-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Date of the Resurrection
- Thread starter SpiritPsalmist
- Start date
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
There is no need for bitterness. There was nothing anti-Semitic about the decision. The purpose was to insure, as the declaration of the council states, that "Easter day was fixed on the Sunday immediately following the full moon which was nearest the vernal equinox, because it is certain that our Savior rose from the dead on the Sunday which next succeeded the passover of the Jews." (Synod. Arim. et Seleuc. Epist. P. 873)
My own research agrees with the points you make about the calendar. During Temple times the Jewish calendar was not fixed, but new moons and thus the beginning of months was determined by visual observations by the Sanhedrin. Intercalations were also made whenever the Sanhedrin felt they were needed based on their observations of the stage of the barley crop at the end of Adar. The church chose, and rightly so, to not rely on this method to determine the resurrection, but instead to base Easter on the Paschal moon, or the first Sunday following the full moon which follows after the spring equinox.
Of course, in later centuries the Jews devised a calendar in which intercalations are made based on lunar cycles rather than on the stage of development of the barley harvest in Jerusalem, so the wide swings in dates for the festivals during Temple times no longer occurs.
I disagree, but allow me to reference a short video on YouTube on this subject that I believe has much more historical and etymological veracity. I cannot post a link until my post count reaches 50 but in YouTube's search field just type in "Why we should not Passover Easter." I think you will find much food for thought.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Upvote
0
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
I am well versed in the Mosaic Code. My point, however, is that the Law also said that Atonement would be observed "owlam," (for ever), and my question was, do you conclude therefore that during the millennium the atonement sacrifices will also be resumed?
It seems to me that you do in fact care and are convinced that all of Christendom is celebrating Jesus' resurrection on the wrong date. No?
You are of course free to disgaree with my conclusions, but I promise to offer both Scriptual and historical support for them. And in turn, I will press you to support your conclusions with scriptural and historical facts as well. If you are going to lob charges that Christian traditions are "offensive to God Himself" then you should have some very good Scriptural and historical evidence to support it. Simply saying so doesn't make it so.
Amen and Amen! On that we can agree and if we find common ground on nothing else it is enough for fellowship.
But I would like to caution you that in recent decades there has been a concerted effort from many sources to discredit Christianity, and the Bible as a whole. The methods they are using includes attacking the historical foundations upon which the Judeo/Christian faith rests. So be sure you do your own research, go back to the original sources and study these things for yourself. Satan at his most dangerous appears as an angel of light.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
I would suggest that you need to make a few adjustments to your chronology. Based on scriptural, historical, and archaeological sources the Passion Week chronology goes like this:
Sunday, Nisan 10: Triumphant entry into Jerusalem
Monday, Nisan 11: Jesus cleanses the Temple
Tuesday, Nisan 12: Mt. Olivet discourse, Jesus anointed for his burial
Wednesday, Nisan 13: Jesus rested
Thursday, Nisan 14: Room prepared by host, disciples take Paschal lamb to Temple for sacrifice, have it roasted, and all gather in upper room for the Passvoer.
Thursday night, Nisan 15: Jesus and disciples eat the Passover Thursday night; Jesus arrested, brought before elders
Friday, Nisan 15: Jesus brought before Pilate, scourged and crucified at 9:00 in the morning, dies at 3:00 in the afternoon, body taken down and quickly prepared for burial before Sabbath begins
Friday night, Nisan 16: The Sabbath begins, women rest
Saturday, Nisan 16: Firstfruits offered in Temple
Saturday night, Nisan 17: Women wait until morning and daylight to return to tomb to tend Jesus' body
Sunday, Nisan 17: Women come to tomb and find Jesus has risen
I think the problem you are having is that you are trying to force all the events of Passion Week to conform to a particular premise. You are assuming that the three days and nights was the length of time in which Jesus was in the tomb, dead and buried. And you are forcing all the events of that week to conform to that premise, even when the Gospels give clear and simple testimony that the disciples made ready the Passover for Jesus and his disciples to eat, and even as they sat at the Passover Seder Jesus told them he had "desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." (Luke 22:15) Have you not questioned these things?
The problem is that the premise is wrong. When Jesus spoke of rising from the dead the third day, he did not mean the third day from his death and burial. Look closely at the verses when he spoke of his coming death and resurrection and notice the things that he said he would suffer:
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day."
Notice that when instructing his disciples he included all the things he would suffer, incuding those things that preceeded his death and burial. Look at the way Mark words that same teaching of Jesus:
"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." (Mark 8:31)
Jesus included his rejection by the elders and chef priests and scribes and his crucifixion (which alone lasted 6 hours) in these events that would culminate in his resurrection on the third day. Not the third day from his burial, but the third day from when he began to "suffer many things," which included his arrest the night following the Passover Seder, his trial before the elders and chief priests and scribes, his condemnation before the Sanhedrin, being turned over to Pilate, being beaten by the Romans, being crucified, suffering for six hours, dying, and being buried. All these things were included in the three days and nights, not just his burial. Indeed, by the time he was dead his suffering had ended.
Luke records the same thing:
"The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejeceted of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day."
Notice again that all these events are included in the things Jesus would suffer before his resurrection.
But perhaps clearest of all is the testimony of those two men on the road to Emmaus whom Jesus appeared to. Remember? Jesus asked them what they were talking about that made them so sad? After suggesting that he must be a stranger in Jerusalem if he had not heard all about this, Cleopas says:
"Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him ..." now note carefully what they said next, "...But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done." Luke 24:17-21
Third day since what things were done? Since he was buried? No, the third day since Jesus was arrested and rejected and delivered to the Romans and beaten and cruficified and died. These men were speaking to Jesus on the very day Jesus was resurrected and it was the third day since ALL these things had been done, not just his burial.
And Jesus too, in the very last words he spoke to his disciples before his ascension, told them, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day."
Notice that Jesus said he suffered, and rose the third day. Surely his suffering began when he sweat great drops of blood that tragic night in Gethsemane, and how he must have suffered when one of his own betrayed him with a kiss. And then to be rejected by his own, slapped, and spat on, and finally handed over to the Romans, to be displayed before the people and rejected of them while they cried for the release of a murderer, to be scourged, and then tortured on a cross for six hours before his suffering was finished and he died.
All these things, his suffering as well, were part of the things Jesus would endure, and then rise the third day ... as Luke records, "after all these things had been done."
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
Amen! The whole point of the Mosaic festivals was to be types and figures of something beyond them, something better, something even more Holy. Each in their own way foreshadowed the redemptive work of Jesus and the blessings that would flow from that redemption. Just like the Temple in Jerusalem which was a type of Heaven, while Old Jerusalem, the earthly Jerusalem was a mere shadow of the New Jerusalem, the Heavenly City. The Old Testament is filled to overflowing with these types and figures and shadows that were given to teach us about the things of God, earthly things that symoblize heavenly things. If we miss that we really miss the whole point of the Old Testament and especially the Law.
Be careful that you don't try to force Jesus' fulfillment to meet some unnecessary requirement. Jesus did not have to fulfill a feast on the day the feast occurred. And there is no more obvious example of that than the fact that it was at Calvary that Jesus bled and died and it was in that shedding of blood that he made atonement for the sins of the world. And yet, Calvary did not occur on the Day of Atonement which it fulfilled. So we have to be careful not to try to force events to fit some premise that may nor may not be true. I believe Jesus was resurrected the day after firstfruits, but it no more lessens his fulfillment of that feast than the shedding of his blood at Passover in any way lessens his fulfillment of the the Day of Atonement.
In all my years of study I have found that all the sound scriptural and historical evidence supports the December 25 dating of Jesus' birth.
But on a more general note, I would like to point out that there were two calendars in use in New Testament times, the second was the civil/agricultural calendar which began in the fall, thus making the fall feasts the beginning of the agricultural year and the harvest cycles, which also has much symbolism for the Gospel. I would very much enjoy delving into these things more deeply with you.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Upvote
0
gratefulgrace
Contributor
- Jul 26, 2006
- 13,109
- 3,210
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Jesus was crucified and buried on a Wednesday, the annual high holy day fell on Thursday, the women prepared spices on Friday and our Saviour was resurrected at sunset on the Sabbath as the day ended.
This last part especially does not fit with the scripture that has been posted I don't believe.
Upvote
0
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
Agreed. As a New Testament historian I have found that these websites and books are riddled with conjecture about what might have been or what could have happened or what seems like the way things were but the lack of any documentation to support all these theories is the strongest indicator that they are not supported by facts. Indeed, the facts actually support both Easter and Christmas as Christian feasts observed since New Testament times, in the case of Easter, and since post-Apostolic times in the case of Christmas.
Again, I agree! And let me say that I first began to encounter these very same arguments against the traditional date for Christ's birth that are being used by Christians today when they were first being promulgated by the Watchtower Society over 25 years ago. So I have been researching these issues for a very long time. And the agenda is simple ... to discredit Christianity.
There is an old rule that governs research of historical records, and that's not to rely on an argument from silence. The observance of the birth of Jesus was first "mentioned" in the 2nd century, but that in itself does not mean it was not observed before that time. In fact, it would be rather odd, considering the importance that the nativity account holds in the Gospels, for Jesus' birth to have passed by year after year and not be remembered in some way.
My study doesn't show that. What I have found is that the theologian Hippolytus (ca. 165 - 235 C.E.), in his commentary on Daniel wrote that:
"The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January."
Eight day before the calends of January is December 25. This is clear testimony by an early writer that Jesus' birth occured on December 25.
I think it is what was written by another early writer, Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 171 - 183 C.E.), that has caused the confusion about the March 25 date. He was actually arguing for observing Easter on March 25 and stated that just as the Gauls celebrated the birth of the Lord on December 25 regardless of what day of the week that fell on, so too they should observe Easter on March 25, regardless of what day of the week that might fall on.
These are the two earliest records that refer to Christmas, and they both very simply and quite clearly state that his birth occurred on December 25.
Agreed, and if you are interested, I can refer you to the historical record where Julian actually writes to his High Priest and points out how the Christians had managed to get so many converts because they lived pious lives and served the people and helped the needy, even loving and ministering to pagans. Julian ordered that all the priests be instructed to emulate the Christians so that they could win back those pagans who had converted to Christ. It is nothing less than an actual voice from the past that tells a story that is completely opposite to what the critics of Christianity are claiming. It wasn't Christians adopting paganism during those early centuries, but pagans adopting Christian practices.
Ah, we will have some slight differences in understanding on this issue I see. I respectfully disagree. I do not hold that communion is a sacrifice. The sacrifice was made once, at Calvary, never to be repeated again. Communion is when a believer "'partakes of" that sacrifice which was made long, long ago. Just as the priests who ministered in the Temple sat at the Lord's Table and ate of those portions of the sacrifices and offerings the Lord provided, so too, we as priests and ministers in the Lord's House come to the Lord's Table and partake of a portion of the sacrifice which the Lord has provided for us. Calvary was the sacrifice, communion is when we partake of that sacrifice once made forever ...
But it is good to meet someone so well versed in these things, perhaps we can have some fruitful discussions and both be edified by them.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Upvote
0
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
I trust that no one would be offended by a genuine concern someone has. But might I suggest that you not assume that the three days and nights only refers to how long Jesus was in the tomb? I pointed out some verses that pertain to this in a previous note so I won't repeat myself for fear of boring everyone, but take a look at those verses and see if it might help to explain what may not be a discrepancy at all, just an assumption that might be wrong.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Upvote
0
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
I have a different understanding on this. I understand from Talmudic writings that High Sabbaths were also called Most Holy Sabbaths and referred to a regular weekly Sabbath (which was already holy) that fell during a festive week (making it doubly holy).
Festival sabbaths (the first and seventh days of festive weeks, for example) were less holy in that servile work that was necessary to keep the feast was allowed. In fact, from spot digs around Jerusalem we know that at Passover there were huge ovens built to accomodate all the lambs that had to be roasted, because many of the Passover pilgrims dwelled in the tent city that sprung up around Jerusalem during Passover and they didn't bring ovens from home or build them. Also shops that catered to the pilgrims and offered those things necessary for observance of the feasts were allowed to be open for business during certain hours. After all, Passover lasted for a week, and every day there were sacrifices and offerings that were made, items that had to be purchased, meals that had to be prepared, and the city was flooded with pilgrims, many of whom had traveled some distance and had to purchase everything they needed for each of the seven days of the feast. Nisan 15, the first day of Passover when Jesus was crucified, was a festival sabbath, and yet they were able to take his body down off the cross and carry him to the tomb and even to perform the basic care of his body because it was a "less holy" sabbath. But at sunset the weekly Sabbath, which was a High Sabbath, began when no work of any kind could be done. That's why there was a rush to prepare Jesus' body and place him in the tomb else they would have had to leave his body on the cross until after the Sabbath.
So I don't agree that the High Sabbath referred to a festival sabbath, they were not as holy in the respect that certain work was allowed in order to be able to observe the feast.
So it really didn't present a problem for the women being able to purchase the spices they needed on a festival sabbath or lesser sabbath when shops were open for a few hours to serve the needs of the pilgrims and preparations were being made for the second feast that night. But we know from the Mishna Tractate, "Pesachim," chapter 4 that no work could be done after the Mincha prayers on the day which preceeded either the Sabbath or a festival nor could any work be done in the night that followed the close of a Sabbath or festival so even though the Sabbath ended at sundown on Saturday night, the women were not able to visit the tomb to tend to the Lord's body until the night had passed and the new day dawned.
By way of a footnote here, the reason the Pharisees refused to enter Pilate's judgment hall in the Antonio fortress that Friday morning, the first day of Passover Nisan 15, was that anyone who was ritually unclean could not partake of the "Chagigah," offering that made up the passover sacrifice and feast that second night of Passover week. Some have confused that to mean that they would not be able to eat the Passover Seder, assuming incorrectly that the Pesach lamb was the only "passover" sacrifice when in truth there were many sacrifices and offeings, both public and private, both required and freewill, that were offered up during the seven days of the festival and it was common for them all to be called simply "passover sacrifices," even in the Scriptures, see for example the legal precedent set forth in Deuteronomy 16:1-3 …
“Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover unto the Lord thy God: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to place his name there. Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith …”
Notice that the commandment says they were to sacrifice the Passover of the flock and the herd, the flock referring to the lambs and goats and the herd referring to the cattle that all together made up the sacrifices and offerings of the entire 7 day Passover period. And then to clarify notice that the commandment also says they were to eat no leavened bread with “it” meaning with the Passover, and that for seven days they were to eat unleavened bread “therewith,” meaning for seven days they were to eat unleavened bread with the Passover. So even in the commandments the various sacrifices and offerings of the entire 7-day period were at times simply referred to collectively as “the Passover” so the use of that term cannot be limited only to the Paschal lamb or the Seder.
And then again in the historical record it shows common usage to call not just the paschal lamb but all of the sacrifices and offerings of the entire 7 day period as “the Passover:”
“And Josiah gave to the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all for the Passover offerings, for all that were present, to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand bullocks: these were of the king’s substance."
Notice that "Passover" offerings included kids (of goats) and bullocks.
"And his princes gave willingly unto the people, to the priests, and to the Levites: Hilkiah and Zechariah and Jehiel, rulers of the house of God, gave unto the priests for the Passover offerings two thousand and six hundred small cattle, and three hundred oxen."
Again, calves and oxen were also called "passover" offerings, not just the Paschal lamb.
"Conaniah also, and Shemaiah and Nethaneel, his brethren, and Hashabiah and Jeiel and Jozabad, chief of the Levites, gave unto the Levites for Passover offerings five thousand small cattle, and five hundred oxen.” 2 Chronicles 35:7-9
This demonstrates that it was common to refer to all the various sacrifices and offerings of the entire Passover week, not just the Paschal lamb, but also the kids of goats as well as the young bullocks and oxen collectively as the Passover sacrifices. So when John records that the Pharisees refused to enter the Antonio Fortress for fear of Levitical defilement which would render them unclean and therefore unable to "eat the Passover," they would have been referring to another of the passover sacrifices, the Chagigah, that was eaten on the second night of Passover, Nisan 16, Friday night.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Last edited:
Upvote
0
patience7
Regular Member
I am not assuming that the three days and three nights only refer to how long Jesus was in the tomb - Jesus himself said, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40
Upvote
0
Yitzchak
יצחק
- Jun 25, 2003
- 11,250
- 1,386
- 59
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Sunday begins at sundown Saturday night for the Jews. that is based upon Genesis chapter one which has the evening as the beginning of the day. That is why the Sabbath starts friday evening and also why the scripture says they had to hurry to get Jesus into the grave before the Sabbath started. if you look at it carefully , you will see that the Bible does not say Jesus rose on Sunday morning. he rose sometime between sundown saturday evening and the middle of the night.
Upvote
0
May I refer you to the quotation I referenced in my previous post:
There is certainly a level of anti-semitism here.Constantine's Letter after the Council said:
Food for thought indeed, but I'm afraid I don't find it historically or etymologically convincing.
His claim is that "Easter", from the German "Ostern" derives from the German "Erstehen" but he does not provide any evidence of that link. Without evidence he seems to be doing exactly what he's accusing those who link "Ishtar" to "Easter" of doing - assuming an etymological connection because they look similar.
He also completely fails to even mention Bede, who is by far the earliest source we have on the development of this word - writing in the 700s. He says:
Now I'm not saying he has to completely accept Bede's account - but one can't address the questions without addressing Bede.Bede -De Temporum Ratione said:
On the whole the video is far too focused on tackling Alexander Hislop's ideas (which, I wholeheartedly agree, are completely baseless, even though they've been parroted in this very thread) and defending the translation of the KJV (which leaves me a little confused, particularly considering the verse in question) to address the etymology of "Easter" in a rigorous fashion.
I had a good look round the world wide web for more sources but could not find anything. Do you know of anything else? I'd be particularly interested in primary source material showing the formation of the word.
Upvote
0
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
I don't think there is. What the church was arguing, and I believe rightly so, is that it wasn't proper to calculate Easter based on the practice of the Jews who calculated the Passover based on physical observations made in Jerusalem, when the church had a better means of calculating Easter that would give a "truer order" (more correct calculation) that would be useful for future generations. There were several mathematical calculations being used at the time but the church at Alexandria (the Coptic church) was using the Metonic cycle developed by the ancient Greek Meton of Athens which used a 19-year lunar cycle. This method of calculation would allow Christians throughout the world to celebrate Easter on the same day each year, whereas the Jewish practice had so much variance that some years Passover was celebrated before the vernal equinox. The Jewish method of calculation based on physical observation was simply too unreliable so the church opted to rely on the Metonic cycle instead. It wasn't anti-Semitic, it was practical.
And I do believe that the church was vindicated in this decision because in subsequent years the Jews also began to use the same 19-year Metonic cycle when Hillel II began his work on a fixed calendar using the Metonic cycle to fix the intercalations at regular intervals rather than randomly based on observations by the Sanhedrin. The fixed Jewish Calendar today is likewise based on the Metonic cycle.
So I don't agree that the Christian Church's decision to drop the unreliable Jewish method of calculation based on observations made in Jerusalem in favor of the more accurate Metonic cycle was anti-Semitic, unless we are going to accuse Hillel II and later Jews who did the same thing as being anti-Semitic as well?
Perhaps you should view the video again. He provides a very convincing link ... when Tyndale translated the Bible into English he made use of Luther's German translation of the Bible in which Luther used the word "Oster" (Ostern) which is the German word for Easter. That is a direct link.
There are a number of problems with the account of Bede, but the most compelling is that it was in fact one of the reforms introduced by Charlemagne, who was the scourge of German paganism, who renamed all the months agriculturally into Old High German names that were used, in some cases, until the late 18th century: thus January was named Wintarmanoth (winter month), February became Hornung (the month when the male red deer sheds its antlers), March became Lentzinmanoth (Lent month), April was renamed Ostarmanoth (Easter month), May became Wonnemanoth (love making month), June became Brachmanoth (plowing month), July became Heuvimanoth (hay month), August Aranmanoth (harvest month), September Witumanoth (wood month for wood being laid up for the winter), October Windumemanoth (vintage month), November Herbistmanoth (autumn/harvest month), and December became Heilagmanoth (holy month of Christ's birth).
Certainly before the Saxons were conquered and Christianized the months carried other names, but the Anglo-Saxons named their week days after deities, not their months. The months were named after cyclical events, for example, February was Solmonath meaning mud-month, and November was Blotmonath, meaning blood-month because it was the month of slaughtering animals. There is no evidence from any source that they named any month after a deity, nor is there any evidence for a goddess Eostre in any Germanic/Norse mythology.
I agree, Hislop's theories lack any actual historical value at all but have become fodder for much disinformation, particularly his theories about the Catholic Church.
I can't post links until my post count reaches 50, but you might try Christianhistory.net, and google Charlemagne as well.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
A valid point. The fact that the celebration is not recorded earlier doesn't mean it didn't occur earlier. In fact, it is very probable, from simply logic, that if something has become a big enough issue to warrant writing about, it is probably already a popular practice. Thus the celebration of Christmas was probably already well established before Hippolytus wrote about it.
Interesting. I remember having read of one early Christian writer who placed Jesus birth in the fall but I don't remember enough detail to site it now.
In any case, I am personally convinced of the Dec. 25th date. Not only does the preponderance of Christian history support it, the astronomical evidence for that date, in my mind, is overwhelming. (specifically Dec 25th 1 BC)
I was born and raised non-denominational protestant and about 7 years ago I became Anglican. Over the last 7 years of study and seeking, I have gradually become more and more "catholic". At this point there is very little, if any, significant difference between my views and those of the Catholic Church. I say this simply to give you a picture of my background so you know something of where I'm coming from.
There definetly are significant differences between the catholic position and the protestant position. However, I have consistently found in my experience thus far that most protestants (even those well educated) don't really understand the catholic position. The reverse of course is true as well. In fact, not to denigrate, but catholics often times don't understand the catholic position very well.
All that to get to this
When I (or any catholic for that matter) say that communion is a sacrifice, I do not mean that Christ is being sacrificed again. Catholics do not believe that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated in communion, rather they (and I) believe that it is "re-presented". Not represented in symbolic terms but re-presented in the sense that the once for all time sacrifice is made present to us.
The heart of this doctrine is very mystical.. actually a better word would be, the heart of this doctrine is a mystery... but what Catholics (and I) really believe is that when we celebrate communion, we are essentially stepping outside of time, we are leaving the here and now and stepping into eternity where we are united with the entire Church, past and present, (and you could even argue future I suppose) and we are all participating in Christ's once for all time sacrifice.
It is clear from your comments that you are familiar with Paul's teaching on communion in 1st Corinthians 10. It also seems you have a better understanding or, a better awareness of it than most protestants. Certainly better than I did.
You echo Paul's statement in that chapter that when we partake in the bread and the wine, we partake in the body and blood of Jesus, which were offered up on the cross. Our participation in his sacrifice was prefigured by the participation of the priests in the temple sacrifices.
The celebration of communion has been called "the Eucharist" by the Church for most of its history. Protestants don't use this term largely because it smacks of catholicism. What it means is "the thanksgiving". We call it 'communion' because that is what is occuring. Communion means united with, it implies a sharing of unity, or a sharing of presense. In communion we are united together as the Church, the body of Christ, and we are also united to Christ.
The name "eucharist" really reflects what we are doing, and what Jesus did when he celebrated and established communion. "and giving thanks he took bread and broke it". There are two things that are indellibly associated with communion in scripture #1 giving thanks #2 breaking bread.
This reflects another way in which the eucharist/communion is a sacrifice. The communion service begins with us bringing bread to God and giving thanks. This is the 'todah' thank offering (sacrifice).
Communion thus is a sacrifice of thanksgiving in which we offer bread (and wine) to God. It is important to note that this sacrifice, or offering, is not made for sin. Nor is it an act of propitiation. It is a simply act of thanksgiving. We give back to God from the bounty that he has already given to us.
We offer up bread and wine, and the Holy Spirit makes Jesus Christ present to us that we may participate, or partake, in his body and blood.
In this way communion is yet another kind of sacrifice because when we participate in Jesus body and blood (those terms of course are controversial, but that is what Paul says in 1st Cor 10), we are also offering up ourselves. We are offering up ourselves as living sacrifices by uniting ourselves to Jesus Christ.
I would be happy to discuss this further if you are interested. I love talking about Communion.
Indeed. I have enjoyed you're posts thus far. I'm always looking out for people to have good conversation with
God Bless and God Speed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Pilgrimer
Junior Member
Although my own research places his birth in 5 B.C., I agree on every point and would add that not only does Christian history and astronomical evidence support the December 25 date, but so does archaeology, Jewish history, and Talmudic literature. But so as not to wander too far afield on this thread, I'll refrain from delving into any particulars here, but suffice it to say that all the arguments against the December 25 date are based on speculation and conjecture that has no real scriptural or historical basis.
Thank you for such a clear and beautiful explanation. You are correct, I did not really understand the Catholic/Anglican view of Communion or other doctrines and I appreciate not only the time you have taken to share, but also the spirit in which you have done so.
Let me say that I am a Pentecostal Baptist, but I love and respect our Catholic/Anglican/Coptic/Orthodox brethren. Unlike some of my fellow Protestants, I do not view the Catholic church with the jaundiced eye that some do. Indeed, rather than the Catholic Church having adopted "pagan" customs and traditions as some misguided Protestants and anti-Christian cults claim, I have through my years of study of Levitical Law come to see that much of the ritual and ceremonial of the Catholic and other "High" Churches is based on the old Jewish Temple worship ritual and ceremonial. It is a comparative study I hope one day to be able to devote some time to, God grant that I may live that long!
I stand corrected on communion. I did assume you were suggesting that communion being a sacrifice implied in some way that it was a sacrifice of the body of our Lord being made anew, which I could not in good conscience agree with. I am happy to be corrected.
But this then brings up another issue in my mind. I see communion not as a time when we bring bread to God as an offering, not even as a thank-offering. Indeed, I don’t see communion as a time of us bringing anything to God at all, but rather, communion is all about our “receiving from God,” a sacrifice that He has provided and offered up for us.
At the institution of the Lord’s Supper, it wasn’t the disciples who broke bread and gave it to Jesus. It was Jesus who broke bread and handed it to the disciples and told them to eat it, that it was his body, broken for them. So they were not the ones who were offering him the bread, they were the ones who received the bread from his own hand. Same with the wine. They didn’t offer Jesus their cup of wine, Jesus took his cup of wine and blessed it and handed it to them and told them to drink, it was his blood. So again, the wine too was what they received from the hand of the Lord. And in the communion, is it not the Lord’s body and blood that we are partaking of? We didn’t offer up Jesus’ body and blood, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.”
So to me, communion isn’t about me bringing bread or anything to God for an offering, but instead it is about “receiving” a part or portion of the sacrifice that God has made for us. This “bread,” that is broken and partaken of in communion is not the bread of thanks-giving offered up to God, but the bread of life sent down from God:
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51
As a final note, let me ask if you have made the connection between communion and the marriage supper of the Lamb? For all it’s being a mystery, it is at the same time such a simple truth that it is often overlooked but, it is when we partake of the body and blood of Christ that we become “joined with the Lord” into one body. This union is symbolized by the marriage of a man and woman who when joined together become one flesh, but of course there is nothing physical about our union with Christ, it is absolutely a spiritual union, and thus does not require His physical presence at all but his spiritual presence only. But to my mind and heart the marriage supper of the Lamb, the Lord and His Bride, the church, is the most blissfully beautiful expression of our relationship with Jesus Christ of any in the entirety of Scripture.
Me too. Most Christians seem to be sidetracked with all this “end times” doctrines that are so popular that they neglect the weightier things, like salvation and sanctification. It’s not often you run across a fellow believer who is well-versed in the most important thing … the Gospel.
You as well my friend,
Joy and Peace,
Pilgrimer
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
