Proper Christian living in a multi-religious context

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are of course counter arguments for each oner of these rather flimsy and ill conceived arguments, just by way of example, the very first one, supposes that every time the statement, 'bread is broken', it necessitates the rendering of a ceremonial nature, which as any one can see is utter nonsense, the correct rendering is a communal meal, and ...[text shortened]... e discussion, my only regret is that i expended so much time in coming to the same conclusion.

to try to state that Paul went by the Gregorian calender is equally nonsense!

Ummmm. The Gregorian calendar didn't exist at this time.

for it is well known that it was the Apostate Roman catholic church which made Sunday a day of worship

Ummm... we don't really have a 'Roman Catholic Church' at this time. Both Roman Catholic and Orthodox claim equal apostolic succession from the early church. So what do you understand by 'the Lord's day' (Rev 1:10)?

you cannot and i repeat this cannot even make the association of the Christs passover and the lords evening meal, therefore all else is ludicrous! believe what you want Conrau i shall continue to assert the same as i did at the beginning of the discussion, my only regret is that i expended so much time in coming to the same conclusion.

You cannot at all justify the connection between Christ's passover and the Lord's supper. There is no justification for this. No historical evidence indicates that any church considers them the same. No where does Eusebius say 'By Passover, we mean the celebration of the Eucharist.' Your whole belief is a religious delusion.

And anyway, if you really believe you are correct, I urge you to write to Wikipedia, the OED (easily one of the most reputable sources) and Britannica. Such an astounding error must be of extreme concern to you!

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]to try to state that Paul went by the Gregorian calender is equally nonsense!

Ummmm. The Gregorian calendar didn't exist at this time.

for it is well known that it was the Apostate Roman catholic church which made Sunday a day of worship

Ummm... we don't really have a 'Roman Catholic Church' at this time. Both Roman Catholic and Orth ...[text shortened]... sources) and Britannica. Such an astounding error must be of extreme concern to you![/b]

exactly showing how utterly ludicrous you assertions are!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
exactly showing how utterly ludicrous you assertions are!

Robbie, this is getting ridiculous. I have clearly articulated the standard of proof I require. You must look at the primary sources and find a statement like 'The paschal feast was the commemoration of the Lord's meal and the only time people celebrated the Eucharist.' It seems to me that you take it for granted that they are the same. All I have asked is that you prove it.

Your responses to my objections have not been very compelling. If I mention the Council of Nicaea, you just laugh and say 'Apostates!' However, the quartodecimans continued up until the time of the Council, continuing the ancient custom. So if the dispute really were about the Lord's meal, why would the Council say that it was Easter and how could it have been solved? The overwhelming evidence supports my position. I mean, you objection that St. Paul did not mean Sunday because he did not follow the Gregorian calendar shows that you really need to knuckle down and look at the history books.

If, however, there is any credibility in your claim, I urge you to write Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary and demonstrate their error. You may also edit wikipedia yourself. If you believe in this so strongly, you have an obligation to let the truth be heard.