J
jmcrae
Guest
Someone’s been learning the prayers of the Rosary. 
Keep up the good work, Zundrah! :dancing:
Keep up the good work, Zundrah! :dancing:
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
This is because it’s a literal lamb - a lower animal. We are not to drink the blood of lower animals.
Well, Jesus says that, and we believe Him.
Jesus, holding up the chalice, said, “This is my Blood, the Blood of a new and everlasting Covenant. Drink it, all of you, in remembrance of Me.”
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Please lets all say a pray for Hisalone
Z
Zundrah
Guest
We must pray for him…
Z
Zundrah
Guest
Lol - I can proudly say that I am very Catholic now!Someone’s been learning the prayers of the Rosary.
Keep up the good work, Zundrah! :dancing:
I have been doing my home work!
C
CWBetts
Guest
Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world! Sound familiar? In Revelation, Jesus is referred to as the Lamb no fewer than 28 times!!!
H
Hisalone
Guest
It had been a while that I discussed this and never saved my references I do have below corrected information
Antioch (345 A.D.)
Canon 1 - second part: If anyone of these men who is the head of a church, whether it be a bishop, a presbyter or a deacon will dare after this decree to act separately for the subversion of the peoples and the disturbance of the Churches and celebrate Pasca with the Jews, the holy synod judges him to be apart from the Church in order that they might be not only a cause of sin for themselves, but also a cause of destruction and subversion of many others. And this synod not only disposes them from ministry, but those who dare to communicate with them after disposition. Those who are deposed are to be deprived of even external honor, those who were partakers of holy order and the priesthood of God. (Note: this decree would not have been written as Skarsonae says were it not for the fact that some clergy and laymen had positive relations with Jews, and I would add even some Messianic Jews? Let us recall the apostolic tradition that was laid in Antioch!)
Laodocia (360 A.D.)
Canon 37: That it is not permitted to receive festivals which are by Jews or heretics nor hold a festival together with them.
Canon 38: That it is not permitted to receive unleavened bread from the Jews nor to share in their impieties.
H
Hisalone
Guest
The Passover-Easter-Quartodeciman Controversy
Early church history contains records of an obscure, but once quite heated controversy — the Quartodeciman controversy. (Quartodeciman refers to the 14th day of the month.) It is sometimes called the Passover-Easter controversy. Others have called it the Easter controversy or the Paschal controversy. Perhaps it is not even fair to call it a controversy.
That some scholars refer to it as an Easter controversy is unfortunate, since Easter is an English word. Today the word implies, for most English-speakers, a host of cultural assumptions alien to the original controversy. The disputants in the Quartodeciman controversy did not use “Easter” to describe what they were arguing over. Therefore, to describe the Quartodeciman controversy as a Passover-Easter controversy can obscure the nature of the dispute rather than clarify it.
Focus on three events
The controversy involved three events: the controversy between Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, that occurred around a.d. 155; the more heated controversy between Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, the bishop of Rome, that broke out around 195; and the decree of Constantine following the Nicene Council in 325.
Scholars disagree about the controversy’s details. They do agree that its arguments revolved around whether the primary Christian spring festival should happen on Nisan 14 (the Passover day) or annually on a Sunday.
Eusebius is our primary source for the controversy between Polycarp and Anicetus. Polycarp knew the apostle John and was of such stature that many considered him John’s spiritual, though not apostolic, successor in Asia Minor. Polycarp believed that Nisan 14 was the correct time for the spring festival, but Anicetus, bishop of Rome, favored Sunday.
But what were some Christians doing on Nisan 14 and others doing on “Easter”? Were some observing the Passover as the only time for the Lord’s Supper, while others were observing a pagan holiday? If so, how did each view the other?
A careful reading of the evidence shows that an annual Lord’s Supper was not the issue, neither was Easter, or at least what we think of as Easter. No one was arguing that the Lord’s Supper should only be kept once a year. And no one was arguing over Easter bunnies and colored eggs.
Furthermore, none of the Quartodecimans claimed that it was wrong to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that both Polycarp and Anicetus celebrated Jesus’ resurrection. Polycarp’s claim seems to have been that the best day to do so was on Nisan 14. Anicetus argued for Sunday.
What is more intriguing for us is that Polycarp claimed his practice came to him from the apostle John. In other words, Polycarp essentially argued that the practice of celebrating Jesus’ resurrection on Nisan 14 was an apostolic practice, at least for the apostle John. His argument was not so much scriptural as it was traditional.
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, chapters 23 to 25, makes it plain that the Quartodeciman controversy involved in part when to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. He tells us that the churches in Asia Minor, focusing on the crucifixion as of primary importance, argued for Nisan 14 as the day to commemorate the entire story of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. The church at Rome, focusing on the resurrection, argued that there was no need to depend on the Jewish calendar and that Sunday was the most appropriate day of all.
Early church history contains records of an obscure, but once quite heated controversy — the Quartodeciman controversy. (Quartodeciman refers to the 14th day of the month.) It is sometimes called the Passover-Easter controversy. Others have called it the Easter controversy or the Paschal controversy. Perhaps it is not even fair to call it a controversy.
That some scholars refer to it as an Easter controversy is unfortunate, since Easter is an English word. Today the word implies, for most English-speakers, a host of cultural assumptions alien to the original controversy. The disputants in the Quartodeciman controversy did not use “Easter” to describe what they were arguing over. Therefore, to describe the Quartodeciman controversy as a Passover-Easter controversy can obscure the nature of the dispute rather than clarify it.
Focus on three events
The controversy involved three events: the controversy between Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, that occurred around a.d. 155; the more heated controversy between Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, the bishop of Rome, that broke out around 195; and the decree of Constantine following the Nicene Council in 325.
Scholars disagree about the controversy’s details. They do agree that its arguments revolved around whether the primary Christian spring festival should happen on Nisan 14 (the Passover day) or annually on a Sunday.
Eusebius is our primary source for the controversy between Polycarp and Anicetus. Polycarp knew the apostle John and was of such stature that many considered him John’s spiritual, though not apostolic, successor in Asia Minor. Polycarp believed that Nisan 14 was the correct time for the spring festival, but Anicetus, bishop of Rome, favored Sunday.
But what were some Christians doing on Nisan 14 and others doing on “Easter”? Were some observing the Passover as the only time for the Lord’s Supper, while others were observing a pagan holiday? If so, how did each view the other?
A careful reading of the evidence shows that an annual Lord’s Supper was not the issue, neither was Easter, or at least what we think of as Easter. No one was arguing that the Lord’s Supper should only be kept once a year. And no one was arguing over Easter bunnies and colored eggs.
Furthermore, none of the Quartodecimans claimed that it was wrong to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that both Polycarp and Anicetus celebrated Jesus’ resurrection. Polycarp’s claim seems to have been that the best day to do so was on Nisan 14. Anicetus argued for Sunday.
What is more intriguing for us is that Polycarp claimed his practice came to him from the apostle John. In other words, Polycarp essentially argued that the practice of celebrating Jesus’ resurrection on Nisan 14 was an apostolic practice, at least for the apostle John. His argument was not so much scriptural as it was traditional.
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, chapters 23 to 25, makes it plain that the Quartodeciman controversy involved in part when to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. He tells us that the churches in Asia Minor, focusing on the crucifixion as of primary importance, argued for Nisan 14 as the day to commemorate the entire story of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. The church at Rome, focusing on the resurrection, argued that there was no need to depend on the Jewish calendar and that Sunday was the most appropriate day of all.
H
Hisalone
Guest
N
ncgolf
Guest
The new Passover meal is not under the old Mosaic law … it is the blood of the New Covenant. God gave the Jews what was required for the Passover meal … Exodus 12 … indeed the blood of the lamb in the OT was not consumed … it was used to mark the door. In the NT you could say the blood now marks each of us when consumed. It serves the same function. Remember the OT sacrifice was only an lamb … a pre-figurement of what the NT Lamb would be.
Read Matthew 26:27-28 "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it all of you,for this is my blood of the convenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Like the instructions for the OT meal … the NT comes with instructions also … it is best to follow them.
H
Hisalone
Guest
nc I agree that the OT passover was a shadow of things to come-- The death of Christ and the new covenant.
Did you know that the Jews were required to keep the Passover lamb in their houses for three days. They were able to come to know that lamb, be familiar with him and to see that he had no blemishes. When they roasted the lamb they roasted that lamb with out streatched legs also a shadow of things to come. When the high priest would kill the last lamb before the feast He would proclaim —It is finished.
When Jesus died on the cross he proclaimed it is finished at the exact same time the high priest would have proclaimed “it is finished”,
Yes the gospel is simple and uncomplicated and yes God is deep and acts in ways that can be very deep have layers and layers of meaning.
We eat the flesh of Jesus and sprinkle (drink) His blood with our spirit man. This communion with Christ is with our spirit with His Spirit. I dont want to make this a discussion on thanksgiving or as you say eucharist so if you want to beat this dead horse some more please open up another thread.
J
jmcrae
Guest
“Pasca” could be either the Passover or the Easter Mass - either way, yes, it makes sense that someone could be excommunicated for sharing either one with the Jews.
I’m still not completely sure what your point is. Would you share Holy Communion with Jews in your church? Would they want to share it with you? Do you feel that you should be entitled to share a Passover meal with a Jewish congregation or family, and in so doing, deny with your actions that the Messiah has already come?
There was no such term as “Messianic Jews” until the middle of the 1960s. Prior to that, the idea of converted Jews continuing in their Jewish traditions instead of adopting Christian traditions was unknown. And there is quite a difference between having “positive relations” with someone of a different religion, and actually practicing the other person’s religion in place of or in addition to your own. There is nothing the matter with being friendly with Jews, but it is a really bad idea for us to start hijacking their customs and traditions - they would probably take offense.
Which was simply reinforcing what had been known to the whole Church since 70 AD when the Christian sect was excommunicated and disfellowshipped from Judaism. But in any case, this Council (if it actually was a Council) isn’t listed among those from which we are to receive instruction.
This one isn’t on the list, either.
Right. We shouldn’t practice other people’s religions in addition or in the place of our own. Common sense, really.
Seems to be just reinforcing the above. Again, common sense.
N
ncgolf
Guest
Sorry I don’t know what you mean here exactly … though I assume you mean it as a purely spiritual event … it is a both (spiritual and physical) event.
This is why it is a Catholic book so while in a sense you are correct the full meaning is much more.
I look at the title of your thread and wonder why it “is most assuredly” … what makes your assumption assured?
J
jake23
Guest
These books where written by Catholic Bishops! obviousely you are not so clueless to aknowledge that there are many Catholic Jews? Jesus was a Jew and he is the head of the Catholic church, so what is your point? Do you have a masters on biblical history? You have allot of threads with nothing to back them up! You only have misconstrude translations and opinions! The less poeple know, the more opnionated they become!
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
I think if you read any of HISALONE thread or answer you will see he is very clussess,but he does have me praying for him .
Hisalone does not list his religion but I think he is SDA he act like he is one the way he yalks about the CC
H
Hisalone
Guest
Another “re-freshing” an old thread, you stalker you.
Jesus was a Jew, He is the head of His Church of which I am a member. The apostles were Jews, Paul was a Jew, James was a Jew. The bible is a Jewish book.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Jesus set Peter as Pope of His Church just before He ascended into Heaven, which means that Peter and all who were with him were Catholics, from that point onwards. They didn’t write the New Testament until several years later.
R
Robbinson
Guest
I don’t know why there is a dispute or debate over this.Jesus set Peter as Pope of His Church just before He ascended into Heaven, which means that Peter and all who were with him were Catholics, from that point onwards. They didn’t write the New Testament until several years later.
Jesus and all the apostles and all the authors of the NT (except Luke) were Jews. However, it is also true that they were believers in Christ and followers of His Church - which make them Catholic. These were the first “Hebrew Catholics”.
It is also true that they were “Christian” as we can define anyone who believes in Christ as Lord and Messiah (and who accepts him as such ) is a “Chrisitan” and those who are in full obedience with His church are Catholics.
Blessings,
Brian
H
Hisalone
Guest
Jesus never ever set Peter as pope. I can conceed that Peter was a leader of the apostles which is a far cry from pope. Pope is a made office. It is an office which has cased much disunity in Christs Church.Jesus set Peter as Pope of His Church just before He ascended into Heaven, which means that Peter and all who were with him were Catholics, from that point onwards. They didn’t write the New Testament until several years later.
H
Hisalone
Guest
The claim that the apostles were Catholic is bogus. They were Christian they would not recognize the modern Catholic Church.
- Status