The Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist?

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro... the Last Supper was a Passover Seder:



I've yet to find a NT scholar who didn't agree with the fact that the first church not only gathered in homes for Christian worship for nearly 200 years... or the fact that these gatherings were around the Lord's Supper served as a large meal, a "love feast", with the bread being broken and the wine being passed at the end of the meal as with the Last Supper.

I've yet to read a Bible translation that mentions any meat or other items at that supper. It was Bread and Wine. There was also a basin for foot washing. Where is that in the picture? It was at a table and they were able to dip their bread. There is NO evidence of a full fledged meal like a feast. Its just not there.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Context is everything. Yes, the Corinthians were practicing the Lords Supper like it was an ordinary meal, without any reverence. They were showing up, eating everything and getting drunk... leaving the less fortunate brethren who arrived later with nearly nothing to feast upon. They were being inconsiderate pigs. Paul was essentially telling them that if they are that hungry and want to just get drunk... they should just stay home and do that.

Paul also said you have a house to eat in. The meal was not to get full or get drunk but to remember the body and blood of the Lord. There is no evidence it was supposed to be a meal. They were making it a meal by getting drunk and eating up all the bread.

[onefaith2]

from wikipedia.org

Raymond Brown has argued that during the Jewish Passover Seder, the first cup of wine is drunk before the eating of the (unleavened) bread, but here it occurs after. This may indicate that the event was not the first Passover Seder (which occurs on Nisan 15), and hence more in line with John's chronology which places it on Nisan 14, although the meal could easily have been altered during the Last Supper for symbolic or religious purposes. Among Christian denominations, the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that this Eucharistic meal was not the Passover Seder, but a separate meal.[57] The Presbyterian Church documents also specifically rejects the Seder arguments and state that given that no Jewish Seder texts exist earlier than the 9th century, it is historically implausible to attempt a reconstruction of the Seder to create a parallel to the Last Supper, and that the Gospel accounts clearly indicate that the purpose of the Last Supper was not the annual repetition of the Exodus.[58]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There seem to be many reasons why its plausible the Lord's supper was NOt the Seder

[Aquila]

Interesting blog:

Concluding Thoughts to the Lord's Supper Series
This series has set out to show some oft-neglected theological aspect of the Lord's Supper that held significance for the early church. Most of what we know about these things comes from the pen of Paul who defines the Lord’s Supper in a number of very specific ways. At the very outset, the Supper must enjoy the consensual unity of its participants, without which it ceases to be the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-22). Yet consensual unity is not enough. The Supper must also visibly express that unity through the singularity of the bread and cup (1 Cor 10:16-17). When this visible expression is present, we find that the singularity of the bread and cup actually causes bodily unity. This unity aspect prevails in the earliest manifestation of the church and finds support in a number of patristic sources as well.

Perhaps the most significant and theologically loaded aspect of the Lord’s Supper is the fact that the Supper was originally a full meal. Indeed, what Paul refers to when he coins the title “Lord’s Supper” is the meal, of which the bread and wine are prominent components, and apart from which the Lord’s Supper cannot properly be called a “supper.” The separation of the meal from the bread and wine occurred sometime after the apostolic age and, contrary to popular belief, was quite unintended by Paul. Whatever may have been the relationship between the bread and wine and the meal in a later age, they belonged together in the New Testament church. This meal, also known as the Agape, is alluded to by both Jude and Peter, and was widely practiced by the early post-apostolic church. The fact that this meal received no fewer than two specialized names (Lord's Supper; Agape) argues strongly for its apostolic endorsement. These two names, in addition to other phrases assigned to the Supper (such as “breaking bread”), show the universal acceptance of the meal in the early church, so that it will not do to postulate that the meal-aspect of the Supper was characteristic of Paul's churches only.

The Supper held a wide range of purposes. First, it served as an expression of concern for the poor in the believing community ("those who have nothing," 1 Cor 11:22). In all likelihood, the Supper was a potluck of sorts provided by the rich to demonstrate their love to those less fortunate. It is probably this practice that resulted in the adoption of the title Agape ("love feast"). A second dimension of the Supper is that it compelled the Christian community to live out the theology of equality of status in Christ (by which I certainly do not mean equality of roles), violating the Hellenistic societal norm to hold homogenous banquets where class distinctions were acutely recognized. Closely related to this, the Supper also erased ethnic divisions between Jew and Gentile, forcing the Jewish Christians to regard as “clean” what God himself has declared clean (Acts 10:1-13; cf. Gal 2:11-13).

Perhaps the most important, yet oft-missed aspect of the Supper is its eschatological focus. The Lord’s Supper prefigures the Messianic Banquet and acts as a means to petition Messiah to come again. The Supper is to be repeated on a regular basis in order to sound this petition and to give the participants the opportunity to proclaim with one voice, Maranatha! This is not far different from the practice of Israel during the hallel of the Passover Haggadah to petition God to send the Messiah the first time. This eschatological focus has direct implications for the form, frequency, and centrality of the Supper. If the Supper is to prefigure the Messianic Banquet, then the Supper itself must have the form of an actual meal. Moreover, if the focus of the Supper is to sound a plea for the parousia, then it is natural to suppose that the church practiced it whenever it met together. As it turns out, the regular gathering of the church in the NT is on a weekly basis, and on the first day of the week. We also find that the very purpose of the regular meeting of the church was to partake of the Supper, entailing that the Supper, too, was practiced on a weekly basis. This is not surprising given that both the "Lord’s Supper" and the "Lord’s Day" have very similar titles, perhaps even by design.

Finally, we found that the physical setting of the church played a significant role in the early practice of the Lord’s Supper. The house church was conducive to the kind of intimate table fellowship demanded by the Supper. Further, this setting helps to answer the question of just who is invited to partake of the Supper. Since the church meeting itself was centered on the Supper (likely occupying the entire length of the meeting), and since we know that in at least some cases unbelievers joined themselves to the early believers for this occasion (1 Cor 14:23-25), it follows that unbelievers also partook of the Supper with the church, and that the church allowed it.

Because this table setting is absent in most evangelical churches today, some of the intended theology of the Supper is lost as well. What is needed is not more adaptation of the Supper to accommodate our modern setting; what is needed is more of a willingness to conform our setting to accommodate the Lord’s Supper as revealed in the New Testament. Until we do, much of the theology of the Supper will remain lost to us—and with it, its benefits to the church.

http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/...ds-supper.html

[Aquila]

Another great article:

http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=9

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

from wikipedia.org

Raymond Brown has argued that during the Jewish Passover Seder, the first cup of wine is drunk before the eating of the (unleavened) bread, but here it occurs after. This may indicate that the event was not the first Passover Seder (which occurs on Nisan 15), and hence more in line with John's chronology which places it on Nisan 14, although the meal could easily have been altered during the Last Supper for symbolic or religious purposes. Among Christian denominations, the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that this Eucharistic meal was not the Passover Seder, but a separate meal.[57] The Presbyterian Church documents also specifically rejects the Seder arguments and state that given that no Jewish Seder texts exist earlier than the 9th century, it is historically implausible to attempt a reconstruction of the Seder to create a parallel to the Last Supper, and that the Gospel accounts clearly indicate that the purpose of the Last Supper was not the annual repetition of the Exodus.[58]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There seem to be many reasons why its plausible the Lord's supper was NOt the Seder

Raymond Brown is a sacramentalist. Also, he ignores the efforts of the Roman church to separate the bread and wine from an actual meal to herd congregants into Catholic Cathedrals.

[onefaith2]

Supper

1) supper, especially a formal meal usually held at the evening,

a) used of the Messiah's feast, symbolising salvation in the kingdom

2) food taken at evening

These are different meanings from strongs concordance related to the greek word for supper used in 1 Corinithians 11.

As we can see, there is a distinct definition which fits the event that doesn't necessarily refer to food taken at the evening or a feast.

[Aquila]

Great article:

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/11Ch...r_Farstad.aspx

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Raymond Brown is a sacramentalist. Also, he ignores the efforts of the Roman church to separate the bread and wine from an actual meal to herd congregants into Catholic Cathedrals.

And you disagree with his theology so you throw out his assessment? What do you say of John's timeline in the gospels that the supper occurred on Nisan 14 rather than on Nisan 15 when the Seder supposedly was celebrated? On Nisan 14 the lambs are still being executed. No feast took place on this day.

It is important to note that the Bible declares no meal, rather than a simple breaking of bread and a cup of the fruit of the vine.

[Aquila]

Consider:

Matthew 26:17-28
17Now 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?
18And 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.
19And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
20Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
21And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
23And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
24The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
25Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

And you disagree with his theology so you throw out his assessment? What do you say of John's timeline in the gospels that the supper occurred on Nisan 14 rather than on Nisan 15 when the Seder supposedly was celebrated? On Nisan 14 the lambs are still being executed. No feast took place on this day.

It is important to note that the Bible declares no meal, rather than a simple breaking of bread and a cup of the fruit of the vine.

The dude is bent.