Talk:Origin of the Eucharist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

table

"Open Commensality" what's that.

Please check my my changes. I tried to simplify wording without changing meaning. Leadwind (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This Commensality

\Com`men*sal"i*ty\, n. Fellowship at table; the act or practice of eating at the same table. [Obs.] ``Promiscuous commensality. --Sir T. Browne.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Eschoir (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima's edits

Discussion of Lima's twenty edits, none of which were taken to talk

The edits	clarification	Lima's explanation	result
The Johannine Supper, it has been suggested,	this is sourced in the next footnote.	The next footnote concerns the next sentence. If "it has been suggested" means "…by Ratcliffe", should you not say: "Ratcliffe has suggested"? As it stands, it could mean "Eschoir has suggested"! :-) And you need to give a source for what you say about this Ratcliffe: "Ratcliffe. Ibid." is useless, since there has been no mention of Ratcliffe before.	Hopefully there will be a result	Is your vision of a good wiki article one with a footnote on every sentence? - - No. My vision is that Wikipedia should not say: "E is a fool", when all it can really say is: "D has called E a fool." -- Kind of a negative emphasis - so why all the footnotes? It doesn't appear to be the hallmark of a featured article. -- All you need do is write "Ratcliff says ..." Why don't you? - You could have done it and saved all these keystrokes.
the primitive apostolic eucharist is no other than the continuation of Jesus's chaburah meal. This is the 'breaking of bread' of Acts ii. 42."	are you asking for a footnoted source here?	That the primitive apostolic Eucharist was not other than the Jesus' chaburah meal is by no means self-evident. It certainly requires attribution to a source, not necessarily in a footnote.	Hopefully there will be a result	You weasel saying by no means self evident - do you disagree that it was a chaburah meal? Do you have another suggestion as to what it was you'd like to place in the article? - - Read WP:PROVEIT -- You have problems with direct answers, don't you. -- WP:PROVEIT says the burden of proof is on you. Isn't that direct enough? - No because getting the cite isn't enough, you tehn go on to post oppositional editorials - proveit doesn't mean anything to you but a way to annoy people. You recognize the quote as being Ratcliffe, but act like you have never seen it before. And you don't disagree with the conservative scholarship of a Dix who call the Last Supper a chaburah meal. YOu proffer no other theory.
The chaburah is not the name of a rite, rather it was the name of a group of male friends who met at regular intervals for conversation and a formal meal appurtenant to that meeting.	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	If you had first given some source about the "chaburah", it would not be necessary to ask for a source for this statement. As it stands, I do challenge it. Ever think of doing research for yourself?	Hopefully there will be a result	Of course you challenge it, you are edit warring. You don't appear to dispute it. - - Read WP:PROVEIT -- That's not an answer. Of course it is: it tells you that the burden of proof is on you.//You still haven't disputed the definition of chaburah. The Ratcliffe footnot is in plaace - Ii assume you withdraw your challenge.
The chaburah supper was concluded by the singing of a psalm, after which the meeting broke up.	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	Do.	Hopefully there will be a result	Please - do a little research on your own. - - See the rules about burden of evidence at WP:PROVEITThat's not an answer. -- Ditto, and do it.
Portrayed negatively by Amos,	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	I absolutely do challenge this. I am familiar with the passage where Amos denounces the way the leaders of the people gave no heed to the impending collapse of the kingdom of Israel, but instead on their divans dined on lambs from the flock and stall-fattened veal, bawled to the sound of the harp, and drank wine by the bowlful. He does not say they should use chairs instead of divans, or meat other than lamb and veal, or drums instead of harps, or beer rather than wine!	Hopefully there will be a result	So you agree that Amos doesn't write approvingly of gentile practice. - - I deny that Amos portrayed negatively or portrayed as a gentile practice reclining at meals or eating lamb and veal... So now you have the source. Everything better?
given by the host, would have a deipnon (a word that at that time denoted the afternoon meal, dinner or supper),	What is the relevance? Are you challenging that it was a supper? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	Far from challenging that it was supper, I am affirming it. The relevance is that the word deipnon earlier referred to a midday or even morning meal, but at the time in question referred to the main meal that was then taken in the late afternoon or in the evening, like the Latin cena.	No need for any result	I will then remove your edit as having no relevance. - - Fine with me, provided of course, that you remove all the explanation of the word deipnon so as not again to suggest that the use of the word deipnon in accounts of the Last Supper means that the writers had in mind the sort of dinner that you describe here. . . Edit removed
Thus was established an order of breaking bread	This is not a factual assertion, but an observation without analysis of the article itself.	Then present it as an assertion by the writer of the article. As things stand, you are presenting it as objective fact.	Hopefully there will be a result	The article presents the order. - - Wikipedia should not say: "E is a fool", when all it can really say is: "D has called E a fool." . . . How is that relevant to anything here?
Compare the meal practice in Sirach 31:12–32:13. This recommends moderation in eating and drinking, and vomiting as a remedy for over-eating (12:21), and has no mention of breaking bread or of forming bonds through a shared wine bowl	This borders on bad taste. The passage reflects bread/wine. I ask you to remove your edit.	The addition is necessary because you tell the reader to compare this passage with the ideas you mention about "the sharing of bread and wine as the act that created the one body, that is to say, it was a community-creating ritual" and " the bonds created by the shared wine bowl"	No need for any result other than elimination of the suggestion that the Sirach passage is relevant	Isn't it fair to let the reader see the reference, and not cherry-pick? And how does this aggressive editing fit in with your assertion 'I thought you agreed with someone else who did not want me to make corrections instead of challenging them.'? - - Challenging it was precisely what I did by reporting, albeit only in a footnote, parts of the referenced source that seemed to contradict the statement you put in the article, and by adding at the same time the bibleverse link that enables readers to see the whole text. It was I who thus let the reader read the reference and see that what I reported does correspond to the original text and context. Citing in support of a thesis a source that instead rather contradicts the thesis cries out for correction. -- A lot of primary sources seem to cry out for your interpretation, having had only themselves to rely upon for twoo thousand years.
was a traditional celebration between courses of the Greek banquet.	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	Not only do I challenge it: I have given sources that seem to contradict it.	Hopefully there will be a result	Libations edited
Libations were in fact offered to all the gods, and also to heroes and wives of heroes and to the dead in general;	What is the relevance of your edit and footnote? Not to banquets. I ask you to remove your edit.	The relevance lies in the indication that Dionysus was not the only god to whom libations were offered at banquets.	No need for any result	I am going to eliminate the references to other than banquets. - - Yes, do fix it by eliminating the statement that it was to Dionysus that libations were offered between courses at banquets. Then there will be no need to add that Dionysus was by no means the only god to whom libations were made. You surely remember the words Euripides put in the mouth of Tiresias, identifying Dionysus with wine and speaking of it/him as being poured as libations for the (other) gods.
In this, Dionysus was like Aphrodite and Eros, gods of sexual love, who were also felt within individuals.	More bad taste. Semi-pornographic. I ask you to remove it.	Seems undeniably factual.	No need for any result	You just made it up. And how does this aggressive editing fit in with your assertion 'I thought you agreed with someone else who did not want me to make corrections instead of challenging them.'? - - Challenging it was exactly what I did. . . Mendacious comment when you added provocative copy.
Although the phrase "the Eucharist" does not appear in the New Testament, it gives witness to a number of different	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	I do question whether the phrase "the Eucharist" gives witness to a number of different practices of religious table fellowship that can be called eucharistic	Hopefully there will be a result	You are playing coy about a misplaced modifier. You should have just fixed it, not lobbed a challenge. - - I do not know what is the misplaced modifier you speak of. If you see something as misplaced, it would be a good idea for you to fix your mistake. . . You are not an editor?
Pauls letters are more likely to have been read at meals than at "business meetings."	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	Certainly I am challenging it. Where did you get the idea that the early Christians held "business meetings"? Or that there was a distinction between their meetings to celebrate the Eucharist or Lord's Supper or Breaking of Bread or whatever name you prefer and some other regular meetings? If there was such a distinction, it is not self-evident and the assertion that the distinction exists needs to be sourced.	Hopefully there will be a result	Sourced
The earliest Christians worshiped at table in their hosts' dining rooms,	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	The dining rooms in, for instance, Pompeii, could hold only a few people.	Hopefully there will be a result	You don't challenge it. I will eliminate the request. - - I do challenge it. I have challenged it. Ancient dining rooms (triclinia) were too small for such a gathering. . . Your challenge assumes facts not in evidence - that gatherings were much larger than nine, that they were in Roman architecture, and that the dining rooms were set up for a banquet. I gave the source, now provide a countersource or let it drop
and that they shaped the traditions about Jesus to fit that setting.	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	Evidently I am. Since this assertion clashes with the traditional view, it needs to be sourced.	Hopefully there will be a result	Evidently is a weasel word. You are just edit warring. - - Then I will say the same thing without the word "evidently": I am challenging it. I do dispute it. - what would YOU, or rather, your sources, have this portion read? What is yoour objection?
The symposium after the meal was the time for teaching and conversation, for the singing of hymns, for the contributions of those who prophesied or spoke in tongues.	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring?	I do challenge you to produce evidence for this statement of fact that the early Christians held a "symposium" after the Lord's Supper meal, and at the "symposium" had teaching and conversation, sang hymns, prophecies and glossolalia.	Hopefully there will be a result	I accept the challenge. - - And I await the result. . . Didn't have to wait long.
Criticizing the way the Corinthians celebrated their meals,	Are you challenging this? Do you actually dispute this or are you edit warring? IF your dispute is real, why isn't it also raised the first time it appears in the article?	You are making Paul criticize the way the Corinthians celebrated all their meals, breakfast, lunch, wedding and birthday dinners, etc. Please specify "the Lord's Supper", if that is what you mean.	Hopefully there will be a result	You are quibbling. Fix it. - - WP:PROVEIT -- That's not an answer. -- It is: just read it. . . I've read it. Now what's your answer?
the purpose,< --why "the purpose" rather than "a purpose"?-- >	I think that you wrote this. It goes back a lng way, and you just found out you challenge it. Really mean spirited.	Whoever wrote it and however long it has been there, this assertion about the purpose should be challenged.	Hopefully there will be a result	Should be challenged. Weasel. You don't dispute it. - - I do challenge it. I do dispute it. WP:PROVEIT -- That's not an answer. -- It is: just read it. . . .Still no answer
in confirmation of the tradition which he asserts" is the opinion of a certain Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe, Ibid.</ref><! --first mention of Ratcliffe, so how "Ibid."?--> Cliffs, New Jersey |isbn=0-13-614934-0 |pages=962}}</ref>	And you couln'nt be bothered to fix the footnote, you had to spend the time complaining instead?	I thought you agreed with someone else who did not want me to make corrections instead of challenging them.	Hopefully there will be a result	That didn't stop you from editing the other amendations. You are edit warring, not trying to make the article better. - - WP:PROVEIT -- That's not an answer. -- It is: just read it. . Now what?

Eschoir (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses given. Lima (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses given to the Eschoir's so polite further comments. Lima (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet again. Lima (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Claim not suppported by footnote

In this, Dionysus was like many more Greek gods, "personifications ... (of) human emotions and conditions" felt within individuals, emotions and conditions such as love (Eros), fear (Phobos), youth (Hebe), old age (Geras), memory (Mnemosyne), etc.

Dionysus is NOT listed as a god of personification at the website listed. And you have invented the within reference. Please revisit. Thanks iin advance. Eschoir (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The emotions and conditions personified are "within the individual", which is what the contributor to the old Encyclopaedia Britannica said of Dionysus. (I wonder if perhaps Dionysus was treated as a personification of drunkenness, enthusiasm, etc.; all I can say for certain is that he was treated as a personification of wine. He still is, in the Italian phrase: "Bacco, Tabacco e Venere /riducono l'uomo in cenere".) Lima (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps best to let Eschoir have his way

Eschoir has, it seems reluctantly, corrected many points that I have brought to his attention. I don't see why he refuses to correct others, such as his statement, "In the beginning was the Passover Seder", which Exodus attributes to a period much later than "in the beginning". I think that, after all, it is best, for my part, to leave this article as Eschoir wrote/writes it, no matter how ridiculous the statements he puts in it. Lima (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

self-published web sites are not RSs

I would make myself a liar if I didn't object to this page's use of Rev. Dr. Frank Peake's Manual: The Evolution of the Eucharist. This is a self-published web site, and Peake doesn't prove to be an acknowledged expert with peer-reviewed publications. The material based on Peake's online material will have to go. Leadwind (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your even-handedness. Notwithstanding, it's a closer call than that received on first glance. It's part of a church order, a contemporary Didache as it were. I put it in on the basis of its connection to an established church publication, not as a self-published web site, which it is actually not. That having been said, I rather compiled the attribution from inchoate sources. Peake's attribution is an inference, not a cite. Its a slender reed. Win some, lose some. Eschoir (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Peake's manual might not be, strictly speaking, self-published, but it's close. The site is not a scholarly site. I have to say the same thing about E.M.B. Green's address from 1961. It's old, it's used to support Joachim Jeremiah's information (rather than citing Jeremiah directly), and Green doesn't Google up as a stellar Bible scholar. Let's remove the material backed up by nonscholarly web sites. Overall, I'd like to streamline the article. You are doing valuable work in clearing up misinformed assumptions about the early eucharist, but that's better done with a clean, simple article with reputable citations. I'd want to see both web sites in the External Links section, but not cited in the body. Leadwind (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

==Jeremias, not Jeremiah. Here's the hard part - the content is not in question, merely the vehicle. Jeremias did make those ten points. Do you challenge the content? No. Does all content have to be backed up by links to scholarly web sites? Obviously steve harris not.

As I work on this, it becomes obvious that the history of the eucharist is a matter of conjecture. Is it becoming a debate site? And is that appropriate?

The ultimate question is whether the Scriptures are credible in light of the application of history and science to tradition and human nature. That may be beyond the purview of the article. Eschoir (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This article rated B

Wowie! That's better than I ever dreamed! Eschoir (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Except there appears to be no C rating, b is pretty low Eschoir (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is fairly complete but lacks in-line citations and several other minor points for GA. If you want some other suggestions, drop me a line on my talk page. -- SECisek (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

restriction to baptized

When did the lord's supper become restricted to the baptized? Didache is 2nd century. What about 1st century love feasts? Any references one way or another? Leadwind (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The only accounts of first-century Christian celebrations of the Lord's supper or agape that I can think of are those in 1 Corinthians and Jude. These are spoken of as peculiar to Christians ("your", "you"), and certainly have no hint of participation by anyone outside the Christian community. Do you know of other accounts? Or do you think that the baptized and Christians were different sets of people? Lima (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Some early Christians (believers in Christ) delayed undergoing baptism. Baptism forgave sins, but sins you committed after baptism could bite you. So some believers would wait until they felt they were really ready to wipe their records clean. See Constantine and (I think) the martyr Thecla. If the Didache specifies that the unbaptized get excluded, then that's evidence that there were some unbaptized who wanted to be included and perhaps had been included earlier or elsewhere. If the lord's supper was explicitly restricted to the baptized from day one, surely there's an RS that would say so. Leadwind (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The context is that of first-century Christians, not of fourth-century Constantine (who may have favoured Christianity for political reasons rather than out of personal faith), nor even of the end of the second and the start of the third century, when Tertullian advised (against tradition) that people postpone baptism until they were married: whatever sins they committed before baptism would be forgiven, and marriage would make certain sins less likely. All the first converts to Christianity mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles were baptized immediately, even when large numbers were baptized together. If any first-century people were considered to be Christians without accepting baptism, surely there would be some "Reliable Source" that would say so. Lima (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Eschoir wants more fight than what he has again provoked at Free Republic. I leave it to you to deal with his edits on this article. Lima (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lima, I reverted your use of primary sources to support your point. Please find RSs. The Didache doesn't necessarily demonstrate anything about 1st-century practices. Leadwind (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, the earlier eucharist tradition in the Didache (ch. 10) doesn't mention restricting it to the baptized, only the older tradition (ch. 9). Looks like the Didache shows the restriction as a development, not an original element. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, because Didache 10 does not actually say that only baptized Christians could take part in the Eucharist, it follows that others could! "Looks like" on Talk becomes fact in the article, where it is presented not as someone's theory, but as plain certain obvious fact! And though anyone who reads the Acts of the Apostles can see that, in every case, it says that those who accepted the preaching of the apostles and of other Christians, such as Philip and Ananias, were immediately baptized, and though they can also see that Paul, when writing of baptism to the Christians of Rome and Corinth, spoke of it as something they had all received (in fact presenting baptism as at least as universal as the Eucharist for those he wrote to), and though anyone who reads these passages can verify that they do not square with what is put in Wikipedia, we must prefer what is put in Wikipedia, without a thought for Luke and Paul, and we must all agree that there were in fact people at that early stage who became Christians (whatever that meant) without being baptized, and we must also all agree that it was only later that the unbaptized were excluded from the Eucharist, a notion - sorry, I mean a fact - so obvious that it needs no source to back it up! I must give up this article. Lima (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason for the nascent heirarchy struggling to achive ecclesiastical hegemony articulating a rule saying "Christians (baptized) Only at the agape!" would be to counter a prevailing practice of unbaptized christians at the agape, and the direr the consequences threatened for violation would be in direct proportion to the ubiquity of the violation. That is a fact - so obvious that it needs no source to back it up! But it still would need a RS to be published at wiki in the face of a challenge.Eschoir (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If Leadwind, who I hoped would respond rationally, accepts Eschoir's latest displays of his logic and of his penchant for making statements about first-century practice based merely on his opinion and unsupported by any statement in a source of that time or even by any expression of opinion by a modern writer, then it is indeed best for me to let this article be. Lima (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thesis

There is no source saying Jesus ever ate with anyone who had been baptized. Discuss.Eschoir (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would say we are pushing toward OR here -- especially if the intention is to present some sort of statement or judgement about who should or should not partake of the eucharist on the article itself. That said, yes there is. We know that a number of Jesus disciples were previously disciples of ... John the BAPTIST. And there is explicit evidence that he ate with them. Without any hypothesizing, there is explicit evidence that Jesus at with people who were baptized. However, that is John's baptism (i.e., not in the triune name, not into the body of Christ). Any further conclusions (did Jesus baptize the twelve before giving them the great commission, and thus before Emmaus?) are conjecture - they cannot be either proven or disproven, and are entirely matters of opinion. Pastordavid (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Splendid, thank you.Eschoir (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Those disciples who were baptized Christians paradoxically were noot baptized as Christians!Eschoir (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got a reliable source that says Jesus did not include baptism as part of his ministry. Not sure whether that's relevant to this page. Leadwind (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A quite interesting source says: "Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing." You can find it on the Internet, for instance here. The same source gives further information here and again in another place already brought to Leadwind's attention. Unfortunately, there are those who do not consider this source reliable, since it isn't of the last half-century. Lima (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it is, but personally it tis interesting. Eschoir (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Historians don't think much of the gospel of John's reliability. Find a reliable source that says Jesus practiced baptism. Leadwind (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While historians believe that what John says about such minor matters as whether Jesus, in the sense that John explains in the passage earlier brought to Leadwind's attention, baptized cannot be relied on as either certainly true or certainly false, they treat it as evidence to be taken into account. Certain Wikipedia editors believe that a late-twentieth-century writer has somehow come to know that the truth is quite certainly the opposite of what John says on the matter; and they expect others to join them in their belief. They also expect others to agree that they themselves actually know (and can state it as a fact without having to quote any source whatever) that first-century Christians celebrated the Eucharist with people who, though interested in hearing about Christ, did not accept baptism, which, curiously, is the way in which first-century sources described the process of becoming Christians. Lima (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why is the convivium model relevant? Eschoir (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Because what was then called "δεῖπνον" and "συμπόσιον" in Greek was in Latin called "cena" and "convivium", with the difference that "convivium" was commonly used to cover the main part of the meal as well as the relaxed conversation-drinking-entertainment that followed. I don't know of cases where "συμπόσιον" was used in that broader sense. In De senectute XIII/45, Cicero boasts that the Latin term "convivium" was nobler than the corresponding Greek terms: "Bene maiores nostri accubitionem epularem amicorum, quia vitae coniunctionem haberet, convivium nominarunt, melius quam Graeci, qui hoc idem tum compotationem tum concenationem vocant" (in the Schuckburgh English translation, "It was a good idea of our ancestors to style the presence of guests at a dinner-table - seeing that it implied a community of enjoyment - a convivium, 'a living together'. It is a better term than the Greek words which mean 'a drinking together', or, 'an eating together'. For they would seem to give the preference to what is really the least important part of it.") Lima (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And your source?Eschoir (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Source for what? Lima (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the convivium model [the elements of which are apparently disputed] is relevant to this article. Otherwise it is a non sequitur embodying mmore original research to promote a POV. Why not an exegesis of Polynesian meal practice of the time? What's the connection to the article? Eschoir (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Since in the Greco-Roman practice of the first and second centuries "convivium" was just the same as "συμπόσιον", or the same as "δεῖπνον" together with "συμπόσιον", how can information about it under its name of "convivium" be considered irrelevant to the treatment of it? But who would ever imagine that Polynesian meal practice of a quite different period was identical with Greco-Roman practice of that time! Lima (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rhetorical question is not an answer. Eschoir (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Since in the Greco-Roman practice of the first and second centuries "convivium" was just the same as "συμπόσιον", or the same as "δεῖπνον" together with "συμπόσιον", information about it under its name of "convivium" is indeed relevant to treatment of the practice. Lima (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion. Eschoir (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In almost everyone's opinion, sourced information on what is being discussed (namely, meals in a first-century Greco-Roman host's dining room) is relevant. That anyone could think otherwise is surprising. Lima (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And your source?Eschoir (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source for why convivium is relevant to early Christian table worship. You say almost everybody, I just ask for one. Eschoir (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not named Lima. Eschoir (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a certain Eschoir holds that the meal customarily held in a first-century Greco-Roman host's dining room ("convivium" in Latin) is relevant to "early Christian table worship". Lima (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not a source. Neither are you. Try again. Eschoir (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And we may both quote sources: you for the relationship between the topic of the article and first-century Greco-Roman meals in private dining rooms, and I for the Latin name of such meals. Lima (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that all! I though there was more.Eschoir (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your dictionary source doesn't mention symposion or deipnon. All it says is: . a living together; hence, a meal in company, a social feast, entertainment, banquet (freq. and class.): it doesn't add anything too the discussion. Eschoir (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have provided you with an annotated translation, you may see that it does add something solid. Something solid is also added by the fact that Tertullian used "convivium" as the exact equivalent of "deipnon", precisely when speaking of the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, the claim that you keep inserting that Roller speaks of "a dozen in primary posture" is only adding nonsense to the discussion, since Roller, quoted in the footnote, simply does not say that. Lima (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Common Knowledge

Do you dispute, Lima, that, just as the word Eucharist does not appear in the NT, Paul never writes about himself celebrating it? If you do, please give the cite. Otherwise, I will replace the edited text as uncontroversial common knowledge. Eschoir (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you dispute, Eschoir, that Paul never writes about himself pissing? Is it therefore uncontroversial common knowledge that he didn't?!!! Lima (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also pointless to insert in the article unsourced personal remarks that some things that Paul mentioned in one letter are not mentioned in others! Lima (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I take that as a "no dispute."Eschoir (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-published

WP:SPS policy seems to exclude use of the following as a source:

It is untenable to argue with confidence that Paul or Luke relate a true Apostolic tradition of the Eucharist. Paul, he wrote, almost certainly did not receive the Eucharist tradition from Jesus as he claimed. He argues if one reconsiders Paul's claimed revelation experience near Damascus, and his ability to change his religious and political allegiances, it appears far more probable that the Eucharist is Paul's own αναμνησιν of Apostolic tradition.

This is from Rose, Martin, The Eucharist, Paul and James, apparently self-published on Yahoo! GeoCities Free. Lima (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

James Still quotation

Short quotations are fair use, but a long quotation from a copyright-covered source is a breach of copyright. A summary is permissible. Above all, a quotation must be presented faithfully. It is altogether wrong (and could even give rise to suspicions of bad faith) to put "most contemporary commentators disagree ..." immediately after the statement in the article that Paul received the tradition of Eucharist while in the community at Antioch": what Still actually said was: 1) most contemporary commentators disagree with Bultmann's idea that the institution wording came from the Hellenistic Church; and 2) they hold instead that there is no reason to doubt that the institution wording goes back to the historical Jesus himself. The same suspicion of bad faith might arise from the choice to end the long quotation with the remark that Paul could have looked to the Dionysian cult for his soteriology, a notion that Still declares unnecessary in the very next sentence. Lima (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for intervention

I think the many edits in the style of "The Eucharist is a meal practice of murky origin which developed into a rite central to the Roman Church in the first two centuries of the Common Era" are simply unsourced personal comments of a POV nature. Eschoir thinks differently. Lima (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Third opinion/comment: Not entirely sure why you removed your post from the 3O page, Lima, but here's my take anyway. First, there should have been more discussion here. Having said that, Eschoir's edits here are entirely unacceptable. It's adding a great deal of WP:POV, and some of the edits are just immature: "Nowhere else does Paul mention the "rite." Nowhere at all does Paul refer to his own celebration of the "rite."" Moreover, the section that starts with "It is curious that Paul..." is ripped off verbatim from this page. To this end, I'm going to say that the RfC isn't needed at all. This is a question of one editor injecting their own POV into an article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the section that starts with "It is curious that Paul..." is ripped off verbatim from this page.

One might expect a careful reader or editor to be able to discern the difference between a "ripped off verbatim" section and a quote, duly referenced.

If one were to blast away half-cocked like that, unapologetically, it might tend to undermine one's whole critical credibility.

You contend that some of the edits are just immature: "Nowhere else does Paul mention the "rite." Nowhere at all does Paul refer to his own celebration of the "rite."" Perhaps you or Lima would grace us with mature references to other places where Paul references the 'rite.' Perhaps you could refer us to even 'one' place Paul refers to his participation in the 'rite.'

Thanks in advance!Eschoir (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for content information like that, then that's beyond the scope of my knowledge. However, I can tell an immature POV addition when I see it. As to the verbatim copy, even if you did source it three paragraphs down, that still doesn't mean that it's an acceptable addition. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't mean it was "ripped off verbatim" either. One wonders if you can tell immature POV additions with the same acuity that you detect ripped-off verbatim additions.

If the content is true, how could it be POV?Eschoir (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed out above the fallacy that, if Paul did not mention an action of his, he didn't do it, and the fallacy that, if Paul mentioned something in only one letter, it follows that there is doubt about whether it is true. Inserting personal remarks that suggest these fallacious ideas is POV, and moreover gives grounds for HelloAnnyong's remark that doing so seems rather childish. Your quite unsourced opening phrase/remark, "The Eucharist is a meal practice of murky origin which developed into a rite central to the Roman Church in the first two centuries of the Common Era", in itself full justifies what HelloAnnyong said of "adding a great deal of WP:POV".

I have also pointed out above the inadmissibility of quoting (with opening inverted commas in the first of four paragraphs but no further indication whatever that it is a quotation) a long copyright passage for which you gave a reference at the very end. As for the seemingly deliberate omissions at the start and at the end of the quotation, the first of which falsely suggested that the author disagreed with the previous statement in the article, and the other suggested, no less falsely, that he supported an idea that he actually cast aside in the very next sentence - they were clearly wrong, but perhaps also childish.

I do not myself insist on the characterization of immaturity or childish behaviour. I am only pointing out that HelloAnnyong's remarks were not without basis.

Perhaps interventions by others also would be helpful. Lima (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What about "The Eucharist is a meal practice of murky origin which developed into a rite central to the Roman Church in the first two centuries of the Common Era" is not undisputedly true, and therefore not NPOV?Eschoir (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir, now you're being tendentious. I suggest you read that link and think about it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I get 'attack the messenger'. You have called me names, but you have not provided any refutation of my message. What about "The Eucharist is a meal practice of murky origin which developed into a rite central to the Roman Church in the first two centuries of the Common Era" or "Nowhere else does Paul mention the "rite." Nowhere at all does Paul refer to his own celebration of the "rite."" is not undisputedly true, and therefore not NPOV? Eschoir (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect Eschoir will keep up his one-man disagreement, but I see

• "meal practice" as what few people would call the Eucharist, rather than, for instance, a "religious rite". This is one of Eschoir's unsourced personal remarks formulated for a POV effect, while definitions of the Eucharist from respected sources are available in abundance, such as that in the Encylopaedia Britannica.
• "murky" as perhaps the most pejorative synonym (and the choice of this term itself betrays an editor's POV and suggests the same POV to the mind of the reader) of "obscure", which in itself is a POV description of the origin of the Eucharist. Declaring as a fact, not just as an opinion of experts (here too no source is given), that the origin is "murky" is a POV statement, all the stronger for being put in the opening words of the article. Not all agree that the origin of the Eucharist is obscure.
• "rite central to the Roman Church" as another unsourced description suggesting in this case that only Romish believers, and no others, see the Eucharist as central. Another of Eschoir's many insertions of phrases conducive to fallacious conclusions favouring his POV. Lima (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your error is reading this disjunctively instead of conjuntively. The origins of Eucharist are uncertain, otherwise there would be no article. What is NPOV certain is that it didn't exist before it had the name, in the first century. Believers may in their own POV say it existed before it had a name, just as they might say Jesus as Logos was extant from befoe teh beginnnig of time. But that's not NPOV.

Read together a meal practice of murky origin which developed into a rite central to the Roman Church in the first two centuries of the Common Era. What other Christian Church was there in the first two centuries? One thing everybody agrees is that the activites that Eucharist grew out of were communal meal practices, but the direct precursors are uncertain, thus this article! And, as this article makes clear, all serious scholars agree that the Last Supper wasn't the Eucharist.

And you commit the logical fallacy you see in me. Not mentioning doesn't mean denial. It's just a fact. Eschoir (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Typical of Eschoir. There are many Wikipedia articles on matters that are not obscure; but, more important, whatever questions have been raised about the origin of the Eucharist, not everyone agrees that its origin is really obscure (still less "murky"), so stating baldly that it is murky is clearly POV. "The Eucharist didn't exist before it had that name" - and nobody had an Oedipus complex before the time of Freud! Saying that the opposite view is not NPOV doesn't make your view NPOV! Even before the Roman Church came into existence, you had the Jerusalem Church, and in the first two centuries you had the Corinthian Church, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Ephesus ... Or by "Roman Church" do you mean "Roman Catholic Church"? Ask any Eastern Orthodox person whether that is a NPOV statement. And then you claim that your views are universal: "everybody agrees that ..." (they don't). As for "All serious scholars agree that the Last Supper wasn't the Eucharist", that depends on what you mean by "being" the Eucharist: what many serious scholars do hold is that the Eucharist was instituted at the Last Supper. Is there any way of putting an end to such insistent nonsense? Lima (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You insist on comparing apples and oranges. Flat earth people believe in flat earth. They insist that round earthers aren't NPOV. They are a waste of time to reason with. Eschoir (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Folks, let's try to avoid an edit war on this, please. I was going to go and revert one of the edits, but Lima beat me to it here. Eschoir, if there's a problem, we can take this further up the chain if you want. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem when editors want to take information out of footnotes and attribute authorship wher it can't be confirmed. Eschoir (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But you can't just make claims like that, especially such potentially flammable ones. I've marked both your additions with fact tags; statements like those need sourcing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best for me to keep completely out of the matter for at least a week. Hopefully, by then others ("further up the chain" may be necessary) will succeed in getting across to Eschoir that his attitude and actions are, to say the very least, unhelpful. Lima (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You criticize my actions and attitude but its my facts you keep deleting. Eschoir (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your content as per policy can and should be deleted if you are unable to provide a source which meets WP:VERIFIABILITY requirements for the statements you have added. It is by policy incumbent on anyone who seeks to add material to an article, particularly after that content has been challenged, as many of your additions have been, to produce a clear and explicit reference supporting that material. You have to date, regretably, rather clearly failed to do so. By failing to do so, you have also acted in a less than acceptable way, and could be at least potentially liable for sanctions. It could also lead to the page being locked, so that no further changes could be made without a clear consensus of all parties on the article's talk page. I would very strongly urge you to provide clear and explicit sourcing for all the material you have added which others have challenged. If I do not see such required sourcing within 24 hours, I will myself revert any dubious, inadequately sourced additions. Please act according to policy and guidelines and provide the sourcing you have more than once been asked to produce. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to your participation in keeping this article both accurate and neutral. Eschoir (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on this, John. Could you take a look at the latest string of edits? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Durova and Pastordavid I have worked with. Say hi to them, and to all the apts, thoats and zitidars back on Barsoom. Eschoir (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Even better idea, why don't you read the whole article?Eschoir (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Within the next 24 hours, as other obligations and activities permit. You can, if so desired, challenge material you find dubious as well, but that does not free you of your own obligations. In some cases, if material is challenged and the specific quotation being used as a source is requested, it may be required to produce the full quotation upon which the material being introduced is based. For the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be best if the individuals involved provided diff links to the various sections which they consider dubious, and what specific phrasing requires sourcing, so that any other parties coming into the discussion will have a clearer and more obvious indication of what the specific points of contention are. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose deleting the following for age and impossibility of attribution:

Referring to Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III,2, the Christian editor, perhaps Philip Schaff (1819-1893), commented before the discovery of the Didache: "The early disappearance of the Christian agapæ may probably be attributed to the terrible abuse of the word here referred to, by the licentious Carpocratians. The genuine agapæ were of apostolic origin (2 Pet. ii. 13; Jude 12[46]), but were often abused by hypocrites, even under the apostolic eye (1 Corinthians 11:21). In the Gallican Church, a survival or relic of these feasts of charity is seen in the pain béni; and, in the Greek churches. in the ἀντίδωρον or eulogiæ distributed to non-communicants at the close of the Eucharist, from the loaf out of which the bread of oblation is supposed to have been cut."[47]

It is from an 1867 text, no author is credited that I can find, and Schaff is not listed among the three names listed on the title page. Eschoir (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, I could do without anonymous quotations from unsigned articles in undistinguished tertiary sources like the Oxford Concise Christian Dictionary.

The tertiary source "Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" says: "The institution of the Eucharist is recorded by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 and in the three Synoptic Gospels." There are thus, as the 1800-page Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church of 2005 states, "four accounts of its institution, one by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 and three in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:26–28, Mark 14:22–24, Luke 22:17–20)." "It is recorded as celebrated by the early Christian community at Jerusalem and by St Paul on his visit to Troas (Acts 20:7)." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church concludes that from a very early date the service was a regular part of Christian worship, and was held to have been instituted by Christ.

"Whether the Last Supper was a Passover Meal (as the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels would suggest) or not (as St John), it is clear that the Eucharist was instituted at Passover time, and Christian writers from Saint Paul onwards have stressed that the death of Christ was the fulfilment of the sacrifice foreshadowed by the Passover."

I certainly could. Eschoir (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true that dictionaries like the Oxford Dictionary used are not the optimally preferred sources, although they tend to be fairly reliable, so they can be seen as being an acceptable source until a better one comes along. This particularly work seems according to this page to be edited by a party who is seemingly fairly well acquainted with and respected regarding the material. So, basically, the content referenced by the Dictionary seems to meet WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS requirements, even if another source would be preferable. Regarding the reference to the 1867 book The Anti Nicene Fathers, that is a good question. That statement is sourced and the source probably meets reliability criteria. The fact that it can be found as a reference work at a college website if nothing else indicates that it is held in some esteem. As per this page, the authors seem to have been Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Even so, it isn't necessarily required to know who wrote something for it to be included, if the work containing the material is considered generally reliable. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then. This diff adds a great deal of POV. I'd also challenge the first line of this diff, which is the first line of the article. It just seems to jump into the topic without actually explaining anything. I don't really like the lead of this page at all. That's just someplace to start. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then, do you have any alternatve language to insert to make it all better? Eschoir (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No? Eschoir (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't check this article every ten seconds. None of the POV stuff should be in there at all. As for the lead, I don't really know, but as someone who knows little of the Eucharist, I can tell you that I'm a bit lost. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the Eusebian reference should not be included as a reference, as it isn't actually a reference citation, but rather a comment. The idea that the idea may no longer be current is potentially a valid one, but it also is very likely a violation of WP:OR to seem to indicate that the ideas specifically mentioned in the text are no longer current until and unless a source specifically supporting such a statement is given. What would seem to be indicated there is not so much removal of the material, but rather finding more current sources to address the matter. Regarding the opening sentence, that probably is a mistake. Generally, any article should open with a sentence containing roughly the title of the article. While it is not generally considered required in the lead to cite a specific source for statements if sourcing is to be found in the more developed later parts of the article, words like "generally" and "gradually" are words drawing conclusions, and could reasonably be seen as requiring sourcing or removal. The lead in general could use a lot of work, as in fact could the title. I might consider changing the title to "History of the Eucharist" or "Origins of the Eucharist" and start with something like "The history (or origins) of the Eucharist cannot be absolutely determined. Chronologically, the first known to reference the idea of the Eucharist is ..." and go on from there. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It was called History of the Eucharist until Lima unilaterally changed it.

I love your lede. "The history (or origins) of the Eucharist cannot be absolutely determined. Though "giving thanks" [eucharistia] has been a part of religious meal practice from time immemorial, chronologically, the first known to reference the idea of the Eucharist is Justin Martyr, writing around 150, who is generally credited with the first explicit mention of the Eucharist as rite. Around that time Eucharist and the Last Supper started becoming placed in a relation of dependence in many, but not all, Eucharist liturgies, and excerpts from St. Paul's account of a Supper of the Lord in 1 Corinthians, as well as portions of the Synoptic Gospels recounting the Last Supper began being quoted as Words of Institution of the liturgies of Paschal sacrifice."

What about the attribution of the ANF2 quote? I can't find any. And the unsigned dictionary articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 19:58, July 11, 2008

oops didn't see the earlier noteEschoir (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Eschoir (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) John, I'll toss another. This latest edit is completely inappropriate in tone. And I'm not sure what to do with this one. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You have a problem with the tone of a quoted source??Eschoir (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he does, validly. There is a question as to whether the material is really relevant to this particular article at all, but, beyond that, it uses the word "our". Any such inclusion of the author into an article is a definite no-no. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, like, anything with "Our Lord Jesus Christ" is out. Hmmm. Eschoir (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep pushing all of these edits to the page, but I have a feeling that they're sliding towards POV. On a page that's been rife with edit wars, I'd think you'd tread lightly with your edits. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I take that as a 'no challenge.' Eschoir (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, shouldn't have posted that there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Soidi

We've been working hard on the first paragraph, and other sections, in talk. Your additions are appreciated, but I would expect them to be changed appurtenant to our talk page. I must say, however, that I take a dim view of people deleting my referenced work. If I go to the trouble of citing a source, I expect other editors to respect that. This may seem a familiar complaint. Eschoir (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So I deleted something of Eschoir's? What? I only added a further citation from the same source, which Eschoir "went to the trouble of" deleting:

"Ros Clarke says that the evidence from the early church suggests that the words of institution were not then used liturgically, but only catechetically, and so are not a necessary requirement for celebrating the Eucharist. What is essential, he says, is the ritual, comprised of the four actions of taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it, and giving it to be eaten, accompanying the actions by saying words identifying the bread with Jesus' body, and similarly with respect to the cup.<ref>[http://www.theologian.org.uk/church/wordsofinstitution.html The Function of the Words of Institution</ref>"

I would now change the tense of two words: "were not a necessary requirement", and "What was essential". Ros Clarke was speaking, not of today's practice, but of what the evidence about early Christianity suggests. Soidi (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That is soooo not true. That section is only her opinion and does nowhere make as to speak for the early church. I challenge it. Eschoir (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is her opinion and it is here presented as such. She speaks of the second century (Didache, Justin Martyr), when in her view the words were not essential for celebration of the sacrament ("The words enabled believers to understand the sacrament but were not essential for celebration of the sacrament"), and she bases her view of the essential element on her analysis of a first-century document ("The utterance (in Luke 22:19)... is a command to repeat certain actions ... comprising the ritual that is to be done. ... the actions described in v. 19 of taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it, and giving it to be eaten. It seems to include the accompanying action of ... at least of saying words with the same illocutionary force, identifying the bread with Jesus' body"). Surely you don't mean that, in spite of saying that, she thought these actions were not part of the first- and second-century ritual. Soidi (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

IF she'd have thought that, she likely would have said that, instead of leaving it to you. You start with my quote from paragraph 64, quoted to support facts, and add stuff from paragraph 39, from her 21st century analysis of the Lukean narrative, as if it followed. She calls your quote a 'thorough analysis of this utterance,' not quoting historical facts.Eschoir (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions are drawn from second-century documents (which do not state, but in the opinion of those who analyse them "suggest" that something was the case); conclusions are also drawn from first-century documents. Soidi (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone challenge this?

Originally eucharistia meant thanksgiving. Part of meal behavior for HEllenic or Hellenized Jews.

Then Eucharist became the name of a part of the meal, the bread and sometimes wine.

Then it became separated from the meal and became a liturgy of the Celebration of the Eucharist (bread and or wine, or honey or water, or a host of other media in use over the centuries) or simply the Eucharist rite.

These distinctions, once made, will simplify what we [and the ante-Nicean Fathers] are talking about. Eschoir (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This Hellenized Jewish thanksgiving, was it with bread and wine? Or was the term applied to various Jewish blessings? Was it only the Jews that had a eucharistia at meals? What does the following sentence mean? "Eucharist became the name of a part of the meal, the bread and sometimes wine." Does this mean that the physical bread and wine were the eucharistia, like, you can drop the eucharistia on the floor? Or does "part of the meal" mean "the stage in the meal's proceedings where you do the bread & wine thanksgiving"? Leadwind (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This Hellenized Jewish thanksgiving, was it with bread and wine?

with any meal, it is in this usage a verb

Or was the term applied to various Jewish blessings?

I think later, as it evolved from Action to thing, then to rite with thing

Was it only the Jews that had a eucharistia at meals?

Don't know

What does the following sentence mean? "Eucharist became the name of a part of the meal, the bread and sometimes wine." Does this mean that the physical bread and wine were the eucharistia, like, you can drop the eucharistia on the floor? Or does "part of the meal" mean "the stage in the meal's proceedings where you do the bread & wine thanksgiving"?

It evolved from the verb for giving thanks for the meal, to the name of the meal, to the name of parts of the meal that could be dropped on the floor, to the name of a ritual that you did with former parts of the meal

Ros Clarke

HelloAnnyong has asked me to discuss his/her qualification as Original Research of my summary of what Ros Clarke wrote about whether the Words of Institution were used liturgically in the early Christian centuries.

I still think the following is an accurate objective summary: "Ros Clarke says that the evidence from the early church suggests that the words of institution were not then used liturgically, but only catechetically. and so were not a necessary requirement for celebrating the Eucharist. What was essential, she says, is the ritual, comprised of the four actions of taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it, and giving it to be eaten, accompanying the actions by saying words identifying the bread with Jesus' body, and similarly with respect to the cup."

To me it all seems to come from Ros Clarke's article, so why is it called Original Research?

She wrote: "The liturgical use of the words seems to be a relatively late phenomenon. McGowan points to evidence from the Didache and Justin Martyr which suggests that the words of institution were not used in the celebration of the Supper during the second century. Justin Martyr, at least, had access to the words of institution but used them for catechetical rather than liturgical purposes. The words enabled believers to understand the sacrament but were not essential for celebration of the sacrament"; and: <many paragraphs before, in a passage having nothing to do with the early church Eschoir (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)> "This ritual is comprised then of the actions described in v. 19 of taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it, and giving it to be eaten. It seems to include the accompanying action of saying 'This is my body, which is given for you' or at least of saying words with the same illocutionary force, identifying the bread with Jesus' body. By comparison with the words of institution recounted in 1 Cor 11, it seems that a similar command was given with respect to the cup, or that the single command was intended to encompass both sets of actions, verbal and non-verbal." Soidi (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up: I think your persistent inclusion of Ros Clarke stuff is pushing POV and/or adding undue weight by someone who's not notable. There isn't even a Ros Clarke article around here, so I see no reason why anything she says is notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ros Clarke stuff looks solid, but she's a PhD student, and her article appears on a web site whose scholarly standards are unclear. It's better than a lot of web sites out there, but is she verifiable? Leadwind (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you,Annyong. That seems to have put an end to the claim that my edit constituted original research. There remains the misunderstanding that I have been "persistently" including Ros Clarke. It was Eschoir who (in my opinion, rightly) introduced Ros Clarke into the article, and not even now have you raised the slightest objection to his edit. All I did was to add to his edit, without deleting it - it is still in the article, untouched by you - but instead giving a fuller account of what Ros Clarke actually said in the cited article. So why do you think that this fuller account should be deleted, but that the less complete account (thus more open to misunderstanding) of what Ros Clarke wrote should be preserved in the same section, along with a journalist's account of his understanding of a talk given by Father Robert Taft, not in a university, but in a frescoed room in an old Roman palazzo off the Piazza Navona, Rome one day in March 2003? Ros Clarke's article was accepted for inclusion in "The Theologian", "the Internet journal for integrated theology", which professes to be "dedicated to presenting theological and pastoral resources of the highest quality to the wider church over the internet". I don't see how removing this and preserving something from a journalist's "Rome diary" fits in with notions of notability and reliability.

Thank you also, Leadwind. Ros Clarke does quote some rather impressive sources. On this point, an article by Andrew Brian McGowan in JBL 118/1 (1999). Soidi (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

READ THIS!! http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=oA9NynskpxEC&dq=%22andrew+brian+mcgowan%22+eucharists&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=wnwanWNKB0&sig=YaUYRcjIz06Q4iHqMtUuLdGG5sA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA27,M1

Eschoir (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Soidi's inclusion on my quote is POV pushing on an irrrelevancy. It says nothing about the Origin of the Eucharist.Eschoir (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If Ros Clarke's statement that the early Christian ritual <she doesn't so state! Eschoir (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)> was comprised of the four actions of taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it, and giving it to be eaten, accompanying the actions by saying words (not the "words of institution") identifying the bread with Jesus' body, and similarly with respect to the cup is an "irrelevancy", how can one defend as relevant to the origin of the Eucharist:

• Ros Clarke's negative reference to "evidence that suggests that 'Words of Institution' were not used in the celebration of the Eucharist during the second century. The liturgical use of the narratives, common today, seems not to have been known in the second century and only developed later in the third century"
• and a journalist's article about changes said to have occurred in 325, 1531 and 1822?

These two seem to say nothing whatever about the origin of the Eucharist, and to speak only about later events. Soidi (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is absurd. That assumes a finite origin of Eucharist, which, like baseball and Santa Claus, evolved over the centures. The case can be made that Eucharist as Roman Catholics know it today originated in 1822.... Eschoir (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir, I don't like it when Lima tries to keep information off a page, and I don't really care for it when anyone does. I'd consider Clarke's material relevant if it were notable. Can we cite McGowan's paper directly? The problem I have with Clarke's view is that it's incredibly convenient for conservative evangelicals, which is where her paper was published. It's very convenient to thumb one's nose at the Pope and say that the words of institution were not liturgical, but then to conclude in the same paper that the church should keep using them. In other words, these evangelicals are playing off Rome's script but want to deny Rome the authority she claims, and Clarke's paper says: OK. Can we put her view under modern Christian interpretations or something? As for a journalist's notes, I haven't looked into that source yet. Can someone elucidate? Leadwind (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ros Clarke says, on the contrary, that the words of institution were originally not part of the liturgy, and need not now be part of it (she merely grants that in her Church of England they are in fact used). She says that any words associating, even only implicitly, the bread and the cup with Christ is enough, without any "This is my body", "This is my blood". If there is to be a section on "Liturgies", what Ros Clarke says about the earliest liturgies surely belongs in it.

The journalist's article was written for the Canadian Catholic New Times, which according to a critic should have been called the "anti-Catholic New Times" (Catholic Insight), and now exists only on the Internet. I don't know what further elucidation you would want. But to put a "Rome Diary" article in that on the same level as the study by Ros Clarke ...!

Since the objection to my summary of the main relevant point of Ros Clarke's study seems to have been withdrawn, I will now put the summary back in the article. Soidi (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a response to Soidi's comment above. WP:FRINGE says that NPOV means that "all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence." In other words, more prominent views receive more coverage, and less prominent views (fringe theories, for example) receive less. It seems to me that Ros Clarke is a less popular scholar, and I'm troubled by the fact that the article has two paragraphs that start with "Ros Clarke says/refers", especially when Ros Clarke's notability still has not be verified in my mind. The fact that one of her articles got into The Theologian doesn't establish notability, since that publication itself doesn't claim any notability. Only 280 ghits and no news articles makes me nervous. Certainly The Theologian should pass WP:RS, and right now, I see no reason why it does. Eschoir may have first included Ros Clarke in this article, but I'm still challenging it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"more prominent views receive more coverage, and less prominent views (fringe theories, for example) receive less. It seems to me that Ros Clarke is a less popular scholar". OK. Then give some more prominent views, by some more popular scholars; but don't pretend that the view represented by the Ros Clarke study doesn't exist. It certainly fits in with views expressed on the Addai and Mari Qurbana.

(Tongue in cheek: Would it help to write: "The Theoλogian says" rather than "Ros Clarke says"? :-))

If the mentions of her study should be reduced to one, which should go? And should the "Rome Diary" article for the defunct bi-weekly newspaper be kept?

By the way, The Biblical Theology of the Song of Songs by Ros Clarke has been described as "providing an utterly wonderful biblical theology of the Song of Songs",[1] and as a "wonderful work".[2] Soidi (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I understood the reference to the "frescoed room in an old Roman palazzo off the Piazza Navona" to be about the Pro Unione centre, and I have traced to the centre's Spring 2003 bulletin, pages 15-27, the actual talk given by Father Taft, which is even on the Internet. It is no surprise to find that the journalist's account gives quite a wrong idea of what Father Taft did say. There is even a direct contradiction between the journalist's "the words of institution were not ordered until the Council of Trent issued a decree in 1531" and Taft's statement that the Council "was not making a statement about its 'moment' or 'formula'" - "its" refers to the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Besides, in 1531 the Council of Trent hadn't yet met. And, of course, the jibe "magical words" is the journalist's, not Taft's. That should give Leadwind the elucidation he requested. Soidi (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think at the 'talk' witnessed by the reporter, it is more likely that Father Taft read the paper, published in the centre's Spring 2003 bulletin, verbatim, without embelishment, or that he 'talked' about the paper, emphasizing different things, thus leading you to say there were contradictions in the accounts when there were only differences? Eschoir (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if one were to ignore his direct contradiction of the lecturer's views, his inaccuracy of dating, his POV expression, the reporter for this obscure publication is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. The quotation from his Rome Diary should be deleted from the article, especially since we have the exact text of the expert's lecture on the matter under discussion. Soidi (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't much like to answer questions, do you? Eschoir (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

new title

The topic of this page is the origin of the Eucharist. The related theories are not the topic. We don't have a page entitled "Theories about human evolution"; the page it "Human evolution" because that's the topic (and the theories elucidate the topic). Same here. Defenders of POV like to put distance between a religious topic and scholarly analysis of that topic, such as trying to make the purgatory page be about doctrines about purgatory or the historical Jesus page about theories about historical Jesus. I can't be sure that's what's happened here, but anyway, "Origin of the Eucharist" is a more accurate and better title. Leadwind (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

agree Eschoir (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, as there is no "history of the Eucharist," we should make that page and summarize this one as a section on that page. Leadwind (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_roots_of_Catholic_Eucharistic_theology Eschoir (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

deleting bad sourced stuff

I just found a nonscholarly source and deleted it. I'm going to do more of the same. Leadwind (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Major Error

This article begins with a major POV error. There is not today one single Eucharist liturgy, and not all ancient Eucharist liturgies, even those still in continuous use today, claim "the Lord's Supper" as their antecedent. Eschoir (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this criticism is valid, but it is best to let the answer come from the editor, Leadwind, who inserted the so-called major error. Soidi (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Whata do you think should happen to editors who manufacture quotes? Eschoir (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir's opinions

Eschoir has inserted a whole series of his unsourced opinions, to which he has added unilateral deletions equally based merely on his own opinion. I have to revert. Soidi (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is his action of doing this and then, without discussion, reverting again to his unsourced edit legitimate? Soidi (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Soidi on this one - Eschoir's edits need to be reverted. In addition to making the lead section too long, no article should have the words "time immemorial" in it. Come on, guys. Stop the edit war, or else this page is going to get locked down again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

John Carter proposed that lead change a week ago, above, and I added to it and there were no objections for a week, so in it went.Eschoir (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what he indicated as a possible lead was, "The history (or origins) of the Eucharist cannot be absolutely determined. Chronologically, the first known to reference the idea of the Eucharist is ..." Granted, he omitted the noun after "known", partially intentionally, although "reference" would work there. But the nonencyclopedic "time immemorial" was not included. I do think that it would be reasonable to hash out exactly how the article should begin though. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you often refer to yourself in the third person, or did you forget which account you logged in under? Eschoir (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is locked now, so we have all the time in the world. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Time immemorial" is not my phrase. It comes from the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY, which I assume is a reliable source, and is footnoted. Have you guys read the article yet? Eschoir (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pontifical Council said that "the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative". It did not say that "'giving thanks' [eucharistia] has been a part of religious meal practice from time immemorial", which is what you wrote. What's your source for this? (I would ask the same question about several more of your inserted statements, but that can wait.)

The first matter to settle, I'd say, is whether the article should be returned to how it was before Eschoir inserted these statements. We can scarcely discuss improvements to the text without first deciding what text we are to work on. Is it premature to propose formally a return to the former text?

And would Eschoir please refrain from implying that other editors do not read the article and that an administrator such as John Carter is a sock puppet or a sock puppeteer. Soidi (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If it walks like a sock, and quacks like a sock, prudence would dictate a sock investigation, wouldn't it? Eschoir (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being a sock? Do you seriously think that after my 8500 edits, I would go and do that? WP:NPA is dangerous territory. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for John Carter's explanation. Eschoir (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're accusing John Carter, an administrator, of being a sock puppet? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for John Carter's explanation. Eschoir (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Whole lotta talkin' goin' on, huh? It seems to me that the edit warriors fall silent when the field of battle closes. Those interested in the goal of producing a neutral article soldier on in sandboxes. Eschoir (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Toward that end, I proopose we go on, and tear up this article and start again. I propose we start by defining Eucharist as a liturgy (then we have to define liturgy). Look at the state of the liturgy today, and the scholarly changes of the last ten years from the ingrained view popularized by Dix in 1945. Then back to Jewish and Greek meal practice, the agape, the Didache, Justin Martyr, the Council of Nicea, the promulgation of the Institution Narratives, and only thereafter looking at questions on the historicity of the Institution. Eschoir (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the above editor learn rather better to ensure his comments abide by wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:TALK and WP:CIVILITY. He may or may not believe this, but some of us are actually working with other content as well. Regarding the frankly ludicruous allegations of sockpuppetry, I suggest that if the user thinks he has any rational basis for such allegations, he request a sockpuppetry check at WP:SUSPSOCK. This page, however, is not the place for such comments. And the simple fact that a phrase is included in a source is not just cause for our inclusion of it here. The phrase "time immemorial" has no clear meaning, and thus its inclusion in an encyclopedic article is potentially problematic. Clearer language is generally preferred. And, yes, speaking in the third person is an intended to be somewhat humorous; as we generally don't allow "I" in wikipedia content, this editor doesn't use it on his talk page either. Regarding Eschoirs proposal for massive reorganizing, I would oppose that, until and unless he provides clear details. He is free to create a page in userspace to reflect the content as he would have it organized, and then allow interested editors to review it and make such changes to the main article based on that proposed text as they find agreeable. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

speaking in the third person is an intended to be somewhat humorous; as we generally don't allow "I" in wikipedia content, this editor doesn't use it on his talk page either.

I dig humor. I dig the Barsoom references. But you will admit that you were confusingly inconsistant in your use of the third person twice and the first person once in the same response. And it was AnnYoung who bandied about the word sockpuppet, I just wanted an explanation of your idiosyncratic behavior, which I am unfamiliarr with.

Have you read the article? Eschoir (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we now criticizing someone for using the word "I" once by mistake? And, yes, I have read the article. It has numerous flaws, as has already been said. Like I said, and like I did with Athanasius of Alexandria at one point, it can be and often is the best way to deal with content that is protected to create a different version of the article in userspace, linking to that article here on the talk page, and making all the changes you want to that version. Then, when you're done, you can place a edit request on this page. But really there is no purpose served by criticizing others with no evidence and for no discernible purpose. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we're criticizing someone for not assuming that an administrator had made a mistake while trying to be somewhat humorous, aren't we? Thank you for the simple affirmative answer. I will provide a link to the sandbox version soon. In the mean time, I will try to procure a copy of the McGowoan book Ascetic Eucharists. Can you spare $310?Eschoir (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

sandbox

Reorganization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eschoir/Sandbox here. Please only add, do not delete. Eschoir (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LEt's not knock each other down in our hurry to add to this sandbox . . . Eschoir (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to WEsley Theological SEminary for a copy of McGowen. Laying down a few pertinent quotes. Eschoir (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorporated elements from Eucharist article - will meld then together Eschoir (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir

This page has been protected because of Eschoir's attempts to impose his ideas against, it seems to me, all comers. I hoped that by keeping off this page I might facilitate progress. But now Eschoir, not being able to insert his ideas here, is pushing them at Eucharist. Is that good Wikipedia practice?

My disfigurement of his "History of the Eucharist" section at Eucharist with a multitude of citation and verification requests is, in the abstract, something I should not have done. I have had recourse to it only because he removed my generic request concerning the section as a whole.

Some of my queries concern the use of tendentious terms such as "bread and cup course" instead of just "bread and cup". I question whether the sources on which he professes to base his text use such terms. Lima (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreement has been reached to leave discussion of the origin of the Eucharist to this page. Lima (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I regret that Eschoir has gone back on his agreement. I will wait a little more before making a formal general appeal for intervention on the Eucharist page, in the hope that, as here, participation by others will bring about a more settled situation. Lima (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Source Check

In line with John Carter's remarks, I propose replacing anonymous tertiary sources and secondary sources more than 100 years old with signed or more contemporary sources that say the same thing. Eschoir (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

terrible misuse of cited source

Whoever wrote this paragraph needs to work harder on making material encyclopedic. Would you find something like this in a regular encyclopedia? No. The extended quotes and long appeals to authority are out of place. They suggest a over eager attempt to get one's POV across. I'm going to fix it.

The "Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" says: "The institution of the Eucharist is recorded by St [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]] in {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|11:23–25}} and in the three [[Synoptic Gospels]]."<ref name=CODCC>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O95-Eucharist.html Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2000 {{ISBN|0-19-280057-4}})</ref> There are thus, as the 1800-page Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church of 2005 states, "four accounts of its institution, one by St Paul in {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|11:23-25}} and three in the Synoptic Gospels ({{bibleverse||Matthew|26:26-28}}, {{bibleverse||Mark|14:22-24}}, {{bibleverse||Luke|22:17-20}})."<ref name=ODCC>Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 {{ISBN|978-0-19-280290-3}}), article ''Eucharist''</ref> "It is recorded as celebrated by the early Christian community at [[Jerusalem in Christianity|Jerusalem]] and by St Paul on his visit to Troas ({{bibleverse||Acts|20:7}})."<ref name=ODCC/> The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church concludes that from a very early date the service was a regular part of Christian worship, and was held to have been instituted by Christ.<ref name=ODCC/>

Leadwind (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ODCC, Tyndale, Metzger, Jesus Seminar on Paul and Eucharist

Someone keeps trying to make the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church say what it doesn't say. It never says that the Bible accounts contradict the idea that Paul innovated the Lord's Supper. There's no contradiction between Paul innovating the Lord's Supper and a work written a generation later (Luke-Acts) saying that it was practiced before Paul. Those two facts can both be true at the same time (what Paul did and what Luke-Acts says). As for the Tyndale Bible Dictionary, my Bible and my textbook both say that 1 Cor was written to a congregation that Paul has established. If TBD says 1 Cor was written before Paul starting his mission work, could we see the quote? It's dubious. I know that Christians want to defend the idea that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, but let's stick to what the reliable sources say. Leadwind (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary does say that the Eucharist was celebrated by the early Christian community at Jerusalem, and that "from a very early date" the service was held to have been instituted by Christ. The Tyndale Dictionary says nothing so silly as to affirm that 1 Corinthians was written before Paul began his missionary work: what it says is: "We may assume that the tradition that the apostle Paul received, followed, and passed on to others went back to his earliest years as a Christian"; may I presume that Leadwind knows that it is taken that there was an interval of about eight years between Saul/Paul's conversion and his first missionary journey, and another five years before his arrival for a two-year stay in Corinth, and another seven before he wrote 1 Corinthians, a total of about twenty years between his earliest year as a Christian and his writing that letter? The Tyndale Dictionary takes it that Paul learned of the Eucharist service (by whatever name then known) some twenty years before he wrote to the Corinthians about what he had received. Let's stick to what these two reliable sources say, even if one editor dislikes what they say. Or, at the very least, let us include in the article what these two reliable sources say. Defteri (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

re-org

This page is a series of sections with no coherent structure. That's probably because this page has been a POV battlefield, and the partisans on both sides find it easier to deal with controversial material in discrete chunks. Like any other article on a historical topic, however, it should be in chronological order: cultural background, appearance of the Eucharist (esp. in NT), development of the Eucharist to its current form. I volunteer to re-org the page. Leadwind (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the page is a huge mess; however, I think it goes beyond just organizational issues. But go ahead and take your shot at it. I'll be watching. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's problems go way beyond organization, but organizing the material in the first place will help us deal with the content problems. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The re-org is underway. The new organization isn't perfect, but it's moving toward better structure. Leadwind (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The overall re-org is done. Material is combined into a smaller number of more general headers. Contemporary scholarship is now incorporated into the sections that it relates to rather than being segregated at the end. The central issue of where the Eucharist came from appears early in the article. There's still a lot of clean up to do. We could stand to lose the references to the 1926 Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, the entire cultural influences section is needlessly large. It could be a page of its own, with this page featuring a summary. We also need more about the theology of the Eucharist. When did it become the sacrament that confers grace to the celebrants, that sort of thing. Leadwind (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Defteri's edits

I reverted Defteri's edits - specifically this one - on the grounds of WP:SYNthesis and WP:OR. Sourcing "some eight years before he began his missionary activity, and twenty before he wrote that letter to a congregation that he had established about seven years before" with a reference that says "Conversion in 34, first missionary journey begun in 47/48, 1 Corinthians in 54" is cut-and-dry synthesis. The second section just uses the Bible as a source for something that sort of goes above and beyond that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it OK now? I presume you do not suggest that, while it is permitted to give the sourced dates of three events, it is forbidden to indicate what were the intervals in years between the dates. Defteri (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, please don't let Defteri's tone get to you. Defteri altered his edit. Has Defteri addressed your concern that his sentence represented a synthesis to advance a POV? I don't think so. Leadwind (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)