:21:29 PM »

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

The Church of Rome used leavened bread for hundreds of years. What, I suspect, happened, is that the "Passover seder" arguments in favour of unleavened bread took place AFTER they had introduced the practice. But who knows for sure. What we do know is that all the polemics that Constantinople hurled against the Armenians were dusted off and reused against the Latins. The Western practice, I believe, began in Germany.

Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2010, 04:23:34 PM »

I am neutral on whether or not the Last Supper was an Essene Passover (or more likely, a pre-Passover meal) - but the New Testament clearly does NOT use the word for unleaevend bread. So the NT is agnostic as well on the issue of leaven in the bread. I do believe that it is Jewish tradition to remove leaven from the household several days before Passover, so I don't think you can hold up the NT as proof of either leavened or unleavened bread, only that they used the word for ordinary bread to describe what was consumed. "I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."

I understand what you are saying, however, since Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35) any view thereof that causes the gospels (or any other book of Scripture) to disagree, rather than to harmonize, must be a false view or understanding. Besides, Paul is quite clear on the nature of the bread we are to use at the Lords table, and why (1 Corinthians 5:8).

"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Corinthians 5:8

« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 04:24:31 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #75 on: February 01, 2010, 05:02:25 PM »

I am neutral on whether or not the Last Supper was an Essene Passover (or more likely, a pre-Passover meal) - but the New Testament clearly does NOT use the word for unleaevend bread. So the NT is agnostic as well on the issue of leaven in the bread. I do believe that it is Jewish tradition to remove leaven from the household several days before Passover, so I don't think you can hold up the NT as proof of either leavened or unleavened bread, only that they used the word for ordinary bread to describe what was consumed. "I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."

I understand what you are saying, however, since Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35) any view thereof that causes the gospels (or any other book of Scripture) to disagree, rather than to harmonize, must be a false view or understanding. Besides, Paul is quite clear on the nature of the bread we are to use at the Lords table, and why (1 Corinthians 5:8).

"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Corinthians 5:8



I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #76 on: February 01, 2010, 06:24:53 PM »

I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.

I understand your hesitancy, but it just makes sense if you meditate on the passage a bit. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading. Furthermore, he frames his obvious metaphorical application (concerning Christian living on the whole) with the observance of the passover fulfilled, what you goof folk call the eucharist. So, what he says about the Lord's table here must be literally true for the application to make sense, else there is no basis for the comparison or extension he is making. I mean,really, if we eat leavened bread then Paul's words here are difficult to understand at best, and are totally incoherent and non-applicable at worst. The clear meaning and intention is that the unleavened bread we eat speaks to the purity of life Christ lived in the flesh, and our partaking in that same purity of heart and life, both positionally and experientially.

To state the sasme more briefly and rhetorically...

If Christ our passover is identified in Scripture with unleavened bread, and the bread is his body, what then does it say about Christ to use leavened bread in praxis? Such is a contradiction.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #77 on: February 01, 2010, 07:12:45 PM »

You guys might want to look up some of the early Armenian defenses of the practice of unleavened bread, but I believe they were treading on some of the same New Testament ground. I think, of all the ancient churches, they were one of the few that adhered to the practice.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #78 on: February 01, 2010, 07:53:20 PM »

You guys might want to look up some of the early Armenian defenses of the practice of unleavened bread, but I believe they were treading on some of the same New Testament ground. I think, of all the ancient churches, they were one of the few that adhered to the practice.
I'm not sure that the Armenians used unleaven bread because they thought it was a Seder. The only reason I've read was because they considered leaven to represent sin and Christ is sinless.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #79 on: February 01, 2010, 08:11:01 PM »

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".   Tongue  Shocked

My sincere apologies.  Embarrassed
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #80 on: February 01, 2010, 08:13:07 PM »

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".   Tongue  Shocked

My sincere apologies.  Embarrassed
I hope that's not your Freudian slip showing! Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #81 on: February 01, 2010, 08:20:10 PM »

I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.

I understand your hesitancy, but it just makes sense if you meditate on the passage a bit. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading. Furthermore, he frames his obvious metaphorical application (concerning Christian living on the whole) with the observance of the passover fulfilled, what you goof folk call the eucharist. So, what he says about the Lord's table here must be literally true for the application to make sense, else there is no basis for the comparison or extension he is making. I mean,really, if we eat leavened bread then Paul's words here are difficult to understand at best, and are totally incoherent and non-applicable at worst. The clear meaning and intention is that the unleavened bread we eat speaks to the purity of life Christ lived in the flesh, and our partaking in that same purity of heart and life, both positionally and experientially.

To state the sasme more briefly and rhetorically...

If Christ our passover is identified in Scripture with unleavened bread, and the bread is his body, what then does it say about Christ to use leavened bread in praxis? Such is a contradiction.
He is the Paschal lamb, not the paschal bread.

And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:
Matthew 13:33 He proposed another parable to them. "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a person took and sowed in a field. It is the smallest of all the seeds, yet when full-grown it is the largest of plants. It becomes a large bush, and the 'birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches.'" He spoke to them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened."

Luke 13:20-21Then he said, "What is the kingdom of God like? To what can I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that a person took and planted in the garden. When it was fully grown, it became a large bush and 'the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches.'" Again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed (in) with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch of dough was leavened."

Luke 14:15 When one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, "Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!"

Luke 22:14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 08:30:14 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #82 on: February 01, 2010, 08:20:52 PM »

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".   Tongue  Shocked

My sincere apologies.  Embarrassed
LOL. Didn't even notice.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #83 on: February 01, 2010, 08:36:11 PM »

I'm not sure that the Armenians used unleaven bread because they thought it was a Seder. The only reason I've read was because they considered leaven to represent sin and Christ is sinless.


I was thinking of the above quote in reference to them:

"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Corinthians 5:8
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #84 on: February 01, 2010, 08:53:19 PM »

He is the Paschal lamb, not the paschal bread.

Per Paul, He is both.

1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!



Quote
And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:

Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 09:14:18 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #85 on: February 01, 2010, 09:04:28 PM »

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Because He is Living Bread Who comes down from Heaven, not lifeless bread.

Quote
Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

I came across a video of the Proskonesis on the site of a Greek Church that I haven't been able to come across again.  Anyone know where it might be?

I'll answer the rest, Lord willing, after DL for the Presentation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #86 on: February 01, 2010, 10:26:15 PM »

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Christ, who is the true bread which came down from heaven, is risen.

1 Cor 11:26
Quote
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

1 Cor 15:14
Quote
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

The Divine Liturgy
Quote
Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming.
http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc.asp
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #87 on: February 01, 2010, 11:04:16 PM »

He is the Paschal lamb, not the paschal bread.

Per Paul, He is both.

1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Can you honestly not see that Paul is speaking metaphorically here?  How can you possibly cite this Scripture as absolute "proof" that unleavened bread should be used?   Plus there are the arguments by other posters concerning Christ as being the Living bread etc.   Moreover, John is widely regarded by Scripture scholars as being more concerned with historical accuracy than the other Gospels.  
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 11:06:18 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,619


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #88 on: February 01, 2010, 11:28:39 PM »

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Because He is Living Bread Who comes down from Heaven, not lifeless bread.

Quote
Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

I came across a video of the Proskonesis on the site of a Greek Church that I haven't been able to come across again.  Anyone know where it might be?

I'll answer the rest, Lord willing, after DL for the Presentation.
Did you mean "proskomede"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmTKjNmEG9s
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #89 on: February 01, 2010, 11:30:25 PM »

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".   Tongue  Shocked

My sincere apologies.  Embarrassed

I saw it and had a goof, I mean good laugh! Wink
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 11:31:08 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #90 on: February 01, 2010, 11:32:33 PM »

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".   Tongue  Shocked

My sincere apologies.  Embarrassed
I hope that's not your Freudian slip showing! Cheesy

 laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #91 on: February 02, 2010, 12:07:28 AM »

I care not what some Frank emperor forced the papacy to do (use unleavened bread because he thought it was more "correct" having read about a passover of the jews) the Aramaic clearly says Christ used LEAVENED bread and the gates of hell will not prevail against the apostolic church to use anything other than what the scripture and strong verifiable semitic tradition says. So if protestants want to use unleavened bread to be more like the Jews that's their problem. I know what the scripture teaches the use of leavened bread during the Lordès supper and no deceiver shall argue against me on this. This is a BIG deal, that bread symbolizes his body, that wine his blood. Don't taker another messiah for an answer.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #92 on: February 02, 2010, 12:31:47 AM »

Just in case I wasn't clear: the use of unleavened bread for the Lord's supper is an unscriptural protestant practice inherited from the RCC (which probably had it imposed on them by barbarians during thne dark ages), everybody else in the entire world including my church which has much stronger continuity than Protestants uses the leavened bread and the REAL wine (not grape juice) to represent the body and blood of the savior and keep his memory (which Satan wishes to blot out). To use something else is unscriptural and goes against the tradition of the apostolic church and the most ancient readings of the scriptures .Let he who present another gospel be accursed. The End.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #93 on: February 02, 2010, 12:36:09 AM »

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Because He is Living Bread Who comes down from Heaven, not lifeless bread.

Quote
Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

I came across a video of the Proskonesis on the site of a Greek Church that I haven't been able to come across again.  Anyone know where it might be?

I'll answer the rest, Lord willing, after DL for the Presentation.
Did you mean "proskomede"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmTKjNmEG9s


yes, but the Greek Church video (St. Andrew?  Florida? North Carolina?) clearly closed in on the actions of the priest, showing what he was doing, distinctl audio of the prayers (in English), really showing what is going on.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #94 on: February 02, 2010, 12:39:31 AM »

And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:

Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).
Hebrews 7:7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better.
8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.
9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,
10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron
12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest
16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.
17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #95 on: February 02, 2010, 12:58:29 AM »

He may be living bread, but He is also unleavened bread, per the Apostle Paul. That's about as apostolic as one can get, btw.

Besides, using the figure of bread, living bread does not denote leavened bread, for the bread broken and eaten is cooked. Leavened or unleavened, there is no more activity in the dough once it is cooked. My point? This is essentially bootstrapping to make leaven and living associate when it comes to Christ being our bread form heaven, much less the bread of Passover being His body.

As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if Roll Eyes).

Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 12:58:56 AM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #96 on: February 02, 2010, 01:29:16 AM »

Protestants have no idea what they are messing with here when they try to change the laws and the times on something this critical. They deny the real presence which is held by EVERY apostolic church which was ever founded via laying on of hands, and they EVEN change the composition of the bread (which is now merely "symbolic") to try to force another messiah in their own image.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #97 on: February 02, 2010, 01:29:16 AM »

Quote
I'm not sure that the Armenians used unleaven bread because they thought it was a Seder. The only reason I've read was because they considered leaven to represent sin and Christ is sinless.

Correct. However he TOOK our sins upon him. In fact, The code name for the Messiah in rabbinic literature (besides "the branch") is "the leprous one" meaning the one who took the sins and illness of the people upon him (unjustly and unmeritedly). That was taken from the official rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 by the way, before someone called Rashi said it never talked about Christ.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #98 on: February 02, 2010, 01:29:16 AM »

Quote
That's about as apostolic as one can get, btw

name me your Bishop (and Jurisdiction).

Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread

We walk in the way of the Apostles. If the Jews agree that's excellent, if not too bad.

Quote
As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if Roll Eyes).

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
 John 3:12

Plain scripture says unleavened Bread. The Aramaic says so. The Greek says so. The tradition of the Apostolic Church says so minus the RCC and Protestants, but this is ONLY because I suspect this sort of anti-scripture bias or the influence of foreign secular powers crept in.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #99 on: February 02, 2010, 06:03:00 AM »

leavened bread that is
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #100 on: February 02, 2010, 09:08:42 AM »

He may be living bread, but He is also unleavened bread, per the Apostle Paul. That's about as apostolic as one can get, btw.

No, my bishop saying what the Church says St. Paul is saying is as apostolic as one can get.  With all due respect, you telling me that St. Paul says that falls quite short.

Quote
Besides, using the figure of bread, living bread does not denote leavened bread, for the bread broken and eaten is cooked. Leavened or unleavened, there is no more activity in the dough once it is cooked. My point? This is essentially bootstrapping to make leaven and living associate when it comes to Christ being our bread form heaven, much less the bread of Passover being His body.

Luke 13:20-1 And again He said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."



Quote
As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if Roll Eyes).

Rather odd that you are so dogmatic about that, as most Radical Protestants (as in Radical Reformation), hold that observances of feast days were abolished.  So you hold that celebrating Easter is required by the NT?  That passover has given over to Pascha?  As Hebrews shows, the Law has been changed.  And what of all the admonitions of St. Paul to "purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump.

Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

For a discussion of Jewish thoughts on leaven in Our Lord's time, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament By Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich "The proverbial saying in I C. 5:6=Gl. 5:9" [where it also warns of Judaizing the Gospel] "goes rather beyond the thought and usage of the Jewish festival...here we are a long way from the Passover ordinance."
http://books.google.com/books?id=4ziBMYrak5gC&pg=PA906&dq=%E1%BC%84%CE%B6%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Quote
should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).
That first Eucharist was that last small bit, the Saved Remnaint.

Btw, another twist on the "artos controversy" is the use of "λάγανον" "cake" for unleaven bread (some translations I see now use "wafer"), ex. the Greek of Exodus 29:23.  Azymites aren't spoken of as loaves, but cakes.  So that loaf we break in I Corinthians is leavened: otherwise we would be breaking cakes.

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference.  However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad.  It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #101 on: February 02, 2010, 11:25:35 AM »

I'm at the Hospital with my wife giving birth to our little baby boy Aidan but she is resting before the 'big moment'.

So I was readying some and I want to ask ialmisry... speaking of 'artos'... isn't it fair to admit that even within the Old Testament the Greek word 'artos' is also used for 'unleavened' bread? As I understand, it is so I'm not sure if arguing that 'artos' is only for 'leavened bread' doesn't seem to be as strong?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #102 on: February 02, 2010, 11:28:14 AM »

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet...  laugh

John 6 becomes absolute gibberish if you don't know that He is speaking of the Eucharist.  Again, St. John presupposes (and the Church did too: John was not read to catechumens, but only after their baptism, the reason why the Lectionary in Pachal time is from St. John) you know the basic story already. Case in point, Nicodemus coming in the beginning speaks of signs (plural), where the Gospel of John has only narrated that of Cana, a sign that Nicodemos no doubt did not witness.  St. John at one point states (3:24) "For John had not yet been thrown into prison," but nowhere does St. John narrate the Forerunner's imprisionment.  He assumes you read that already in the Synoptics.

Read Chapter 6.

Yeah, I know but was talking about the specific Last Supper... err.. Last Feet Washing...  laugh
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 02, 2010, 11:34:41 AM »

I'm at the Hospital with my wife giving birth to our little baby boy Aidan but she is resting before the 'big moment'.

Hey!!!! Kudos, Congrats, Mazal Tov, & Blessings!
May your quiver be full and your house running over.  Wink Grin
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #104 on: February 02, 2010, 11:36:53 AM »

I'm at the Hospital with my wife giving birth to our little baby boy Aidan but she is resting before the 'big moment'.

Hey!!!! Kudos, Congrats, Mazal Tov, & Blessings!
May your quiver be full and your house running over.  Wink Grin

Thanks! Cleopas! We are hoping for the best!
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #105 on: February 02, 2010, 12:00:53 PM »


Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.  Some modern Jewish customs are quite recent additions, and it is sometimes difficult to discern
which ones are ancient and which are innovations.  And as you point out, it is on the other hand sometimes not hard to discover which parts of modern Jewish belief and practice are innovative. (The question regarding the Masoretic text is a very good example of this.)  And as to your point with reference to certain Protestants being very concerned with (modern) Jewish practice, and not with practice in the early and Patristic eras of the Church, I think this is very well taken.

Quote
I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference.  However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad.  It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

A very good expansion of my objections to what I consider to be very errant proof-texting.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 12:33:44 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #106 on: February 02, 2010, 12:57:31 PM »

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference.  However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad.  It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread referred to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.

Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.  Wink
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 01:10:14 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #107 on: February 02, 2010, 12:59:28 PM »


Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.  

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #108 on: February 02, 2010, 01:01:28 PM »

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference.  However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad.  It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread refereed to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.

Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.  Wink

Wow, you do have a very persuasive argument style. Very confident. To the point.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #109 on: February 02, 2010, 02:03:58 PM »

I'm at the Hospital with my wife giving birth to our little baby boy Aidan but she is resting before the 'big moment'.

So I was readying some and I want to ask ialmisry... speaking of 'artos'... isn't it fair to admit that even within the Old Testament the Greek word 'artos' is also used for 'unleavened' bread? As I understand, it is so I'm not sure if arguing that 'artos' is only for 'leavened bread' doesn't seem to be as strong?

Congratulations. St. Anne be with her.

No, ἄρτος  is used only by way of analogy for unleavened bread.  The term ἄζυμος is quite common in the OT LXX, as is the Feast of Unleavened [Bread] ἑορτῇ τῶν ἀζύμων,(Bread is in brackets because it is not in the Greek), which became such a techinical term (like ἐπίσκοπος) that it was adopted straight into Latin (like episcopus) and passed (like >bishop) into English:Azymes (used in the Douay-Rheims).  Because of the technicalities involved in Passover Mazzot, it is quite rare if not unknown to use the default word for "bread" in such a context.  It is as technical as mazzas/mazzot are in English. It would be as odd to refer to them as ἄρτος as to talk about bread during Passover: ἄρτος/bread is precisely what you are not supposed to be eating.

Deut. 16:3 3 You shall not eat with it leavened bread: seven days shall you eat without leaven, the bread of affliction" is often cited for support of this loose terminology, but the Greek reads 3 οὐ φάγῃ ἐπ' αὐτοῦ ζύμην ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας φάγῃ ἐπ' αὐτοῦ ἄζυμα ἄρτον κακώσεως "unleavened [bread], the Bread of Afflication," i.e. a rather ironic apposition of sorts in the use of ἄρτος. Bread is in brackets, because it does not appear in the Greek.  Judges 6:20 "And the angel of the Lord said to him: Take the flesh and the unleavened loaves, and lay them upon that rock, and pour out the broth thereon. And when he had done so." is also used as proof. But the Greek reads ἄρτους τοὺς ἀζύμους, and then in the next verse (where English has "unleavened loaves," and Latin "panes azymos" and the bizarre "carnes azymosque panes") Greek has just ἀζύμους.  This would be an unusual reference to unleavened bread being in loaves as instead of cakes, and indeed the LXX varient in verse 20 is ἄζυμα.  The showbread are also cited as an example, but the Scripture does not state that they were unleavened.

Eating the Passover is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX), but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover.  Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics.  Which is a problem, because ἄρτος is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare ἄρτος is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.

Btw, the Latin defense has depended on a twisting of St. Jerome's mistranslation.  The NT text says "A little leaven leavens the whole loaf."  The Vulgate reads "corrupts the whole loaf," which makes little sense since St. Paul is telling us to be the new leaven of Christ.   As the Theological Dictionary above shows, the Synoptics (the one with the date problem) portray leaven "as a kind of dynamis which, although present in only a small measure (restricted to Jesus and His followers or to Jesus Himself and His small sphere of possible operation) is ordained and able to penetrate the whole world.
The Byzantine lists: errors of the Latins By Tia M. Kolbaba
http://books.google.com/books?id=X8F9EghcuD8C&pg=PA37&dq=Byzantine+lists+leavened+corrumpit&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #110 on: February 02, 2010, 02:05:30 PM »

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet...  laugh

John 6 becomes absolute gibberish if you don't know that He is speaking of the Eucharist.  Again, St. John presupposes (and the Church did too: John was not read to catechumens, but only after their baptism, the reason why the Lectionary in Pachal time is from St. John) you know the basic story already. Case in point, Nicodemus coming in the beginning speaks of signs (plural), where the Gospel of John has only narrated that of Cana, a sign that Nicodemos no doubt did not witness.  St. John at one point states (3:24) "For John had not yet been thrown into prison," but nowhere does St. John narrate the Forerunner's imprisionment.  He assumes you read that already in the Synoptics.

Read Chapter 6.

Yeah, I know but was talking about the specific Last Supper... err.. Last Feet Washing...  laugh
John 6 becomes absolute gibberish if you don't know that He is speaking of the Eucharist.  Again, St. John presupposes (and the Church did too: John was not read to catechumens, but only after their baptism, the reason why the Lectionary in Pachal time is from St. John) you know the basic story already. Case in point, Nicodemus coming in the beginning speaks of signs (plural), where the Gospel of John has only narrated that of Cana, a sign that Nicodemos no doubt did not witness.  St. John at one point states (3:24) "For John had not yet been thrown into prison," but nowhere does St. John narrate the Forerunner's imprisionment.  He assumes you read that already in the Synoptics.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 02:07:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #111 on: February 02, 2010, 02:57:59 PM »

We must look to the other element in the Eucharist. Namely the wine which also needs yeast to ferment. Wink
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 02:58:14 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #112 on: February 02, 2010, 04:00:27 PM »



Order of the Seder
Table set for the Passover Seder

Ur'chatz (wash hands)

Karpas (appetizer)

Yachatz (breaking of the middle matzah)

Magid (The telling)

Ha Lachma Anya (invitation to the Seder)

Mah Nishtanah (The Four Questions)

The Four Sons

"Go and learn"

Kos Sheini (Second Cup of Wine)

Rohtzah (ritual washing of hands)

Motzi Matzo (blessings over the matzot)

Koreich (sandwich)

Shulchan Orech (the meal)

Tzafun (eating of the afikoman)

Bareich (Grace after Meals)

Kos Shlishi (the Third Cup of Wine)

Note: The Third Cup is customarily poured before the Grace after Meals is recited...

Eliyahu ha-Navi (cup of Elijah the Prophet)

Hallel (songs of praise) - 4th Cup is consumed after the Hallel

Nirtzah


Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder... Do some look at Our Lord's Cup as being 'added' to the whole cup count? Are there four cups or just three?


It's important to keep in mind how the Passover Seder within Judaism is celebrated today is not necessarily how Passover Seder was celebrated at the time of Christ. There really isn't much documented information about the "order" of the Seder until Talmudic times, and in fact what is documented from 2nd temple Judaism often times seems to contradict Rabbinic Judaism's celebration of it. By that I mean the "order", liturgically speaking,  not it's over all theme, tradition, or meaning behind it which has remained the same. But the details. So trying to draw theology by looking at Jesus celebrating a Seder, then trying to plug that meal into a 5th century model is a horrible, horrible mistake, historically speaking.

 So while Rabbinic Judaism gives us a very good starting point, it's a big, big mistake to assume 5th century Judaism was the same thing as the Judaism of Jesus day, particularly in practice.

Just try and keep that in mind. It's also important to keep in mind that there was no "one" way of celebrating a Seder in Jesus' time. Much of it was pretty free or so I've read. (see: In the Shadow of the Temple by Oskar Skaursaune)

Judaism was not a monolithic block, and there is in fact archaeological evidence suggesting Judaism used multiple calendars in the 1st century, so Passover could have fallen for different groups of Jews on different days. (usually within one or two days difference) I think I had once read the Essenes used a different calendar (solar? . . .maybe Ialmisry can give some insight on that?) to determine passover, or at least that is scholarly speculation.  

The truth is this is not a new debate, and goes way, way back to the early Church. it's been discussed by scholars, ancient, and modern, historians, secular and religious, and everyone in between. And I think the true answer to "was the last supper a Seder?" is we really do not know.

As for Protestant opinions, some of the best NT scholars in the field are Protestant, and many of them say "we don't know"....as do many preachers, and ministers within Protestantism. When I was a protestant I was taught both sides at different stages. In some circles it's strongly favored that it was NOT a Passover Seder, and that Jesus died while the Passover lambs were being slaughtered, thus Jesus IS the Passover lamb. the imagery is obviously powerful, and of course is basically the position of the Eastern Church. But other Protestants believe it indeed was a Passover Seder, which invokes it's own imagery. However i've always found that idea odd, that on the first day of Passover Jews were out trying to get Jesus crucified, and in fact were watching Him and taunting Him, in the first day of Passover. That never made much sense to me. But that's my personal bias.

I guess you should ask yourself what you are seeking. Which is more historically accurate? (ie: what happened in real history) Or are you asking what you "want" to be true based on long standing traditions of your particular Church? The historical question, most scholars contend has no definitive answer as of yet.  

Here's a brief article from a Rabbi who contends that it was in fact, NOT a Seder:

http://www.interfaithfamily.com/holidays/passover_and_easter/Was_the_Last_Supper_a_Passover_Seder.shtml

There is so much conflicting evidence on this subject in the Gospels, and on many subjects in fact, that since very early on, Christians have always tried to "harmonize" the Gospels, and it always comes up short. This shouldn't destroy anyone's faith, anymore than finding out Matthew the apostle probably didn't write the Gospel of Matthew.....however it still stands firmly in that specific tradition, just like John's gospel does. Maybe some day they'll dig up more evidence to give definitive evidence but historically speaking I don't think there is any way to know for sure, at least not yet.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 04:04:02 PM by NorthernPines » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #113 on: February 02, 2010, 05:14:21 PM »

I'm at the Hospital with my wife giving birth to our little baby boy Aidan but she is resting before the 'big moment'.

Congratulations!!!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #114 on: February 02, 2010, 06:10:59 PM »


Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.  


Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.

As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.

I'lll post St. John Chrysostom sermon on the passage, which is rather interesting and of course on point, when I get back.  Fatherhood calls.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #115 on: February 02, 2010, 06:45:13 PM »


Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly. 


Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.

As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.

A quick FYI ... I was referring to calling in question the specific references I made to Jewish festival customs. Can you prove them to have no ancient validation or Messianic application?

Quote
I'lll post St. John Chrysostom sermon on the passage, which is rather interesting and of course on point, when I get back. Fatherhood calls.

Understood. My little darlings require as much often. =)  As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 06:48:33 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #116 on: February 02, 2010, 07:20:52 PM »

As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)

You mean St. Paul according to infallible Pope Cleopas I.  Wink
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #117 on: February 02, 2010, 07:28:55 PM »

As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)

You mean St. Paul according to infallible Pope Cleopas I.  Wink

Ha ha! I anticipated the likelihood of such a response, though in truth, no. Not according to Cleopas, but according to Paul, by his own hand (or dictation as it were), under inspiration of God, and preserved in Holy writ. Alas, it seems we have reached the dreaded impasse. Nevertheless, here I stand, so help me God.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 07:29:30 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #118 on: February 02, 2010, 07:58:26 PM »

Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread referred to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.

Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.  Wink

IMHO your interpretation of Paul is corrupt and way off the mark and you arrogantly refuse to even entertain the possibility that others (for example, the mind of a Church that claims a 2,000 year continuous history) might be correct and you might be wrong.  We have offered our thoughts here and you simply continue with the intellectual and spiritual equivalent of covering your ears and yelling LALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!!  I bear you no ill will, but I frankly see little point in continuing to discuss this matter with you.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 08:19:36 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #119 on: February 02, 2010, 09:06:14 PM »


Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly. 


Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.

As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.

A quick FYI ... I was referring to calling in question the specific references I made to Jewish festival customs. Can you prove them to have no ancient validation or Messianic application?

Remoing leaven on Passover Eve?  I already said that was ancient and actually refered to in Scripture, and it refers to the faithful remnant, Christ and His Church:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13375.msg285218.html#msg285218

Any other custom specifically?

St. John speaks of this, as we'll see in shaa' Allaah!

I'lll post St. John Chrysostom sermon on the passage, which is rather interesting and of course on point, when I get back. Fatherhood calls.

Understood. My little darlings require as much often. =) 

How many do you have?  Age?


Quote
As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)
Actually, you don't and St. Chrysostom does

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UOJjUH2o_wM/Sv2WUtEDgUI/AAAAAAAACfU/4hfzl2TJyZg/s400/agios_ioannis_o_xrysostomos3.jpg
Quote
Icon depicting St. Paul inspiring St. John Chrysostom's commentaries of his Epistles. It is worth noting that St. John's ear in which St. Paul spoke to him is still incorrupt to this day, and is visible on his Sacred Head.
but we've discussed that before:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14769.0.html

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #120 on: February 02, 2010, 09:50:13 PM »

Wrong my friend...you are unfortunately speaking for yourself since the COE (my church) which descends from the very first people who accepted the Gospel say you are- As do the records, the interpretative history of the NT, and what my Greek compatriots here at the Orthodox forum testify for. The Aramaic which Jesus spoke testifies that the bread he used was leavened, as does the Greek. The use of unleavened bread is unscriptural and an addition. So is this business of the Eucharist being "symbolic". I'll trust the patriarchs of my church over John Hagee or Ted Haggard.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #121 on: February 02, 2010, 11:40:47 PM »

As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)

You mean St. Paul according to infallible Pope Cleopas I.  Wink

Ha ha! I anticipated the likelihood of such a response, though in truth, no. Not according to Cleopas, but according to Paul, by his own hand (or dictation as it were), under inspiration of God, and preserved in Holy writ. Alas, it seems we have reached the dreaded impasse. Nevertheless, here I stand, so help me God.
LOL. Sure God's the one "helping" your exegesis?

http://communio.stblogs.org/Christ%20tempted%20by%20Satan.jpg
Bible Study in progress.

According to St. John Chrysostom, by his own hand, dictated as it were by St. Paul, under inspiration by God and preserved in the Holy Writ and Apostolic Tradition of Holy Mother Church of the living God the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xvi.html
Quote
1 Cor. v. 1, 2
Quote
It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you.

When he was discoursing about their divisions, he did not indeed at once address them vehemently, but more gently at first; and afterwards, he ended in accusation, saying thus, (c. 1. xi.) “For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.” But in this place, not so; but he lays about him immediately and makes the reproach of the accusation as general as possible. For he said not, “Why did such an one commit fornication?” but, “It is reported that there is fornication among you;” that they might as persons altogether aloof from his charge take it easily; but might be filled with such anxiety as was natural when the whole body was wounded, and the Church had incurred reproach. “For no one,” saith he, “will state it thus, ‘such an one hath committed fornication,’ but, ‘in the Church of Corinthians that sin hath been committed.’”

As I have pointed out, the section is on fornication, not rubrics.  Even heresy as spiritual fornication is not the topic, as the contrast St. John makes here between this and where St. Paul speaks of schism/heresy.  The emphasis on the Church as a body, the Body, however is and will be key to the understanding of the passage.

Quote
And he said not, “Fornication is perpetrated,” but, “Is reported,—such as is not even named among the Gentiles.” For so continually he makes the Gentiles a topic of reproach to the believers. Thus writing to the Thessalonians, he said, (1 Thess. iv. 4, 5,) “Let every one possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification, not in the passion of lust, even as the rest of the Gentiles.” And to the Colossians and Ephesians, (Ephes. iv. 17. cf. Col. iii. 6, 7.) “That you should no longer walk, as the other Gentiles walk.” Now if their committing the same sins was unpardonable, when they even outdid the Gentiles, what place can we find for them? tell me: “inasmuch as among the Gentiles,” so he speaks, “not only they dare no such thing, but they do not even give it a name. Do you see to what point he aggravated his charge? For when they are convicted of inventing such modes of uncleanness as the unbelievers, so far from venturing on them, do not even know of, the sin must be exceeding great, beyond all words. And the clause, “among you,” is spoken also emphatically; that is, “Among you, the faithful, who have been favored with so high mysteries, the partakers of secrets, the guests invited to heaven.” Dost thou mark with what indignant feeling his works overflow? with what anger against all? For had it not been for the great wrath of which he was full, had he not been setting himself against them all, he would have spoken thus:  “Having heard that such and such a person hath committed fornication, I charge you to punish him.” But as it is he doth not so; he rather challenges all at once. And indeed, if they had written first, this is what he probably would have said. Since however so far from writing, they had even thrown the fault into the shade, on this account he orders his discourse more vehemently.

Again, the emphasis of all, although a specific few are meant, because all are implicated.

Quote
[2.] “That one of you should have his father’s wife.” Wherefore said he not, “That he should abuse his father’s wife?” The extreme foulness of the deed caused him to shrink. He hurries by it accordingly, with a sort of scrupulousness as though it had been explicitly mentioned before. And hereby again he aggravates the charge, implying that such things are ventured on among them as even to speak plainly of was intolerable for Paul. Wherefore also, as he goes on, he uses the same mode of speech, saying, “Him who hath so done this thing:” and is again ashamed and blushes to speak out; which also we are wont to do in regard of matters extremely disgraceful. And he said not, “his step-mother,” but, “his father’s wife;” so as to strike much more severely. For when the mere terms are sufficient to convey the charge, he proceeds with them simply, adding nothing.

And “tell me not,” saith he, “that the fornicator is but one: the charge hath become common to all.” Wherefore at once he added, “and ye are puffed up:” he said not, “with the sin;” for this would imply want of all reason:  but with the doctrine you have heard from that person.

Here we come to the nexus of what the passage is about, and what misuse it has been put, as we will see.

Quote
This however he set not down himself, but left it undetermined, that he might inflict a heavier blow.

And mark the good sense of Paul. Having first overthrown the wisdom from without, and signified that it is nothing by itself although no sin were associated with it; then and not till then he discourses about the sin also. For if by way of comparison with the fornicator who perhaps was some wise one, he had maintained the greatness of his own spiritual gift; he had done no great thing: but even when unattended with sin to take down the heathen wisdom and demonstrate it to be nothing, this was indicating its extreme worthlessness indeed. Wherefore first, as I said, having made the comparison, he afterwards mentions the man’s sin also.

And with him indeed he condescends not to debate, and thereby signifies the exceeding greatness of his dishonor. But to the others he saith, “You ought to weep and wail, and cover your faces, but now ye do the contrary.” And this is the force of the next clause, “And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn.”

Again, the implication of the whole by part of it.

Quote
“And why are we to weep?” some might say. Because the reproach hath made its way even unto the whole body of your Church. “And what good are we to get by our weeping?” “That such an one should be taken away from you.” Not even here doth he mention his name; rather, I should say, not any where; which in all monstrous things is our usual way.

And he said not, “Ye have not rather cast him out,” but, as in the case of any disease or pestilence, “there is need of mourning,” saith he, “and of intense supplication, ‘that he may be taken away.’ And you should have used prayer for this, and left nothing undone that he should be cut off.”

Of course that treatment is possible when a limb can be cut off, but when, say, cancer is spread throughout, like say yeast in a lump of dough, what can be done?  Hence St. John (and St. Paul)'s line of argument here: one for all and all for one.

I'm going to break St. John's sermon up, as to make commenting easier.  At this point St. Paul (and St. John) turns to the theme of teaching, which is common to what he is actually talking about, and the words being put in his mouth by the azymites.

Quote
Nor yet doth he accuse them for not having given him information, but for not having mourned so that the man should be taken away; implying that even without their Teacher this ought to have been done, because of the notoriety of the offence.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #122 on: February 03, 2010, 12:25:49 AM »

That icon of Christ tempted by Satan looks amazing. Do you know the author Isa?
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #123 on: February 03, 2010, 02:21:31 AM »

No.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 02:22:35 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #124 on: February 03, 2010, 08:32:27 AM »

Ialmisry,

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #125 on: February 03, 2010, 12:49:17 PM »

Ialmisry,

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

you mean with the old leaven of Judaism, which we haven't gotten to yet (step-sonship called this time): Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

And the Spirit has leavened that Faith through the episcopacy shared by St. Paul and St. John, the leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Apostolic Doctrine.  I return to that new lump of Christ:

Quote
Quote
[3.] Ver. 3. “For I verily being absent in body, but present in spirit.”

Mark his energy. He suffers them not even to wait for his presence, nor to receive him first and then pass the sentence of binding: but as if on the point of expelling some contagion before that it have spread itself into the rest of the body, he hastens to restrain it. And therefore he subjoins the clause, “I have judged already, as though I were present.” These things moreover he said, not only to urge them unto the declaration of their sentence and to give them no opportunity of contriving something else, but also to frighten them, as one who knew what was to be done and determined there. For this is the meaning of being “present in spirit:” as Elisha was present with Gehazi, and said, “Went not my heart with thee? (2 Kings v. 26.) Wonderful!  How great is the power of the gift, in that it makes all to be together and as one; and qualifies them to know the things which are far off. “I have judged already as though I were present.”

Here St. Paul is talking about what the Vatican calls its Magisterium, and we call the charism of the episcopacy, and what the Protestants do not call anything because they do not have it, and hang on to the semikha of the rabbis instead.  The Church gathered around its bishop constitutes the Catholic Church (as St. Ignatius tells us, in the oldest attestation of the title) only when he give Apostolic voice to the Spirit Who animates her.  Only when He permeates them like leaven in the one loaf in the hand of their bishop, can they be spoken of as One and Holy.  It is how, like Christ, the Apostles and their successors the bishops teach us as one having authority, and not as the scribes of the law (Matthew 7:28):

Quote
He permits them not to have any other device. “Now I have uttered my decision as if I were present: let there be no delays and puttings off: for nothing else must be done.”

Then lest he should be thought too authoritative and his speech sound rather self-willed, mark how he makes them also partners in the sentence. For having said, “I have judged,” he adds, “concerning him that hath so wrought this thing, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan.

Such is the corporate nature of the Body of Christ: the episcopacy provides the spine attached to her Head Christ, but the other members are attached and invovled.  Hence the power of the least bit of leaven, good or bad, the leaven of Christ or the leaven Satan tries to introduce into the lump.

Quote
Now what means, “In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ?” “According to God;” “not possessed with any human prejudice.”

Some, however, read thus, “Him that hath so wrought this thing in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and putting a stop there or a break, then subjoin what follows, saying, “When you are gathered together and my spirit to deliver such an one unto Satan:” and they assert that the sense of this reading is as follows, “Him that hath done this thing in the Name of Christ,” saith St. Paul, “deliver ye unto Satan;” that is, “him that hath done insult unto the Name of Christ, him that, after he had become a believer and was called after that appellation, hath dared to do such things, deliver ye unto Satan.” But to me the former exposition appears the truer.

Both readings of St. Paul claim to stick with St. Paul?  Which is correct, if it is a matter of black and white dogma?  The proof is in what leaven was put in the loaf, that of the Apostles or that of the Pharisees: beware the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod.

Quote
What then is this? “When ye are gathered together in the Name of the Lord.” That is; His Name, in whose behalf ye have met, collecting you together.

“And my spirit.” Again he sets himself at their head in order that when they should pass sentence, they might no otherwise cut off the offender than as if he were present; and that no one might dare to judge him pardonable, knowing that Paul would be aware of the proceedings.

That is to stick with St. Paul, to speak with his authority, the authority of the power to bind and loose and to teach bestowed on the episcopacy by Christ, the leaven of the Church, the power of the keys that St. Paul continues to expound on:

Quote
[4.] Then making it yet more awful, he saith, “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ;” that is, either that Christ is able to give you such grace as that you should have power to deliver him to the devil; or that He is Himself together with you passing that sentence against him.

And he said not, “Give up” such an one to Satan, but “deliver;” opening unto him the doors of repentance, and delivering up such an one as it were to a schoolmaster. And again it is, “such an one:” he no where can endure to make mention of his name.

lest anyone doubt such power, and mistake that the Church does not act with the authority of Christ, unlike the scribes of the law.  "He who rejects you reject Me, and he who rejectes Me rejects Him Who sent Me": those who refuse the leaven of the Apostles are not raised in the Spirit into the Kingdom of Heaven.  And if you are not leavened by the Apostles, you do not remain unleavened, but are leavened by someone or something else.  Luke 11:25, swept clean of leaven, as St. Paul expounds on the real topic of this passage: not rubrics, but pastoral theology:

Quote
“For the destruction of the flesh.” As was done in the case of the blessed Job, but not upon the same ground. For in that case it was for brighter crowns, but here for loosing of sins; that he might scourge him with a grievous sore or some other disease. True it is that elsewhere he saith, “Of the Lord are we judged, (1 Cor. xi. 32.) when we suffer these things.” But here, desirous of making them feel it more severely, he “delivereth up unto Satan.” And so this too which God had determined ensued, that the man’s flesh was chastised. For because inordinate eating and carnal luxuriousness are the parents of desires, it is the flesh which he chastises.

“That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;” that is the soul. Not as though this were saved alone, but because it was a settled point that if that were saved, without all controversy the body too would partake in its salvation. For as it became mortal because of the soul’s sinning: so if this do righteousness, that also on the other hand shall enjoy great glory.

But some maintain, that “the Spirit” is the Gracious Gift which is extinguished when we sin. “In order then that this may not happen,” saith he, “let him be punished; that thereby becoming better, he may draw down to himself God’s grace, and be found having it safe in that day.” So that all comes as from one exercising a nurse’s or a physician’s office, not merely scourging nor punishing rashly and at random. For the gain is greater than the punishment: one being but for a season, the other everlasting.

And he said not simply, “That the spirit may be saved,” but “in that day.” Well and seasonably doth he remind them of that day in order that both they might more readily apply themselves to the cure, and that the person censured might the rather receive his words, not as it were of anger, but as the forethought of an anxious father. For this cause also he said, “unto the destruction of the flesh:” proceeding to lay down regulations for the devil and not suffering him to go a step too far. As in the instance of Job, God said, (Job ii. 6.) “But touch not his life.”

St. Paul next turns to the heart of your argument, I'll pick it up there, in shaa' Allaah.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 12:50:53 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #126 on: February 03, 2010, 01:54:38 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I think, for me, it's been reasonably shown that the Sacred Texts depicts Our Lord's Last Supper with some ambiguity. I also recognize that the Mind of the Church is forward looking... into eternity and not backward to what is past and fulfilled.

I believe if you hold to such a view, the only what to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder. I guess we have to ask ourselves are with reenacting the past or enacting eternity?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #127 on: February 03, 2010, 02:09:27 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I think, for me, it's been reasonably shown that the Sacred Texts depicts Our Lord's Last Supper with some ambiguity. I also recognize that the Mind of the Church is forward looking... into eternity and not backward to what is past and fulfilled.

I believe if you hold to such a view, the only what to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder. I guess we have to ask ourselves are with reenacting the past or enacting eternity?

Speaking about the future, what about the baby? angel
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #128 on: February 03, 2010, 02:31:23 PM »

Speaking about the future, what about the baby? angel

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 02:39:27 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #129 on: February 03, 2010, 02:38:06 PM »

That icon of Christ tempted by Satan looks amazing. Do you know the author Isa?

Weren't you just arguing against iconography as a member of the ACE a few weeks ago?  Did you have some change of heart, or did I misunderstand your position?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #130 on: February 03, 2010, 05:08:57 PM »

Speaking about the future, what about the baby? angel

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...
Wonderful News!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,313


« Reply #131 on: February 03, 2010, 05:27:43 PM »

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...

Congrats!  Smiley
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #132 on: February 03, 2010, 05:55:52 PM »

That icon of Christ tempted by Satan looks amazing. Do you know the author Isa?

It's Duccio di Buoninsegna.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #133 on: February 03, 2010, 06:43:25 PM »

Speaking about the future, what about the baby? angel

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...

Congratulations to you both, Ignatius.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #134 on: February 03, 2010, 10:18:34 PM »

Congratulations!

I suppose I should add something uniquely Roman Catholic to all of this. I was looking over differences between the old Vulgate and the Stuttgart and discovered that the Vulgate and Old Latin readings of the words of institution often read "effundetur" and "fundeter" (will be poured out) as opposed to "effunditur" and "funditer". If you attend a Roman Catholic mass (or a strictly translated WRO service), you will also hear "will be poured out" during the words of institution. In the Clementine Vulgate, this is in both Corinthians and the Synoptics, and both versions can be found in ancient Latin witnesses.

The old witnesses sometimes read one way in Mt and another in Mk. Thus the Marcan account in Codex Vercellensis reads "effundetur" where the Matthaean account reads "effunditur" (As a "Western non-interpolation, there is no second cup reading in Luke). This is obviously a very old Latin church thing. It was the liturgical understanding of the Western Church that the actual pouring out of his blood that Jesus' was referring to at the Last Supper... was Calvary, and that this was reflected in both the Mass and its Latin New Testament.

I stumbled on a paper from a scholar who was not happy that, in the past 40 years, this was corrected to read "is poured out," in both Weber's Stuttgart Vulgate and the new version. The paper cited linguistics as well as ancient patristic witnesses (St. Jerome, and Coptic translations?!?), and old Vulgates defending the translation choice, and also spent a bit of time defending the Johannine account of the Last Supper taking place BEFORE Passover.

I mentioned this very old Latin Church thing to the editor of the EOB New Testament and he seemed intrigued, at what looks, on the surface, to be a mistranslation of the Greek, and yet is more than that. If your understanding is that Liturgy reflects theology, then there is something here that was being said. That in Latin theology, the Last Supper - and the institution of the Eucharist - points to Calvary.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 10:21:39 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #135 on: February 03, 2010, 10:53:49 PM »

Ialmisry,

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

you mean with the old leaven of Judaism, which we haven't gotten to yet (step-sonship called this time): Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

And the Spirit has leavened that Faith through the episcopacy shared by St. Paul and St. John, the leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Apostolic Doctrine.  I return to that new lump of Christ:

Do I have this right?

So in simple terms; the use of unleavened bread harks back to the old covenant, as if a reenactment, not matter how loosely, of the Jewish Seder; and that is binding man to that Old covenant system of law keeping. Even in the slightest law keeping, it's as if Christ's Incarnation has made no difference. However, in looking to the New covenant, man has stepped out of the bonds of the Old. The use of leavened bread speaks of Christ as the Leaven of the New Covenant (is that a proper thing to say?) whereby man is free of the law; a new creature through Christ?

Whether Christ was actually celebrating the Passover with unleavened bread or not really isn't the point. We aren't attempting to repeat a historical Jewish Seder with the Eucharist. As Ignatius said earlier, "the only way to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder."  

I hope this makes sense.  Huh
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 11:13:15 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #136 on: February 03, 2010, 11:35:25 PM »

Ialmisry,

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

you mean with the old leaven of Judaism, which we haven't gotten to yet (step-sonship called this time): Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

And the Spirit has leavened that Faith through the episcopacy shared by St. Paul and St. John, the leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Apostolic Doctrine.  I return to that new lump of Christ:

Do I have this right?

So in simple terms; the use of unleavened bread harks back to the old covenant, as if a reenactment, not matter how loosely, of the Jewish Seder; and that is binding man to that Old covenant system of law keeping. Even in the slightest law keeping, it's as if Christ's Incarnation has made no difference. However, in looking to the New covenant, man has stepped out of the bonds of the Old. The use of leavened bread speaks of Christ as the Leaven of the New Covenant (is that a proper thing to say?) whereby man is free of the law; a new creature through Christ?

Whether Christ was actually celebrating the Passover with unleavened bread or not really isn't the point. We aren't attempting to repeat a historical Jewish Seder with the Eucharist. As Ignatius said earlier, "the only way to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder."  

I hope this makes sense.  Huh
Perfect sense.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #137 on: February 04, 2010, 12:21:57 AM »

That icon of Christ tempted by Satan looks amazing. Do you know the author Isa?

It's Duccio di Buoninsegna.

Thanks.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #138 on: February 04, 2010, 12:32:14 AM »

Ialmisry,

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

you mean with the old leaven of Judaism, which we haven't gotten to yet (step-sonship called this time): Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

And the Spirit has leavened that Faith through the episcopacy shared by St. Paul and St. John, the leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Apostolic Doctrine.  I return to that new lump of Christ:

Do I have this right?

So in simple terms; the use of unleavened bread harks back to the old covenant, as if a reenactment, not matter how loosely, of the Jewish Seder; and that is binding man to that Old covenant system of law keeping. Even in the slightest law keeping, it's as if Christ's Incarnation has made no difference. However, in looking to the New covenant, man has stepped out of the bonds of the Old. The use of leavened bread speaks of Christ as the Leaven of the New Covenant (is that a proper thing to say?) whereby man is free of the law; a new creature through Christ?

Whether Christ was actually celebrating the Passover with unleavened bread or not really isn't the point. We aren't attempting to repeat a historical Jewish Seder with the Eucharist. As Ignatius said earlier, "the only way to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder."  

I hope this makes sense.  Huh
Perfect sense.

Cool!  Smiley
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #139 on: February 04, 2010, 01:06:09 AM »

I challenge a protestant to explain away this verse:

Quote
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7

Is the Eucharist symbolic, just plain unleavened bread or the flesh and blood of the Messiah? Do we have life by eating his flesh and drinking his blood or not? Explain away.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #140 on: February 04, 2010, 05:40:59 PM »

Continuing with the Golden-mouthed...


In dealing with pastoral theology, St. Paul teaches them humility, "to which effect" he makes the off hand comment which has become the subject of this thread:
Quote
[5.] Then, having ended his sentence, and spoken it in brief without dwelling on it, he brings in again a rebuke, directing himself against them;

Quote
Ver. 6. “Your glorying is not good:”
signifying that it was they up to the present time who had hindered him from repenting, by taking pride in him. Next he shews that he is taking this step in order to spare not that person only, but also those to whom he writes. To which effect he adds,

Quote
“Know ye not, that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?”
“For,” saith he, “though the offence be his, yet if neglected it hath power to waste the rest of the body of the Church also. For when the first transgressor escapes punishment, speedily will others also commit the same faults.”

Here the issue of leaven comes up for the first time, and does show to show how like leaven, sin and (as he immediately refers) grace have the power to go from a speck to the whole.  It is in this context that communion comes up for discussion, the leavening power of the leavened Eucharist, from which the Church at Corinth is told to purge out from that lump the old leaven, least it spread and cut Corinth off from Catholic communion:

Quote
In these words he indicates moreover that their struggle and their danger is for the whole Church, not for any one person. For which purpose he needeth also the similitude of the leaven. For “as that,” saith he, “though it be but little, transforms unto its own nature the whole lump; so also this man, if he be let go unpunished and this sin turn out unavenged, will corrupt likewise all the rest.”

however, least he be misunderstood as recommending that emptying without a fullness to follow (as happened with the exercised demon, coming back with 7 spirits worse than itself) St. Paul immediately turns the proverb on its head, and in line with the Eucharistic practice of the Church as opposed to the Passover practice of the Rabbis:

Quote
Quote
Ver. 7. “Purge out the old leaven,”
that is, this evil one. Not that he speaketh concerning this one only; rather he glances at others with him. For, “the old leaven” is not fornication only, but also sin of every kind. And he said not, “purge,” but “purge out;” “cleanse with accuracy so that there be not so much as a remnant nor a shadow of that sort.” In saying then, “purge out,” he signifies that there was still iniquity among them. But in saying, “that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened,” he affirms and declares that not over very many was the wickedness prevailing. But though he saith, “as ye are unleavened,” he means it not as a fact that all were clean, but as to what sort of people you ought to be.

Note old leaven, not bare "leaven," a point which St. John will pick up. If he had meant to refer to an alleged fact that the bread, er, azyme (again, ἄρτος "bread" is NOT, at least in this context of Passover, used for mazzot) of our feasting is unleavened, he would have cited the proverb and left it at "purge out the leaven": new leaven has no place in Passover observations that I know of on the 8th day.  Instead he puts a new twist on the proverb on the power of leaven and on the mandate of Passover.  Whereas under the old law the mention of leaven during Passover was only in the context of the offender being "cut off from Israel" (i.e. excommunicated), here St. Paul will immediately, in parallel, bring up the issue of partaking of new leaven.  The Apostles did prepare to eat the Passover in the Upper Room, furnished and prepared by purging out the old leaven.  But instead of eating the last of the old leaven, as done under the Old Law, the new High Priest bringing the change in the law by the sacrifice of the real Paschal Lamb had them eat the new lump of that sacrifice, that they might be raised as He rose into the Kingdom of Heaven:

Quote
[6.] “For our Passover also hath been sacrificed for us, even Christ; wherefore let us keep the feast: not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” So also Christ called His doctrine Leaven. And further he himself dwells upon the metaphor, reminding them of an ancient history, and of the Passover and unleavened bread, and of their blessings both then and now, and their punishments and their plagues.

As pointed that whereas "to eat the Passover (lamb)" is an expression for to celebrate Passover in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek, there is no expression "to eat mazzoth/azymes" which means "to celebrate Passover."  Here, your proof text "let us keep the feast....with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" St. John immediately puts in its context: "So also Christ called His doctrine Leaven."  Is His doctrine not sincerity and truth?

Quote
It is festival, therefore, the whole time in which we live. For though he said, “Let us keep the feast,” not with a view to the presence of the Passover or of Pentecost did he say it; but as pointing out that the whole of time is a festival unto Christians, because of the excellency of the good things which have been given. For what hath not come to pass that is good?  The Son of God was made man for thee; He freed thee from death; and called thee to a kingdom. Thou therefore who hast obtained and art still obtaining such things, how can it be less than thy duty to “keep the feast” all thy life? Let no one then be downcast about poverty, and disease, and craft of enemies. For it is a festival, even the whole of our time. Wherefore saith Paul, (Philip. iv. 4.) “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, Rejoice.” Upon the festival days no one puts on filthy garments. Neither then let us do so. For a marriage hath been made, a spiritual marriage. For, “the kingdom of Heaven,” saith He, “is likened unto a certain king which would make (St. Matt. xxii. 1.) a marriage feast for his son.” Now where it is a king making a marriage, and a marriage for his son, what can be greater than this feast?  Let no one then enter in clad in rags. Not about garments is our discourse but about unclean actions. For if where all wore bright apparel one alone, being found at the marriage in filthy garments, was cast out with dishonor, consider how great strictness and purity the entrance into that marriage feast requires.

The Prostentants seem to exceeded their Vatican master in insisting that leaven is always a bad thing in Scripture (like the foolish interpretation that the Parable of the Leaven is that the nominal Christians make the Church seem larger than she is).  In Deuteronomy the unleavened bread is called "the Bread of Affliction," the opposite of Christian joy, ironically one of the verses twisted to promote the idea that ἄρτος-the only term (rather technical and specific) used to refer to the Mystical Supper-means unleavened as well as leavened bread.  Not to mention this passage, where St. Paul will refer to the new lump of leaven of Christ's Apostles.  Back in Genesis, it is "evening and morning, one day...etc." until the Seventh day, where there is no "evening and morning, day seven" because that day lasted until Christ kept the Sabbath resting in the tomb, when the seventh day ended and the eighth day of Creation, the First Day of the New Creation dawned with the rising of the New Adam, the new leaven of life to purge out the old leaven of the Old Adam.  We do not eat the "bread of afflication," but the Bread of life, the Bread of the joy of the Marriage Feast (the reason why DL is not celebrated during Lent on weekdays, because of the afflications that (hopefully) cause our repentence, but is still always celebrated during Lent on Sunday, the "Little Pascha.").  We do not eat the Eucharist in haste fleeing the pursuing tyrant, but with patience awaiting the return of the Savior. Hence unleavened cakes have no place in Christian festival.

Quote
[7.] However, not on this account only does he remind them of the “unleavened bread,” but also to point out the affinity of the Old Testament with the New; and to point out also that it was impossible, after the “unleavened bread,” again to enter into Egypt; but if any one chose to return, he would suffer the same things as did they. For those things were a shadow of these; however obstinate the Jew may be. Wherefore shouldest thou enquire of him, he will speak, no great thing, rather it is great which he will speak of, but nothing like what we speak of: because he knows not the truth. For he for his part will say, “the Egyptians who detained us were so changed by the Almighty that they themselves urged and drave us out, who before held us forcibly; they did not suffer us so much as to leaven our dough.” But if a man asketh me, he shall hear not of Egypt nor of Pharaoh; but of our deliverance from the deceit of demons and the darkness of the devil: not of Moses but of the Son of God; not of a Red Sea but of a Baptism overflowing with ten thousand blessings, where the “old man” is drowned.

Such should put to rest the idea that St. Paul is here advocating or refering to retension of Judaic practices.  To paraphrase St. Paul again, "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law...."where he brings up this same proverb on leaven (Galations 5), specifically to combat the heresy of Judaising, the heresy of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herod.  It is odd how Protestants, having rejected the Traditon of the Church, turn to the veiled rabbis to explain the OT, a point St. John makes:

Quote
Again, shouldest thou ask the Jew why he expels all leaven from all his borders; here he will even be silent and will not so much as state any reason. And this is because, although some indeed of the circumstances were both types of things to come, and also due to things then happening; yet others were not so, that the Jews might not deal deceitfully; that they might not abide in the shadow. For tell me, what is the meaning of the Lamb’s being a “Male,” and “Unblemished,” and a “year old,” and of, “a bone shall not be broken?” and what means the command to call the neighbors also, (Exod. xii. 4.) and that it should be eaten “standing” and “in the evening;” or the fortifying the house with blood? He will have nothing else to say but over and over all about Egypt. But I can tell you the meaning both of the Blood, and of the Evening, and the Eating all together, and of the rule that all should be standing.

As you claim, Scripture cannot be broken: How can he who at length writes how the Jews do not understand Moses who is read in their synagogues, and who says of their law that it is "ready to vanish away," how can he be construed as advocating, in this off hand comment, the retention of the vestiges of the Old Law? As St. John expounds on St. Paul's other use of this proverb:"Gal. 5:9. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” And thus this slight error, he says, if not corrected, will have power (as the leaven has with the lump) to lead you into complete Judaism."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.v.html

Quote
[8.]But first let us explain why the leaven is cast  out of all their borders. What then is the hidden meaning? The believer must be freed from all iniquity. For as among them he perishes with whomsoever is found old leaven, so also with us wheresoever is found iniquity: since of course the punishment being so great in that which is a shadow, in our case it cannot choose but be much greater. For if they so carefully clear their houses of leaven, and pry into mouse-holes; much more ought we to search through the soul so as to cast out every unclean thought.

So yes, St. Paul makes use of this imagery of the purging of the leaven, known to all, not to refer to the Church's practice, but as a concrete example of what the Old law did as type of what the New Covenant does in reality. As St. John points out, St. Paul cannot be refering to what Christians should do as to purging leaven, a fact made clearer by the Jews of St. John's day:

Quote
This however was done by them of late; but now no longer. For every where there is leaven, where a Jew is found. For it is in the midst of cities that the feast of unleavened bread is kept: a thing which is now rather a game at play than a law. For since the Truth is come, the Types have no longer any place.

So much for your ancient validation.

It seems he may be talking about customs like bittul (nullifying the leaven) and mekhirah (selling leaven to the Pesakh goy).  But the real issue is that the Jews are clinging to the shadow, much like the High Priest (John 18:28) clung to the letter of the law, so he could eat the abolished passover while leading the true Passover to slaughter.  Since Christians have the Truth to which the Types pointed, why would they look back, except as an example?

Quote
So that by means of this example also he mightily drives the fornicator out of the Church. For, saith he, so far from his presence profiting, he even doth harm, injuring the common estate of the body. For one knows not whence is the evil savor while the corrupt part is concealed, and so one imputes it to the whole. Wherefore he urges upon them strongly to “purge out the leaven, that ye may be,” saith he, “a new lump, even as ye are unleavened.”

And then, the pièce de résistance and coup de grâce:

Quote
For our Passover hath been sacrificed for us even Christ.” He said not, hath died, but more in point to the subject in hand, “hath been sacrificed.” Seek not then unleavened bread of this kind, since neither hast thou a lamb of the same kind. Seek not leaven of this description, seeing that thine unleavened bread is not such as this.

In other words, as he says elsewhere, "what is old is ready to vanish away," like the old leaven of the law and of the old Adam alike. As with his use of the same proverb in Galatians, St. Paul is here calling the Christians to hold to what does not pass away:

Quote
[9.] Thus, in the case of material leaven, the unleavened might become leavened, but never the reverse; whereas here there is a chance of the direct contrary occuring. This however he has not plainly declared:  and observe his good sense. In the former Epistle he gives the fornicator no hope of return, but orders that his whole life should be spent in repentance, lest he should make him less energetic through the promise. For he said not, “Deliver him up to Satan,” that having repented he might be commended again unto the Church. But what saith he? “That he may be saved in the last day.” For he conducts him on unto that time in order to make him full of anxiety. And what favors he intended him after the repentance, he reveals not, imitating his own Master. For as God saith, (Jonah iii. 4. lxx: rec. text, “forty days.”) “Yet three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” and added not, “but if she repent she shall be saved:” so also he did not say here, “But if he repent worthily, we will ‘confirm our love towards him.’” (2 Cor. ii. 8.). But he waits for him to do the work that so he may then receive the favor. For if he had said this at the beginning he might have set him free from the fear. Wherefore he not only does not so, but by the instance of leaven allows him not even a hope of return, but reserves him unto that day: “Purge out (so he says) the old leaven;” and, “let us not keep the feast with old leaven.” But as soon as he had repented, he brought him in again with all earnestness.

And so St. John, dealing with the topic of St. Paul's discourse, also answers your question on the proof text ripped out of context: the image of the unleavened is used only in the context of the imagery of puring the loaf of the Church of the old leaven so that the leaven of Christ alone may rise in us. Otherwise, he would not have juxtaposed the leaven of Christ with the unleavened cakes of sincerity and truth, and would not have explicitely identifed the leaven to be purged as "old":

Quote
[10.] But why does he call it “old?” Either because our former life was of this sort, or because that which is old is “ready to vanish away,” (Heb. viii. 13.) and is unsavory and foul; which is the nature of sin. For He neither simply finds fault with the old, nor simply praises the new, but with reference to the subject matter. And thus elsewhere He saith, (Ecclus. ix. 15.) “New wine is as a new friend: but if it become old, then with pleasure shalt thou drink it:” in the case of friendship bestowing his praise rather upon the old than the new. And again, “The Ancient of days sat,” (Dan. vii. 9.) here again, taking the term “ancient” as among those laudatory expressions which confer highest glory. Elsewhere the Scripture takes the term “old” in the sense of blame; for seeing that the things are of various aspect as being composed of many parts, it uses the same words both in a good and an evil import, not according to the same shade of meaning. Of which you may see an instance in the blame cast elsewhere on the old: (Ps. xvii. 46. ap. LXX.) “They waxed old, and they halted from their paths.” And again, (Ps. vi. 7. ap. LXX.) “I have become old in the midst of all mine enemies.” And again, (Dan. xiii. 52. Hist. Susan.) “O thou that art become old in evil days.” So also the “Leaven” is often taken for the kingdom of Heaven, although here found fault with. But in that place it is used with one aspect, and in this with another
.

Hence the fact that he exhorts them to be a "new lump" shows that he does not call them to remain unleavened.  Hence the use of bread, that is leavened, living bread, in Christian feasts.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 06:01:17 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #141 on: February 04, 2010, 07:31:13 PM »

St. Paul's remark on leaven was only an excurses in the midst of a passage on moral theology, and so St. John returns to the real subject at hand (I'm posting the rest of the sermon, for completeness sake):
Quote
[11.] But I have a strong conviction that the saying about the leaven refers also to the priests who suffer a vast deal of the old leaven to be within, not purging out from their borders, that is, out of the Church, the covetous, the extortioners, and whatsoever would exclude from the kingdom of Heaven. For surely covetousness is an “old leaven;” and whenever it lights and into whatsoever house it enters, makes it unclean: and though you may gain but little by your injustice, it leavens the whole of your substance. Wherefore not seldom the dishonest gain being little, hath cast out the stock honestly laid up however abundant. For nothing is more rotten than covetousness. You may fasten up that man’s closet with key, and door, and bolt: you do all in vain, whilst you shut up within covetousness, the worst of robbers, and able to carry off all.

“But what,” say you, “if there are many covetous who do not experience this?” In the first place, they will experience it, though their experience come not immediately. And should they now escape, then do thou fear it the more: for they are reserved for greater punishment. Add to this, that in the event of themselves escaping, yet those who inherit their wealth will have the same to endure. “But how can this be just,” you will say? It is quite just. For he that has succeeded to an inheritance; full of injustice, though he have committed no rapine himself, detains nevertheless the property of others; and is perfectly aware of this; and it is fair he should suffer for it. For if this or that person had robbed and you received a thing, and then the owner came and demanded it back; would it avail you in defence to say that you had not seized it?  By no means. For what would be your plea when accused! tell me. That it was another who seized it? Well: but you are keeping possession. That it was he who robbed? But you are enjoying it. Why these rules even the laws of the heathen recognise, which acquitting those who have seized and stolen, bid you demand satisfaction from those persons in whose possession you happen to find your things all laid up.

If then you know who are the injured, restore and do what Zacchæus did, with much increase. But if you know not, I offer you another way yet; I do not preclude you from the remedy. Distribute all these things to the poor: and thus you will mitigate the evil.

But if some have transmitted these things even to children and descendants, still in retribution they have suffered other disasters.

[12.] And why speak I of things in this present life? In that day at any rate will none of these things be said, when both appear naked, both the spoiled and the spoilers. Or rather not alike naked. Of riches indeed both will be equally stripped; but the one will be full of the charges to which they gave occasion. What then shall we do on that day, when before the dread tribunal he that hath been evil entreated and lost his all is brought forward into the midst, and you have no one to speak a word for you? What will you say to the Judge? Now indeed you may be able even to corrupt the judgment, being but of men; but in that court and at that time, it will be no longer so: no, nor yet now will you be able. For even at this moment that tribunal is present: since God both seeth our doings and is near unto the injured, though not invoked: it being certain that whoever suffers wrong, however in himself unworthy to obtain any redress, yet nevertheless seeing that what is done pleases not God, he hath most assuredly one to avenge him.

“How then,” you will say, “is such an one well off, who is wicked?” Nay, it will not be so unto the end. Hear what saith the Prophet; (Ps. xxxvii. 1, 2.) “Fret not thyself because of the evil doers, because as grass they shall quickly wither away.” For where, tell me, where is he who wrought rapine, after his departure hence? Where are his bright hopes!  Where his august name? Are they not all passed and gone? Is it not a dream and a shadow, all that was his? And this you must expect in the case of every such person, both in his own person while living, and in that of him who shall come after him. But not such is the state of the saints, nor will it be possible for you to say the same things in their case also, that it is shadow and a dream and a tale, what belongs to them.

[13.] And if you please, he who spake these things, the tent-maker, the Cilician, the man whose very parentage is unknown, let him be the example we produce. You will say, “How is it possible to become such as he was?” Do you then thoroughly desire it? Are you thoroughly anxious to become such? “Yes,” you will say. Well then, go the same way as he went and they that were with him. Now what way went he? One saith, (2 Cor. xi. 27.) “In hunger, and thirst, and nakedness.” Another, (Acts iii. 6.) “Silver and gold I have none.” Thus they “had nothing and yet possessed all things.” (2 Cor. vi. 10.) What can be nobler than this saying? what more blessed or more abundant in riches?  Others indeed pride themselves on the contrary things, saying, “I have this or that number of talents of gold, and acres of land without end, and houses, and slaves;” but this man on his being naked of all things; and he shrinks not from poverty, (which is the feeling of the unwise,) nor hides his face, but he even wears it as an ornament.

Where now be the rich men, they who count up their interest simple and compound, they who take from all men and are never satisfied? Have ye heard the voice of Peter, that voice which sets forth poverty as the mother of wealth? That voice which has nothing, yet is wealthier than those who wear diadems?  For this is that voice, which having nothing, raised the dead, and set upright the lame, and drove away devils, and bestowed such gracious gifts, as those who are clad in the purple robe and lead the mighty and terrible legions never were able to bestow. This is the voice of those who are now removed into heaven, of those who have attained unto that height.

[14.] Thus it is possible that he who hath nothing may possess all men’s goods. Thus may he who possesses nothing acquire the goods of all: whereas, were we to get all men’s goods, we are bereft of all. Perhaps this saying seems to be a paradox; but it is not. “But,” you will say, “how does he who hath nothing possess all men’s goods? Doth he not have much more who hath what belongs to all?” By no means: but the contrary. For he who hath nothing commands all, even as they did. And throughout the world all houses were open to them, and they who offered them took their coming as a favor, and they came to them as to friends and kindred.  For so they came to the woman who was a seller of purple, (Acts xvi. 14.) and she like a servant set before them what she had. And to the keeper of the prison; and he opened to them all his house. And to innumerable others. Thus they had all things and had nothing: for (Acts iv. 32.) “they said that none of the things which they possessed was their own;” therefore all things were theirs. For he that considers all things to be common, will not only use his own, but also the things of others as if they belonged to him. But he that parts things off and sets himself as master over his own only, will not be master even of these. And this is plain from an example. He who possesses nothing at all, neither house, nor table, nor garment to spare, but for God’s sake is bereft of all, uses the things which are in common as his own; and he shall receive from all whatsoever he may desire, and thus he that hath nothing possesses the things of all. But he that hath some things, will not be master even of these. For first, no one will give to him that hath possessions; and, secondly, his property shall belong to robbers and thieves and informers and changing events and be any body’s rather than his. Paul, for instance, went up and down throughout all the world, 89carrying nothing with him, though he went neither unto friends nor kindred. Nay, at first he was a common enemy to all: but nevertheless he had all men’s goods after he had made good his entrance. But Ananias and Sapphira, hastening to gain a little more than their own, lost all together with life itself. Withdraw then from thine own, that thou mayest use others’ goods as thine own.

[15.] But I must stop: I know not how I have been carried into such a transport in speaking such words as these unto men who think it a great thing to impart but ever so little of their own. Wherefore let these my words have been spoken to the perfect. But to the more imperfect, this is what we may say, Give of what you have unto the needy. Increase your substance. For, saith He, (Prov. xix. 17.) “He that giveth unto the poor, lendeth unto God.” But if you are in a hurry and wait not for the time of recompense, think of those who lend money to men: for not even these desire to get their interest immediately; but they are anxious that the principal should remain a good long while in the hands of the borrower, provided only the repayment be secure and they have no mistrust of the borrower. Let this be done then in the present case also. Leave them with God that He may pay thee thy wages manifold. Seek not to have the whole here; for if you recover it all here, how will you receive it back there? And it is on this account that God stores them up there, inasmuch as this present life is full of decay. But He gives even here also; for, “Seek ye,” saith He, “the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (St. Matt. vi. 33.) Well then, let us look towards the kingdom, and not be in a hurry for the repayment of the whole, lest we diminish our recompense. But let us wait for the fit season. For the interest in these cases is not of that kind, but is such as is meet to be given to God. This then having collected together in great abundance, so let us depart hence, that we may obtain both the present and the future blessings; through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom unto the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now, henceforth, and for evermore. Amen.
Amen! indeed!  Much to think of as we enter the Great Fast...
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 834


Christos Anesti!


« Reply #142 on: February 05, 2010, 01:40:38 PM »

Speaking about the future, what about the baby? angel

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...

Congrats
Logged

"Come ye take light from The Light that is never overtaken by night and glorify the Christ, who is risen from the dead"
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #143 on: February 06, 2010, 05:42:06 PM »

Ialmisry,

That's an awful lot of effort and trouble to go through to try and make "keep the feast with the unleavened bread" actually mean "keep the feast with the newly leavened bread". Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.

BTW, are you familiar with the common custom in that day of using a pinch of leavened dough from a previous batch as the leavening agent in a fresh batch of dough? If not I suggest you look into it a bit, as that is a far more likely an natural understanding Paul on the "new lump" concept.

Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2010, 05:43:56 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #144 on: February 07, 2010, 11:22:10 AM »

Ialmisry,

That's an awful lot of effort and trouble to go through to try and make "keep the feast with the unleavened bread" actually mean "keep the feast with the newly leavened bread". Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.

Then what do you do with that "new lump?" And are you saying the Jews were celebrating their feast with old leaven?

Take it up with someone who actually reaceived the teaching from St. Paul himself, Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch:

I just came across this reading St. Ignatius of Antioch to Magnesians 9-10:

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, having come, raised them from the dead...Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour you shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.


Quote
BTW, are you familiar with the common custom in that day of using a pinch of leavened dough from a previous batch as the leavening agent in a fresh batch of dough? If not I suggest you look into it a bit, as that is a far more likely an natural understanding Paul on the "new lump" concept.

I am familiar with it for two main reasons (I don't bake bread, so I don't know it accept from reading about those who do Tongue). 1) reading the medieval accounts of Jewish practice to clearing the leaven prohibits that bit from being in their possession (I don't recall if they discuss where the new leaven comes from afterwards) 2) the old belief of the East Syrians of the Holy Leaven, that the leaven that they use for their eucharist (using the method you speak of) ultimately comes from that used at the institution of the Mystical Supper by Our Lord in the Upper Room.
Nestorian questions on the Eucharist By Willem Cornelis Unnik
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYdJwrUEe3gC&pg=PA246&dq=Nestorians+leaven&cd=6#v=onepage&q=Nestorians%20leaven&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=cnURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA161&dq=Nestorians+leaven&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Nestorians%20leaven&f=false



Quote
Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.
Jesus I know, and Paul I know, and Ignatius I know, but who are you?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 11:49:35 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #145 on: February 08, 2010, 11:40:03 AM »

Then what do you do with that "new lump?" And are you saying the Jews were celebrating their feast with old leaven?

Nothing. It causes me no problems. What should I do with it, or what problem should it cause my argument?

A new lump is just that, new. As long as you don't go leavening it, or can get out that bit of leaven sometimes thrown in (by wayward individuals who return to or retain of the former life) from the old lump before it get's a chance to work and permeate the new batch of dough, you can keep the lump new and unleavened. No problem at all.


Quote
Jesus I know, and Paul I know, and Ignatius I know, but who are you?

Wow! Don't be so harsh on yourself. I have not demonized you, why demonize yourself?  Wink angel
« Last Edit: February 08, 2010, 11:41:01 AM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #146 on: February 13, 2010, 03:11:04 PM »

^Yes, but:

a) The afikoman's ritual breaking (what seems to be indicated by Jesus' actions in the breaking - with the special blessing and all) actually takes place before the meal; the only breaking at the point of consumption is for distribution.
b) There is a prayer of grace separating the afikoman (dessert) from the 3rd cup, which is not present in the Biblical account of the Mystical Supper.
c) It seems odd to make a major statement/change using the dessert matzoh rather than at the Motzi Matzoh or during the meal itself.

I don't know - there is too much missing from the biblical account IMO to use it (the Gospels) as proof that Jesus was indeed eating the Seder with His Apostles.

The Talmud claims that the Afikoman is the replacement for the Passover (i.e. the lamb sacrifice).  What is odder is why they use a Greek phrase (<επί Κομός) for it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qGHi_9K154C&pg=PA289&dq=Afikoman+sacrifice&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Afikoman%20sacrifice&f=false

The Passover was sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan, "between the two sunsets" Numbers 9:11, Exodus 12:6, to keep the passover.  Again "to eat the Passover" meant the lamb, not the mazzot.  "To eat mazzot" never was a term for Passover in Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek.  The Feast of Unleavened bread did not start untill sunset, the beginning of Nisan 15, at which time the sacrifice, the mazzot etc. were eaten. Lev. 23:6, Num. 28:17

Since the Lord instituted the Mystical Supper after the evening of the 14th Nisan He kept the figure of the Old Law "between the two sunsets" while fulfilling it in reality at midday. And since the prohibition of leaven doesn't go into effect until sunset on the 15th, by which time the passover is to have been sacrificed (and He had) no breaking of the letter of the law while keeping its spirit at all.

Among the Jews of today, Bedikas Hametz "search for leaven" where the last of it is eliminated happens on the 14th Nisan.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kZL9RW6q22wC&pg=PA37&dq=Erev+pesach&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Erev%20pesach&f=false

Since there has no sacrifices at the Temple since around the time the NT was being written, there has been a conflagration of the Feast of Mazzot and the Passover.  Hence a lot of confusion from those not members of the 1st century Church.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 03:17:03 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #147 on: March 02, 2010, 03:21:13 PM »

Then what do you do with that "new lump?" And are you saying the Jews were celebrating their feast with old leaven?
Nothing. It causes me no problems. What should I do with it, or what problem should it cause my argument?
A new lump is just that, new. As long as you don't go leavening it, or can get out that bit of leaven sometimes thrown in (by wayward individuals who return to or retain of the former life) from the old lump before it get's a chance to work and permeate the new batch of dough, you can keep the lump new and unleavened. No problem at all.

Quote
Jesus I know, and Paul I know, and Ignatius I know, but who are you?
Wow! Don't be so harsh on yourself. I have not demonized you, why demonize yourself?  Wink angel
LOL. Good to see that it was taken in the same spirit that it was given.
You have not explained (nor even attempted to explain) 1) the presence of leaven in the discussion at all.  Leaving aside the problem of context-St. Paul is talking about moral theology, not rubrics-leaven has no place in a discussion of Passover at all, except in being purged.  As you point out:
Some protestants hold to a distinction between this meal and the Passover Seder proper, as obviously does the Orthodox. Some do not.
I am one of those who does not. The text itself is clear, this was a passover meal. There is no need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions. The Bible clearly says it was a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion -- as you so thoroughly cited.
Also, the internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder. Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder. That our misleading. No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further. If it looks like a seder, taste like a seder, & feels like a seder it's probably because IT WAS a seder.
However, it is understandably confusing when people then read about the sacrificial offerings the following day. And questions crop up about whether there was a lamb or not (as the text it not explicit either way). I understand their need to rationalize an explanation therefore. However, what some forget (or perhaps do not realize) is that the Jewish day starts at sundown (so the day of Passover had indeed already come) and that there was a dual observance of the passover among the Jews. The majority keeping the feast on the twilight following the day of Passover, a minority keeping the feast on the twilight inaugurating the day of Passover. Obviously Jesus used this ambiguity of which twilight to feast on to both keep the feast and to then fulfill it later that day.
(btw, what is your authority for the boldface? And we Orthodox reckon the day the same way: the 7 hours of prayer for instance begins with Vespers/Evensong.)
You claim that it was a Seder and therefore conclude that it was unleavened bread that Our Lord used.  We'll return to the Seder tasting question below, but I am interested (since this is a thread on Protestant views): what is your argument to your fellow Protestants who hold to a distinction between this meal and a Passover Seder?
As you continued with this line of thought of yours:
As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if Roll Eyes).
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).
claiming that Christ (and hence the Christians) are celebrating according to the old law.  If that were true, there should be no talk of no leaven, old or new:just the contrast between unleavened and leaven.  I  have seen Jewish allegory on Pasover, and the contrast has always been on the purged leaven and the leavened bread (which is forbidden), not between old and new leaven.  Which contradicts your contention:
Besides, using the figure of bread, living bread does not denote leavened bread, for the bread broken and eaten is cooked. Leavened or unleavened, there is no more activity in the dough once it is cooked. My point? This is essentially bootstrapping to make leaven and living associate when it comes to Christ being our bread form heaven, much less the bread of Passover being His body.
If that were true, then the rabbis wouldn't obsess about the time limit when the water hits the flour: all you would have to do is cook it and the leaven questioned would be solved.  There is something different between unleaven and leavened bread even when cooked, hence the denotations.  And leavened bread doesn't denote sinful bread: the NT NOWHERE makes the rabbinic equation leaven=sin/corruption.  I Corinthians 5:8 would be the only one, but since St. Paul equates the leaven of malice and wickedness with OLD leaven and not just plain leaven (and hence new leaven would not be full of malice and wickedness, but something else, as indeed it, or rather He, is), it's not. (Ditto the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which in this case is ironically unleavened bread, as opposed to the leaven of the Kingdom). 
As was pointed out:
"I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."
(btw, artos is used in reference to manna, and the manna stopped on the first day of Unleavened Bread in the Promised Land).  And the Jews murmured at this Living Bread from Heaven as they did at the mannah (John 6:41, Exodus 16 ; in Numbers 21:5 their murmurings brought on the need for the Serpent of John 3:14. Btw, I finally learned recently why the use of the serpent, to prefigure Him Who knew no sin becoming sin for us).  No "I am the mazzah from Heaven"

As I've pointed out:
No, artos  is used only by way of analogy for unleavened bread.  The term azyma is quite common in the OT LXX, as is the Feast of Unleavened [Bread] heorte ton azymon,(Bread is in brackets because it is not in the Greek), which became such a techinical term (like episkopos) that it was adopted straight into Latin (like episcopus) and passed (like >bishop) into English:Azymes (used in the Douay-Rheims).  Because of the technicalities involved in Passover Mazzot, it is quite rare if not unknown to use the default word for "bread" in such a context.  It is as technical as mazzas/mazzot are in English. It would be as odd to refer to them as artos as to talk about bread during Passover: artos/bread is precisely what you are not supposed to be eating.
Indeed azymois is what St. Paul uses here in I Corinthians 5:8, but then there is your second problem:
2) The lump: you mentioned the lump already
BTW, are you familiar with the common custom in that day of using a pinch of leavened dough from a previous batch as the leavening agent in a fresh batch of dough? If not I suggest you look into it a bit, as that is a far more likely an natural understanding Paul on the "new lump" concept.
again that 'pinch" is exactly what is banned under the old law, that "small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper" which became, under the New Covenant, the Paschal sacrifice.  As St. Paul just said (and will say again (Gal. 5:9), where he IS talking about the Old and New Covenants) "leaven leavens the whole lump." Their should be no lump: any lump should have been gotten rid of. A lump is more than "just that, new."  According to the OT law, it is leaven and hence forbidden for the week of Nisan 15.  It cannot not stay "new": it must be immediately baked, in which case it never achieves "lump" status-the rules on mazzot making are crafted to precisely deny that forbidden status to the flour. Mazzot do not involve a "lump": the flour and water must be mixed and rolled flat and IMMEDIATELY baked. Otherwise, they are not kosher for Passover.  If you do "Nothing" about the lump and it "causes [you] no problem at all" the same cannot be said of the rabbis, Jews and Hebrews.  Ask them: "What should [you] do with it?" They would tell you GET RID OF IT!  "What problem should it cause [your] argument?"  You cannot keep the lump "new and unleavened" with "no problem at all": according to the rabbis now, they give only 18 minutes from the moment the water touches the flour to mix, roll and bake, less if anything else is used (hence why mazzah crumbs have to be used for breading meat, mazzah balls etc.  Simple flour won't do: it's considered leavened).  A moment more, and the Jew cannot touch it without being cut off from Israel.  No "lumping" allowed.

So while
Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.
because you are distracted by St. Paul's use of irony (dealt with below), consider, if St. Paul was actually saying what you claim, why does he call on the Corinthians to be a new lump, which by definition has leaven, old or new.  As the lump is by definition leavened, how does "so that you may be a new lump as you are unleavened" work for you?

The lump comes from mixing the leaven (that "pinch") into the three measures of flour and letting set until "the whole" is leavened.  (Mat. 13:33; Luke 13:20-1). As that string of parables instruct us, we are supposed to go leavening it.  It is for this reason that he exhorts the Corinthians to be unleavened from the old leaven, so that they may be leavened by the new, the reverse of the man who had a demon purged from him, but, because he did not leaven himself with anything, the spirit returned with seven worse than himself to the house swept clean and the man was worse than at first (Mat. 12:45, Luke 11:26).  We neither purge the old leaven in the manner of Marcion, nor keep it as did the Ebionites.  As putting new wine into new winskins, new leaven for the new lump.  As St. John points out "in the case of material leaven, the unleavened might become leavened, but never the reverse," and St. Paul's colleague St. Ignatius explained "Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ." 

St. Paul doesn't say we "can can get out that bit of leaven sometimes thrown in (by wayward individuals who return to or retain of the former life) from the old lump before it get's a chance to work and permeate the new batch of dough." He specifically talks about old leaven, not "that bit of leaven," and does not say a thing about an "old" lump, only about the new lump, which the Church has always identified with Christ, as He identified it with His Kingdom, which we are supposed to give a chance to work and permeate us.

Btw:
Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.
The translation NIV "Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" NLV "Get rid of the old "yeast" by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us."  ISV "Get rid of the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough, since you are to be free from yeast. For the Messiah, our Passover, has been sacrificed." ARE emphatically wrong. The "in fact" of the NASB "Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed" is inserted, and not in the text.  I don't have to prove St. Paul is uninspired.  You need only disprove that St. Paul is making new lumps out of mazzot.

So, again, why is the discussion of the "lump" there, not to mention the reasoning that we "purge out the old leaven, that [we] may be a new lump"?:
should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).
That first Eucharist was that last small bit, the Saved Remnaint.
And that removal of the old leaven happened on the 14th of Nisan, the day the Passover was sacrificed as St. John (and St. Paul) tells us. If Christ was sacrificed on the 15th, as is claimed the Synoptics say, He would not be our Passover sacrificed for us. Which leads to your third problem:
3) St. Paul agrees with St. John (and the rest of the Orthodox) that Christ was sacrificed before the Seder, as Christ, as our Passover was sacrificed for us, but to be our Passover, He would have had to have been sacrificed as the Law an type called for:Nisan 14, NOT the 15th, the first day of unleavened bread. The only "need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions" comes with fitting the Gospel account with the typology Moses laid down with the commandments of the celebration of the sacrifice of the Passover (the day beforeNisan 15) and the Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15) and First Fruits and the count down to Pentacost and the reception of the Covenant (Nisan 16).
Such is the Messianic application you ask for:
Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs
As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.
Exactly. 
Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?
Christ, Our Passover, is the Bread of Life, not the Bread of Affliction.  The Passover lamb was sacrificed before the first day of the feast of the Unleavened Bread, on 14th Nisan.  Scripture and all ancient authorities agree:and, according to the Synoptics, they didn't taste lamb at the supper, so it definitely didn't taste like a seder.  There were Quartodecimentarism, but no Quintodecimeniansim [Polycrates of Ephesus c. 190]:
Quote
1...the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them.  He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: 2. “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. 3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.  4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr;....6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.  And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.  7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html
Such is that the Paschal New Moon (i.e. the 14th of Nisan) still determines Pascha.
This problem that people make for the Synoptics (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7, cf. Mat. 26:2, 17) does not explain why the Synoptics identify the first day of Unleavened Bread as the day on which they "killed the Passover."  The Passover was sacrifed, as the OT shows, on the 14th Nisan "between the two sunsets," the Feast of Unleavenend Bread occured on the 15th.  The priests, St. Matthew (26:2, 3-5) and St. Mark specifically tells us (14:1-2), did not arrest, try and kill Christ during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but before. St. Luke tells us (22:1) the Feast of Unleavened Bread was called the Passover; Mark 14:1 tells us the Passover and the [Feast] of Unleavened Bread was coming, conflated in English but distinguished in Greek. If the Passover sacrifice was muddled, upon which your interpretation depends,  with the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, eating the seder (and hence the passover sacrifice) on the second day of the week of the Unleavened and sacrificing the lamb a day late according to Moses, then the the Gospel is breaking the Pentateuch (not to mention St. John) besides "the text itself [being] clear, this was" NOT "a passover meal...The Bible clearly says it was" NOT "a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion." At least one not according to Moses, who stated in words which cannot be broken and do not pass away, that the Passover was sacrificed on the 14 and the feast of Unleavened on the 15 of Nisan.

"No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further."  No Christian ever attached any importance to the 15th of Nisan, so the Synoptics must be read in the light of St. John the Theologian.  ALL messianic prophecies hinge on Christ being sacrifice on the 14th of Nisan. Cf. the typology of Joshua (Greek Jesus) entering the Promised Land after passing through the waters of Jordan (where Christ was baptized) (Jos. 4:18-19): this was the 10th of Nisan, when the Passover lambs were chosen, and then sacrificed (5:10) on the 14th, and on the 15th they ate the old wheat of the land unleavened, and rested (before going to take possession of the Land) as it was a double Sabbath-both for the Week and the Passover Festival-just as the Lord rested on the last day of the Old Creation and kept the Sabbath in the tomb, and the next day on the 16th they ate of the first fruits of the promised land (Lev. 23:10), a type of the Resurrection-the Eighth Day of Creation and the First Day of the New Creation-and the manna ceased to fall (5:12).  They were home.  And they started counting the Omer, which was the countdown to Pentacost, when the Law came down, both Old and New.
Btw, the Jews stress that Israel was freed on Passover only so that they could receive the Commandments on Pentacost. Hmmm. Sounds familiar....purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump....They also read Ruth on that day, the account of the founding of the House of David.  How's that for Messianic? They also seem to answer your further questioning:
Quote
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs
As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.
Exactly. 
Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?
The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.
As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.
A quick FYI ... I was referring to calling in question the specific references I made to Jewish festival customs. Can you prove them to have no ancient validation or Messianic application?
All application of the Hebrew festivals hinges on Christ our Passover being sacrificed for us on the 14th Nisan, and hence all Christian festivals, including the Eucharist:
I actually see the institution of the eucharist happening with the supper. The reference to "after supper" refers again to ceremonial stages of the seder, and helps to indicates which seder cup (the after supper cup, or the 4th in the seder) Christ chose to represent His blood. So, I definitely see it (though designated "after supper") as a continuance of the seder.
However, as an aside, I do not believe the full seder meal or celebration is obligatory for believers (though quite illuminating when seen) -- only those elements thereof which Christ ordains as uniquely referring to Him and His sacrificial offering of Himself as our passover.
There was nothing unique (except for what Christ made it) in the Supper: reciting blessings over bread and breaking it for distribution, and then a blessing over the cup were the common ceremonial of Hebrew meals.  Hence no "internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... " nor do "these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder." To claim "Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder" is "[y]our misleading": such was format of any Hebrew meal, who saw the sanctification of daily life as an integral part of the Faith (as it still is).
("The Eucharist in the New Testament," Jerome Kodell, Chapter 3 "Jewish Meals in the First Century")
http://books.google.com/books?id=_ltfLemA6F4C&pg=PA38&dq=Eucharist+in+the+New+Testament+Jewish+Meals+in+the+first+century&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Eucharist%20in%20the%20New%20Testament%20Jewish%20Meals%20in%20the%20first%20century&f=false
Hence there is no problem of validation of ancient Jewish customs, except the problem for seeing the Afikoman as the Eucharist is that the Afikoman was the Passover lamb in Christ's day.  Hence the absence of lamb on the Synoptics menu is not a little detail, what it meant to "eat the Passover" if we are going to insist on reading things with a veil on (II Cor. 3:15). And if the lamb was present, then the Eucharist is not the passover lamb, and could not be eaten (if the rabbis are to be believed) as the lamb was the last to be eaten, right before midnight.   Then there's that problem that the New Testament never interprets the Eucharist in the light of Passover.
Your assertions (true enough)
And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:
Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).
I understand what you are saying, however, since Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35) any view thereof that causes the gospels (or any other book of Scripture) to disagree, rather than to harmonize, must be a false view or understanding. Besides, Paul is quite clear on the nature of the bread we are to use at the Lords table, and why (1 Corinthians 5:8).
should include, for instance, John 12:1 and 19:14 (and Ex. 12:6, Lev. 23:6, Num. 9:11 and 28:17). And harmonize Mat. 26:2, 17, Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 accordingly.  And use leaven bread, as St. Paul did. Because St. Paul was quite found of irony, as he is using here, setting metaphors on their heads, which has confused some.  Which brings us to another problem:
4) Changing the metaphor into a Judaising rubric requires ignoring St. Paul's use of metaphor.  St. Paul uses the exact proverb of I Cor. 5:6 in Gal. 5:9, where he is dealing with feasting under the Old and New Covenants (btw, Gal. 4:9-11 precludes "Christian Seders" and other Judaisizing elements that many Protestants, rejecting the Church calendar, have adopted the Hebrew OT calendar as interpreted by the Jews), and launches into a discussion (4:21-31) which, interpreted as I Cor. 5 is being interpreted, would teach us new and strange things such as the Law came down on Sinai for the Ishmaelites (4:24), Sinai is in Jerusalem (25), and the Jews are the sons of Hagar (25, 29).  Now, since St. Paul had been to Jerusalem and Arabia (where Sinai is), I don't think he failed geography class at Gamaliel's academy.  Nor was he confused about the Jews' genealogy, any more than he got the rubrics on the Eucharist wrong or was confused on using leavened bread.  Nor did he fail physiology: St. Paul is not mistaken is his frequent image of the Jews being uncircumcized and the Gentile Christians circumsized in Colossians, Ephesians, Romans, Galatians and indeed here in I Corinthians: he does not think (nor do we) that the Jews' foreskins grew back, nor those of the Gentiles fell off.  As you state, St. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading:
I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.
I understand your hesitancy, but it just makes sense if you meditate on the passage a bit. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading. Furthermore, he frames his obvious metaphorical application (concerning Christian living on the whole) with the observance of the passover fulfilled, what you good folk call the eucharist. So, what he says about the Lord's table here must be literally true for the application to make sense, else there is no basis for the comparison or extension he is making. I mean,really, if we eat leavened bread then Paul's words here are difficult to understand at best, and are totally incoherent and non-applicable at worst. The clear meaning and intention is that the unleavened bread we eat speaks to the purity of life Christ lived in the flesh, and our partaking in that same purity of heart and life, both positionally and experientially.
You are somewhat on St. Paul's point here: he is using the rabbinic equation (still used by the Jews) leaven=corruption, evil, pride. He refers to this metaphor which, as Hebrews, would have been familiar to the Church at Corinth.  However, the interjection of the new lump, distinction old/new leaven and Christ our Passover was sacrificed prevents (or should prevent you) from taking that too far: St. Paul in the same epistle refers to idol worship (10:20-22) without admitting it has any basis in reality (10:19, 8:1, 4); nor can his reference to baptism for the dead (15:29) be used (sorry Joseph Smith) as justification for the practice.  We haven't had any difficulty in nearly 2,000 years we have been around in understanding St. Paul's words here: neither St. John nor St. Ignatius (who knew St. Paul personally) found his words incoherent or non-applicable, but then they partook of the new leaven, Christ our Passover sacrificed for us, as we do today.
To state the sasme more briefly and rhetorically...
If Christ our passover is identified in Scripture with unleavened bread, and the bread is his body, what then does it say about Christ to use leavened bread in praxis? Such is a contradiction.
Christ Our Passover is NOT identified in this Scripture (or elsewhere) with unleavened bread: the passover refers to the lamb sacrificed. As I posted:
He is the Paschal lamb, not the passover bread.
"Eating the Passover (sacrificial lamb)" is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX) for celebrating Passover, but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover.  Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics.  Which is a problem, because artos is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare artos is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.
As Pravoslavbob pointed out, St. Paul is speaking in metaphors, actually turning them on their head.  To not see that, does violence to the text.
Per Paul, He is both.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?
because He has the leaven of divinity which He shares with us as the Bread that has come down from Heaven.  And comes down: hence the iconostais where the Royal Doors (the middle doors, which open up to the altar) are flanked by the icon of Christ and the Theotokos-how He came down-on the one side and on the other-the Pantocrator "Christ Almighty"-how He will come down on the other.  In the middle is the altar, on which He comes down in the Eucharist, now: an image that dates from the days of Justin Martyr (from 2nd century Palestine). Christ Himself identifies His Kingdom with leaven.  He nowhere uses the rabbinic metaphor of leaven=sin. Nor, for that matter, does the rest of the NT.  And the Church, the New Lump leavened by Christ has always had as her praxis the use of the new leaven in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the true Passover sacrifice sacrificed for us.  No, St. Paul does NOT identify Christ and the Eucharist with unleavened bread.  Otherwise he would have used azyma instead of artos in Chapter 10, and we would be speaking of the "breaking of the mazzo" instead of the "breaking of the bread."  St. Paul, his friend St. Ignatius, their follower St. John and the rest of us have held to the symbolism that Christ Himself teaches on leaven in the Gospels.  As for Judaising symbolism
Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!
I not sure what distinction you are making.  Our leaven bread is pierced and broken (see the Proskomedia service mentioned earlier).  As for the stripes, it looks pox marked to me (I've replaced the photo of the machine made Mazza in your OP with one of a hand made mazzah: they didn't have machines in 1st century Palestine).
And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:
Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).
That's your problem, not ours (St. John, St. Ignatius, and St. Paul):azyma in never used instead of artos, and the two are not interchangeable, and the latter is the ONLY term used for the eucharist, whereas the former is the term used for the week of Unleavened [Bread].  To preserve your interpretation of St. Paul as arguing for seder for the Mystical Supper, you are going to either:
have to make Moses a liar, for setting up a faulty typology (Nisan 15 won't work for a Passover sacrifice, nor for the fast of the firstborn, nor a first fruits on the Resurrection, etc.)
have to make the Synoptics liars, as your interpretation of them precludes Christ being our Passover sacrificed for us.
have to make St. John a liar, as he makes it quite clear the Seder had not yet been celebrated nor the Passover yet slain.
have to make St. Paul a liar for talking about bread when he talks about the Eucharist (which is not his topic in chapter 5, but is chapter 10), a Mormon for baptizing the dead, a proto-Muslim for making Ishmael the receiver of the covenant at Sinai....
As you say, scripture cannot be broken.  And the scripture does NOT here, nor anywhere, refer to Christ as unleavened bread. You have, just as the Jews have now, replaced the Passover with the Afikoman matza, and put that in St. Paul's mouth.
It doesn't look like a seder because no lamb is to be seen, doesn't taste like a seder because no lamb (except the Lamb of God) is eaten, & doesn't feel like a seder because the Eucharist comes at the end instead of the passover lamb sacrificed (the Pachal Lamb of God fulfilling it instead the coming day) which is the last think the rabbis say should be eaten,  it's probably because it was NOT a seder. And if it wasn't a seder, so goes the need to  have the Eucharist unleavened.

He may be living bread, but He is also unleavened bread, per the Apostle Paul. That's about as apostolic as one can get, btw.
As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if Roll Eyes).
If we are to hold that, then we must hold that he believed Hagar was his Hebrew ancestress, the Ishmaelites were at Sinai, Sinai is in Jerusalem, and St. Paul baptized the dead and believed idols were real.  We also must hold that St. Paul when he calls the Jews uncircumcized means that their foreskins grew back, and for the Gentiles called circumcized their foreskins dissolved in the baptismal font.  Talk about nonsense.  Or we can hold, as St. Ignatius, St. John and all the rest of the Orthdoox for the past two millenia that St. Paul is refering to a metaphor familiar to his audience and himself from their former life with the old leaven, to make a point on life partaking of the new leaven.
I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference.  However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad.  It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.
Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread referred to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.
Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.  Wink
St. Ignatius, St. John and all the rest of the Greek fathers didn't need a translation, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit stuck with St. Paul and the leavened  artos he speaks about when the topic does turn to the Eucharist.  Neither St. John nor we need to change the original nor the translation (as you suggest:
Ialmisry,
Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.
as two millenia of Church praxis and teaching shows such mistranslation is not necessary for his meaning. Now, 2,000 years of consitent witnessing to the Truth of Christ may seem an awful lot of effort and trouble
Ialmisry,
That's an awful lot of effort and trouble to go through to try and make "keep the feast with the unleavened bread" actually mean "keep the feast with the newly leavened bread". Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.
Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.
but we think it worth it for the successors of the Apostles to uphold their teachings, so that the Orthodox Church remains the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic One.
As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)
You mean St. Paul according to infallible Pope Cleopas I.  Wink
Ha ha! I anticipated the likelihood of such a response, though in truth, no. Not according to Cleopas, but according to Paul, by his own hand (or dictation as it were), under inspiration of God, and preserved in Holy writ. Alas, it seems we have reached the dreaded impasse. Nevertheless, here I stand, so help me God.
No impasse at all: simply show us those before you who believed as you do, and on what basis they stand.  Because neither St. Paul (who brings leavening the lump with new leaven into discussion), the Synoptics (who according to your interpretation disqualify Christ as the Passover), St. John (who disqualifies the Eucharist as a Seder) or Moses (who set up the typology you reject) is backing you up.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,259


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #148 on: June 01, 2010, 01:18:33 AM »

I found the article quoted below, by Jonathan Klawans, in Biblical Archaeology Review to be interesting, which supports the Orthodox and Johannine position. Two points in the article germane to this discussion: (1) leavened bread was the more primitive practice in the early post-apostolic period (cf. Jaroslav Pelikan on medieval debate re. the use of unleavened bread); (2) Klawans argues with John and contra the Synoptics that the Last Supper was not a Passover Sedar (see the full article for details).

The basic data, such as the seeming disparity between the Synoptics and John on the question, are vexing enough that we find contemporary scholars on all sides of the NT issue. On the Catholic side Pope Benedict XVI once cited French scholar Annie Jaubert for the harmonistic perspective which postulates the disciples were following the calendar the Pharisees who celebrated the start of Passover a day earlier than most Jews. The historical question about primitive post-apostolic practice, however, is decisively in favor of the Orthodox practice as the more ancient one within the Universal Church during the early period.

Quote
Jonathan Klawans, “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Sedar?” (Biblical Archaeology Review)
http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/jesus-last-supper.asp#note23r

"Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic custom of using unleavened wafers in the Mass is medieval in origin. The Orthodox churches preserve the earlier custom of using leavened bread.23 Is it not possible to see the switch from using leavened to unleavened bread as a “Passoverization” of sorts?"

23. On the medieval debate between the Catholic and Orthodox churches on this matter, see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700) (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 177–178. On the archaeological evidence pertaining to this dispute, see George Galavaris, Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1970).

“I want to operate here under the opposite assumptions: that the Gospels can tell us about the historical Jesus,3 and that rabbinic sources can be used—with caution—to reconstruct what Jews at the time of Jesus might have believed and practiced.4 Even so, I do not think the Last Supper was a Passover Seder.”
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 01:33:05 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #149 on: June 01, 2010, 09:06:31 AM »

I challenge a protestant to explain away this verse:

Quote
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7

Is the Eucharist symbolic, just plain unleavened bread or the flesh and blood of the Messiah? Do we have life by eating his flesh and drinking his blood or not? Explain away.

Well, since we've revived this old thread, I for one see nothing in context that says that this has anything to do with communion. Taken at face value, it is an attack upon gnosticism.

Over in the Anglican end of things, I don't think we really care that much whether or not the last supper was a seder.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #150 on: June 01, 2010, 09:11:31 AM »

I challenge a protestant to explain away this verse:

Quote
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7

Is the Eucharist symbolic, just plain unleavened bread or the flesh and blood of the Messiah? Do we have life by eating his flesh and drinking his blood or not? Explain away.

Well, since we've revived this old thread, I for one see nothing in context that says that this has anything to do with communion. Taken at face value, it is an attack upon gnosticism.

Over in the Anglican end of things, I don't think we really care that much whether or not the last supper was a seder.


I dare say you can flat out deny the Last Supper/Mystical Supper happened (and the Crucifixion and Resurrection for that matter) and still receive ordination from an Anglican.

Btw, the Father do connect the too, e.g. St. Ignatius, to the Smyrnaeans "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. "
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 09:15:54 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #151 on: August 18, 2010, 04:08:42 PM »

Romans 11:16 "For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches." So St. John Chrysostom expounds:
Quote
Ver. 16. “For if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches;”

So calling in this passage by the names of the first-fruit and root Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament; and the branches, those from them who believed.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xxi.html

But alas, this prophecy came true:

Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." (Mat 13:33 NKJ)

For those who are wondering what Mr. Persson is talking about, some of the untaught and unstable believers in sola scriptura twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, this verse to mean that invisible church that they preach but the Apostles knew nothing about, the three measures of meal being the masses of the Body of Christ, which like HIm, is seen. Is that what interpretation you are following, Mr. Persson?

So why we rejoice in the spread of the Church, they mourn.

The successor of the Apostles, St. John Chrysostom, passes on their understanding:
Quote
And why may it be that they let pass the parable of the leaven, and of the mustard seed, and inquire concerning this? They let those pass, as being plainer; but about this, as having an affinity to that before spoken, and as setting forth something more than it, they are desirous to learn (since He would not have spoken the same to them a second time); for indeed they saw how severe was the threatening therein uttered. Wherefore neither doth He blame them, but rather completes His previous statements.

And, as I am always saying, the parables must not be explained throughout word for word, since many absurdities will follow; this even He Himself is teaching us here in thus interpreting this parable. Thus He saith not at all who the servants are that came to Him, but, implying that He brought them in, for the sake of some order, and to make up the picture, He omits that part, and interprets those that are most urgent and essential, and for the sake of which the parable was spoken; signifying Himself to be Judge and Lord of all.

What is the difference between this, and the parable before it? There He speaks of them that have not at all holden with Him, but have started aside, and have thrown away the seed; but here He means the societies of the heretics. For in order that not even this might disturb His disciples, He foretells it also, after having taught them why He speaks in parables. The former parable then means their not receiving Him; this, their receiving corrupters. For indeed this also is a part of the devil’s craft, by the side of the truth always to bring in error, painting thereon many resemblances, so as easily to cheat the deceivable. Therefore He calls it not any other seed, but tares; which in appearance are somewhat like wheat...

After this He adds the leaven to this similitude, saying, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.”  For as this converts the large quantity of meal into its own quality, 1819   ἰσχν.even so shall ye convert the whole world.

And see His wisdom, in that He brings in things natural, implying that as the one cannot fail to take place, so neither the other. For say not this to me: “What shall we be able to do, twelve men, throwing ourselves upon so vast a multitude?” Nay, for this very thing most of all makes your might conspicuous, that ye mix with the multitude and are not put to flight. As therefore the leaven then leavens the lump when it comes close to the meal, and not simply close, but so as to be actually mixed with it (for He said not, “put,” simply, but “hid”); so also ye, when ye cleave to your enemies, and are made one with them, then shall ye get the better of them. And as the leaven, though it be buried, yet is not destroyed, but by little and little transmutes all into its own condition; of like sort will the event be here also, with respect to the gospel. Fear ye not then, because I said there would be much injurious dealing: for even so shall ye shine forth, and get the better of all.

But by “three measures,” here, He meant many, for He is wont to take this number for a multitude.

And marvel not, if discoursing about the kingdom, He made mention of a little seed and of leaven; for He was discoursing with men inexperienced and ignorant, and such as needed to be led on by those means. For so simple were they, that even after all this, they required a good deal of explanation.

Where now are the children of the Greeks? Let them learn Christ’s power, seeing the verity of His deeds, and on either ground let them adore Him, that He both foretold so great a thing, and fulfilled it. Yea, for it is He that put the power into the leaven. With this intent He mingled also with the multitude those who believe on Him, that we might impart unto the rest of our wisdom. Let no one therefore reprove us for being few. For great is the power of the gospel, and that which hath been once leavened, becomes leaven again for what remains. And as a spark, when it hath caught in timber, makes what hath been burnt up already increase the flame, and so proceeds to the rest; even so the gospel likewise. But He said not fire, but “leaven.” Why might this be? Because in that case the whole effect is not of the fire, but partly of the timber too that is kindled, but in this the leaven doth the whole work by itself.

3. Now if twelve men leavened the whole world, imagine how great our baseness, in that when we being so many are not able to amend them that remain; we, who ought to be enough for ten thousand worlds, and to become leaven to them. “But they,” one may say, “were apostles.” And what then? Were they not partakers with thee? Were they not brought up in cities? Did they not enjoy the same benefits? Did they not practise trades? What, were they angels? What, came they down from Heaven?
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XLVII.html

« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 04:17:53 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #152 on: August 19, 2010, 11:43:03 AM »

The unmitigable problem is that the synoptics, taken by themselves, say that the Last Supper was a seder, while John, again taken by himself, says that it was not. One could therefore conclude that the Passover is a type of sacrifice of Jesus, and that the remembrance of that sacrifice is not simply a recasting of the Passover. And surely as far as the use of leavened or unleavened bread is concerned, Acts 15 takes precedence and says that we gentiles are not under the sway of having to observe the Supper as if it were or were not a Jewish rite. Early on, Anglicans were wont to specify what sort of bread was to be used, but it was not long until we stopped specifying, and we now look upon the choice of material as a matter of local custom. The East is far more concerned with differentiation from the Jews than the West is; conversely I suspect that sitting beside the Roman emphasis on Paschal typology is the practical matter that unleavened hosts do not shed crumbs and are more easily reserved and presented for adoration. More recent Anglicans have often preferred a single, undivided loaf which is not broken or cut until the fraction (which is why pita is so commonly used); and yet we do not quibble over the validity of Eastern or Roman practice. (We draw the line at grape juice, however.) None of this comes from scripture, of course, so in the end it seems to come down to which aspect one chooses to play up.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #153 on: December 17, 2010, 03:15:34 AM »

The unmitigable problem is that the synoptics, taken by themselves, say that the Last Supper was a seder, while John, again taken by himself, says that it was not. One could therefore conclude that the Passover is a type of sacrifice of Jesus, and that the remembrance of that sacrifice is not simply a recasting of the Passover. And surely as far as the use of leavened or unleavened bread is concerned, Acts 15 takes precedence and says that we gentiles are not under the sway of having to observe the Supper as if it were or were not a Jewish rite. Early on, Anglicans were wont to specify what sort of bread was to be used, but it was not long until we stopped specifying, and we now look upon the choice of material as a matter of local custom. The East is far more concerned with differentiation from the Jews than the West is; conversely I suspect that sitting beside the Roman emphasis on Paschal typology is the practical matter that unleavened hosts do not shed crumbs and are more easily reserved and presented for adoration. More recent Anglicans have often preferred a single, undivided loaf which is not broken or cut until the fraction (which is why pita is so commonly used); and yet we do not quibble over the validity of Eastern or Roman practice. (We draw the line at grape juice, however.) None of this comes from scripture, of course, so in the end it seems to come down to which aspect one chooses to play up.

Are you sure you draw the line with grape juice? Back when I was episcopal I remember one mission parish using non alcoholic wine.
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #154 on: December 29, 2010, 08:24:41 PM »

The unmitigable problem is that the synoptics, taken by themselves, say that the Last Supper was a seder, while John, again taken by himself, says that it was not. One could therefore conclude that the Passover is a type of sacrifice of Jesus, and that the remembrance of that sacrifice is not simply a recasting of the Passover. And surely as far as the use of leavened or unleavened bread is concerned, Acts 15 takes precedence and says that we gentiles are not under the sway of having to observe the Supper as if it were or were not a Jewish rite. Early on, Anglicans were wont to specify what sort of bread was to be used, but it was not long until we stopped specifying, and we now look upon the choice of material as a matter of local custom. The East is far more concerned with differentiation from the Jews than the West is; conversely I suspect that sitting beside the Roman emphasis on Paschal typology is the practical matter that unleavened hosts do not shed crumbs and are more easily reserved and presented for adoration. More recent Anglicans have often preferred a single, undivided loaf which is not broken or cut until the fraction (which is why pita is so commonly used); and yet we do not quibble over the validity of Eastern or Roman practice. (We draw the line at grape juice, however.) None of this comes from scripture, of course, so in the end it seems to come down to which aspect one chooses to play up.


Grace and Peace,

I agree that on the surface, the Synoptic Gospels appear to contradict the Gospel of John concerning the date of the Last Supper. Clearly, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus celebrating the last Supper as a Passover meal prior to Good Friday (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:15), while John's Gospel seems to indicate that the Passover was not celebrated by Jewish authorities until the evening of Good Friday itself (Jn 18:28; 19:14). How can Jesus have celebrated the Passover before his crucifixion (Synoptics) when the Passover did not begin until several hours after his death (John)?

Some deal with this problem by denying that the last Supper was a Passover meal (Eastern Orthodox). Orthers suggest that Passover did indeed fall on the evening of Holy Thursday, but that John manipulated the historical facts for theological reasons in order to present Jesus as the true paschal Lamb (Liberal-minded Bible-hating Scum-bags  Wink ) Still others hold that Jesus celebrated an anticipatory Passover one day ahead of the official date (Liberal-minded Losers Wink ). Unfortunately, none of these views is really satisfactory. Two main solutions, however, have been proposed to reconcile the accounts in John and the Synoptics. Both rely on the findings of modern scholarship as well as ancient traditions of the Church.

The Calendar Proposal

Some maintain that Jesus, when he celebrated the Last Supper, followed an alternative Jewish calendar in which Passover fell on Tuesday night instead of Friday night. Thus, the Synoptic Gospels correctly describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John correctly notes that Jewish authorities id not celebrate the feast until the evening of Good Friday. Four considerations are said to favor this solution.

1.)It is clear that Judaism was divided over the acceptance of a liturgical calendar in the first century. Authorities in control of the Jerusalem Temple followed a lunar calendar in which feast days fell on a different day each year, but other Jewish groups such as the Essenes and the Qumran community preferred a solar calendar in which annual festivals always fell on the same day of the week year after year. Passover, for instance, was always held on Tuesday night (the first hours of Wednesday) according to the solar calendar. Given this situation, it is conceivable that Jesus followed the Essene calendar instead of the Temple Calendar when he celebrated his final Passover.

2.)Archaeology suggests that the traditional site of the upper room (the Cenacle) lies within the Essene quarter of ancient Jerusalem. Thus, the probable location of the Last Supper on the southwest him of the city is precisely where archeologists have uncovered the remains of an Essene settlement from the first century. If the identification holds, this would tighten the possible connection between Jesus, the Last Supper, and the Essene solar calendar.

3.)The hypothesis that Jesus celebrated the last Supper on Tuesday night has an added dimension of historical plausibility: it allows more time for the extensive legal proceedings that transpired between his arrest and condemnation. Recall that Jesus was taken before Annas (Jn 18:13, 19-23), Caiaphas (Jn 18:24), the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71), Herod (Lk 23:6-11), and Pilate (Jn 18:28-40). These trials may have occurred during a single night, but the events fit more comfortable within the span of several days.

4.)A Syriac test from the third century explicitly states that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Tuesday night (Didascalia Apostolorum 5, 12-18), and other ancient writers, such as bishop Victorinus of Pettau (De Fabrica Mundi 3) and Saint Epiphanius (Panarion 51, 26), state that Jesus was taken into custody on Tuesday night. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI commented that this solution is worthy of consideration ("Homily for the Mass of the Lord's Supper, Holy Thursday, 5 April 2007).

The Paschal Proposal

Another solution contends that John's Gospel follows the same chronology as the Synoptics when its historical notations are considered more carefully. On this view, Jesus celebrates the Last Supper on Thursday night, along with the rest of Jerusalem, and the notion that john puts Passover on Friday night is simply a misunderstanding of the evangelist's use of Passover terminology. Four considerations may be said to favor this hypothesis.

1.) It is important to recognize that the word "Passover", both in Hebrew (pesah) and in Greek (pascha), has a wider range of meaning than simply "Passover lamb" or "Passover meal". It can also designate the entirety of "Passover week" (Lk 22:1), as well as "the peace offerings sacrificed and eaten during Passover week" (Deut 16:2-3; Mishnah, Pesahim 9, 5) In light of this latter usage, one could say that the Jewish authorities in John 18:28 probably fear that defilement will disqualify them from partaking, not of the Passover Seder (held the night before), but of the celebratory sacrifices eaten during Passover week. Peace offerings, after all, could not be eaten in a state of ritual defilement (Lev 7:19-20).

2.) The supper that Jesus attends in john 13:2 is the same as the Synoptic Last Supper, in which case it was a Passover meal. This is not stated explicitly, but John's description of the meal highlights features that, taken together, are distinctive of a Passover banquet (e.g., the participants reclined, Jn 13:23; morsels were dipped, Jn 13:26; some thought Judas was sent with an offering for the poor, Jn 29; the meal took place at night, Jn 13:30). Thus, the comment that Jesus contemplated his hour "before the feast of the Passover: (Jn 13:1) puts this moment of reflection, not a full day before the paschal celebration began, but on the afternoon of Passover eve, only a short time before the start of the feast.

3.) The RSV takes John 19:14 to mean that Jesus was sentenced to death on "the day of Preparation of the Passover". This translation is not impossible, but neither is it preferable. The greek term rendered "day of Preparation" is simply the common word for "Friday", the day when Jews made preparations for the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54). Since John himself appears to use the term primarily in relation to the Sabbath (see Jn 19:31, 42), it is likely that the expression in John 19:14 means "Friday of Passover week" and is not meant to identify the afternoon of Good Friday as Passover eve.

4.) Christian theologians who have favored this solution include Saint John Chrysostom (Homilies on John 83) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III, 4, 9).

So, although I understand the apparent problem... we have answers.

Peace Out!
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #155 on: July 21, 2011, 11:34:19 AM »

Just came across this again. Thought it might be interesting here. Aquinas "Against the Errors [sic] of the Greeks:
Quote
CHAPTER 39

Against the position of those who deny the Sacrament may be confected with unleavened bread.

But just as the aforesaid misguided persons sin against the unity of the mystical Body by denying the plenary power of the Roman Pontiff, so they sin against the purity of the sacrament of the Body of Christ, saying that the Body of Christ cannot be consecrated from unleavened bread. This, too, is disproved from texts of the Greek Doctors.

For Chrysostom commenting on the Gospel pericope, On the first day of the unleavened bread, says: “The first day he says is Thursday, on which observers of the Law began to celebrate the Passover, that is, to eat unleavened brewad, absolutely free of yeast. The Lord, therefore, sends his disciples on Thursday, which the Evangelist calls the first day of the unleavened bread, on which in the evening the Savior ate the Passover; in this deed, as in all he did from the beginning of his circumcision to the final day of his passover, he clearly showed that he was not opposed to divine laws.” 
Lib. 106, 1-13, from Theophylact Super Matth. XXVI: 17 (PG 123, 440 note a, and 441 A).


Close But it is obvious that he would have acted against the law if he had used leavened bread. Hence it is clear that in the institution of this sacrament Christ consecrated his body from unleavened bread.
It should be remarked, 
It should be remarked…to the end of the 5th paragraph: this entire section, with the soleomission of the text of Chrysostom in the third paragraph, is read in Contra Gent. IV, c 69 (cf.Preface, Leonine ed., parag. 44); but Thomas reviewing the question in S.T. III, q 46, a 9, quotesChrysostom according to the translation made by Burgundy.


Close however, that some  Some: the Greeks whose arguments Thomas reports in Super Sent. IV, d 11, q 2, a 2, qc 3.


Close claim Christ anticipated the day of unleavened bread because his passion was at hand, and so used leavened bread. This they attempt to show on two grounds. First, because in John 13: 1, it is said that before the feast of the Passover Jesus celebrated with his disciples the supper in which he consecrated his body, as the Apostle teaches in 1 Cor. 11: 21. Whence it seems that Christ celebrated the Passover before the day of the unleavened bread, and so in the consecration of his body he used leavened bread. Further, they would confirm this by noting that according to John 18: 28, on the Friday on which Christ was crucified the Jews did not enter the praetorium of Pilate in order that they might not defile, but eat the Passover. But the Passsover is called the unleavened bread. They therefore conclude that the supper was celebrated before the unleavened bread.

To this, however, Chrysostom replies, commenting on that very text of John: That they might not be defiled, etc.: “What does this mean, but that they ate the Passover on another day and broke the law in order that they might fulfill the most wicked desire of their soul in the death of Christ; Christ, however, did not transgress Holy Thursday in paschal week, but on that day he ate the Passover.” 
Lib. 108, 3-8, from Chrysostom Super Matth. hom. 84, n 2 (PG 58, 754).


Close

But since this is not certain, it might be better to say that, as the Lord commands in Exodus 12:18-19, the feast of the unleavened bread was observed throughout seven days, of which the first day, that is, the fifteenth day of the month, was holier and more solemn than the others. But because among the Jews solemn feasts began to be celebrated on the preceding evening, the unleavened bread began to be eaten on the fourteenth day in the evening and was eaten during the seven following days. That is why it is said in the same chapter: In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat the unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening; for seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses. And on the same fourteenth day in the evening the paschal lamb was sacrificed.

 Hence, the first day of the unleavened bread is called by the three Evangelists, Matthew 26: 17; Mark 14:12; and Luke 22:7, the fourteenth day of the month, because toward evening the unleavened bread was eaten and then the Passover, that is, the paschal lamb was sacrificed. And, according to John 13: 1, this was before the feast of the Passover, that is, before the fifteenth day of the month, because this was the most solemn day on which the Jews wished to eat the Passover, that is, the unleavened paschal bread as well as the paschal lamb. Thus, there being no disagreement among the Evangelists, it is plain that Christ consecrated his body from unleavened bread at the supper.

Clearly, also, this is more fitting for the purity of the mystical Body, that is, the Church, typified in this sacrament. Hence, Gregory Nazianzen says in his sermon on the feast of the Passover of the Lord: “Let us celebrate a feast to the Lord with jubilation, not in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and purity (1 Cor. 5:Cool.” 
Lib. 105, 9-12; cf. Gregory Naz. Oratio I n. 3 (PG 35, 397 A).


We do not, however, mean by this that the sacrament may not be confected using leavened bread. For Pope Gregory says in his Register: “The Roman Church offers unleavened bread because the Word of the Father took flesh without any carnal conmingling; but other Churches offer leavened bread because the Word of the Father is clothed with flesh and is true God and true man. So, also, yeast is mixed with flour and this becomes the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: communion azymes 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.674 seconds with 184 queries.