![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Origin of the Eucharist. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Origin of the Eucharist at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I was looking at the Last Supper article and then remembered that last November I talked with Esoglou and then redecorated the table there as below:
Mark 14:22-24 | And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, ‘Take ye: this is my body.’ | And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ |
---|---|---|
Matthew 26:26-28 | And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ | And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.’ |
1 Corinthians 11:23-25 | For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ | In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ |
Luke 22:19-20 | And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ | And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.’ |
Do you guys want to think about that format here? Some users may actually read this one. History2007 ( talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It is good to see Oxyphenbutazone taking an interest in the article. However, while many of his changes might be considered an improvement (though I would question some of them) they seem to raise a major question: are they OR? I presume that when Eschoir inserted the table he quoted a particular translation of the Bible (it looks to me like a NASV or similar text), but I can't locate the exact source among the many versions and editions. If so, does Wiki allow us to improve it in this way? Jpacobb ( talk) 16:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I shan't have time till next week to deal with my concerns in detail, but I want to put them on record now.
I fully agree that many wiki articles tend to drift "off topic" by acquiring extraneous information which is peripheral and best placed elsewhere. There is however a prior problem in this case: "What exactly is the topic?"
I prefer the second as the better of the two options, what do others think? Jpacobb ( talk) 16:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If the second option is accepted, the following points will be relevant here rather than elsewhere:
Full references for the above are available. Jpacobb ( talk) 16:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Question: Has not the label "Eucharist" been applied to this practice well after the 4th century? This word is not used by any of the biblical descriptions whatsoever. Indeed, there is an obvious gap between the "Fellowship" / "Communion" terms translated from the Koinonia noun root, should not that be called out? Its OK to call this (or something) the Eucharist, but thats not what it started out as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.188.64 ( talk) 16:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
A new subsection has been added. I consider its inclusion unbalances the article and that we should consider deleting it. Two sources are given: John Allegro's 1970 book which was a nine-days talking point when published but as far as I know made no real impact on scholarly debate afterwards and a website which I think fails to qualify as a Reliable Source [1]. In brief: undue prominence given to an incident which failed to find roots in the academic world. Jpacobb ( talk) 03:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Removed according to the above A ntv ( talk) 16:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The link http://www.leaderu.com/theology/passover.html was previously described as "a Christian website" and "Christian" was changed to "non-Catholic Protestant". This is a redundant expression which could be understood as POV. The site itself does form part of an evangelical conglomerate, but does not major on pushing protestantism and in fact, while a catholic might reasonably want to see more said about certain things, in my opinion at least, there is very little or nothing on the page to which a catholic academic would object as mistaken. I feel no description of the site is better than a potentially conflictive one. (I wondered whether to remove the description of the following one as well, but left it since the site positively implies it belongs to an individual Anglican parishes and they tend to express a theology which is more "restricted" than the range of opinions acceptable within Anglicanism.) Jpacobb ( talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Origin of the Eucharist. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Origin of the Eucharist at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I was looking at the Last Supper article and then remembered that last November I talked with Esoglou and then redecorated the table there as below:
Mark 14:22-24 | And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, ‘Take ye: this is my body.’ | And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ |
---|---|---|
Matthew 26:26-28 | And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ | And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.’ |
1 Corinthians 11:23-25 | For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ | In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ |
Luke 22:19-20 | And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ | And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.’ |
Do you guys want to think about that format here? Some users may actually read this one. History2007 ( talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It is good to see Oxyphenbutazone taking an interest in the article. However, while many of his changes might be considered an improvement (though I would question some of them) they seem to raise a major question: are they OR? I presume that when Eschoir inserted the table he quoted a particular translation of the Bible (it looks to me like a NASV or similar text), but I can't locate the exact source among the many versions and editions. If so, does Wiki allow us to improve it in this way? Jpacobb ( talk) 16:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I shan't have time till next week to deal with my concerns in detail, but I want to put them on record now.
I fully agree that many wiki articles tend to drift "off topic" by acquiring extraneous information which is peripheral and best placed elsewhere. There is however a prior problem in this case: "What exactly is the topic?"
I prefer the second as the better of the two options, what do others think? Jpacobb ( talk) 16:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If the second option is accepted, the following points will be relevant here rather than elsewhere:
Full references for the above are available. Jpacobb ( talk) 16:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Question: Has not the label "Eucharist" been applied to this practice well after the 4th century? This word is not used by any of the biblical descriptions whatsoever. Indeed, there is an obvious gap between the "Fellowship" / "Communion" terms translated from the Koinonia noun root, should not that be called out? Its OK to call this (or something) the Eucharist, but thats not what it started out as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.188.64 ( talk) 16:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
A new subsection has been added. I consider its inclusion unbalances the article and that we should consider deleting it. Two sources are given: John Allegro's 1970 book which was a nine-days talking point when published but as far as I know made no real impact on scholarly debate afterwards and a website which I think fails to qualify as a Reliable Source [1]. In brief: undue prominence given to an incident which failed to find roots in the academic world. Jpacobb ( talk) 03:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Removed according to the above A ntv ( talk) 16:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The link http://www.leaderu.com/theology/passover.html was previously described as "a Christian website" and "Christian" was changed to "non-Catholic Protestant". This is a redundant expression which could be understood as POV. The site itself does form part of an evangelical conglomerate, but does not major on pushing protestantism and in fact, while a catholic might reasonably want to see more said about certain things, in my opinion at least, there is very little or nothing on the page to which a catholic academic would object as mistaken. I feel no description of the site is better than a potentially conflictive one. (I wondered whether to remove the description of the following one as well, but left it since the site positively implies it belongs to an individual Anglican parishes and they tend to express a theology which is more "restricted" than the range of opinions acceptable within Anglicanism.) Jpacobb ( talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)