quote:
Possibly it was the Passover but perhaps not. However, the original words used when describing the Last Supper bread are those used when refering to regular bread rather than unleavened bread. This indicates that the Last Supper may have actually occurred during the days of preparation which occurs prior to the Passover meal. Whether it occured as part of a Passover meal or not however makes absolutely no difference to me.
you might as well all give up in trying to explain the significance of the last supper and the passover meal to petro - he clearly doesnt understand the passover well enough to see the correlation.
how bout you crack your Bible open to Luke 22:1-23 and read the Last Supper once more Petro.
quote:
1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.
7Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."
9"Where do you want us to prepare for it?" they asked.
10He replied, "As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11and say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 12He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there."
13They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him." 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
the importance of the Last Supper being the Passover meal IS EVERYTHING is important about it being the Last Supper. It is the FULFILLMENT of the Passover (Jesus' words - not mine).
- The lack of the lamb in the meal, and Jesus' very words in the meal, signifies Jesus as the Pascal Lamb - the lamb who being sacrificed allows God's judgment to Pass Over us just like the original passover.
- The Jews believed that the Passover took place outside of time and space - that when they shared in the passover meal, they too were experiencing the Passover that took place in Egypt - Jesus used the same word for "remembrance" in the Last Supper that the Jews used to refer to the "remembrance" of the Passover - this is how we know that the Eucharist is our sharing at the SAME TABLE - not metaphorically, but TRULY THERE, TRULY PRESENT.
You are getting hung up in details about "what if a family couldn't afford a lamb - or what if it was stolen or it died..."
Well... if you bothered to look in your bible, Exodus tells you what they did:
quote:
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb [a] for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.
It was done as a community, and people shared if they couldn't afford or come by one themselves.
You keep harping on this "what if they UNINTENTIONALLY used something other then a lamb" or what if they "couldn't find a sheep?"
Exodus is very clear as to what they were supposed to do. It gave pretty explicit instructions: SHARE WITH THE NEAREST NEIGHBOR!
The Jews knew what they were supposed to do, there wasn't a question of what it was supposed to be - in fact if was VERY specific: "The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats"
As for the significance of the species of the Eucharist, Jesus KNEW His disciples would understand the significance of the bread and wine - and that they would not use other species.
look just a couple of verses ahead in the Passover instructions in Exodus:
quote:
14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance. 15 For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. 16 On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do.
17 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 18 In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. 19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. 20 Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread."
PRETTY SURE that God commanded that it be Unleavened Bread... i mean... He only had Moses command it TEN TIMES in SIX verses. He even goes so far as to say that if you eat anything else - YOU'RE OUT OF ISREAL!!!!
I dunno about you... but I'm pretty sure that God didnt want His people to eat anything other than unleavened bread.
You think the Apostles got the memo? What do you think the odds are that Peter or John were thinking, "I wonder if it'd be alright if we did this with Matzah Balls instead..."
He didn't have to provide us a passage in the New Testament saying "use only unleavened bread and wine" because the Jews KNEW that it was the fulfillment of the Passover - in which they had a VERY specific menu.
Like it or not, they had not only scripture, but TRADITION, and they knew what Jesus wanted through both His direct teachings that night, and the tradition of passover - including its required menu.
Take your anti-Catholic glasses off for a moment, and actually TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE saying.
We're pointing to an even deeper meaning behind the many already significant aspects of the Christian Faith.
quote:
a) the ceremony is being presided over by a Apostolic priest?
b) because the host consists of unleavened bread and wine?
If either of the above is not present, does that mean that the Eucharist is not present? Why? Surely it isn't because God isn't capable of turning items into his flesh and blood without a priest's assistance or if it isn't a specific food product. So is it a matter of God not wanting to do it when those two situations aren't present?
Yes, a lack of either of those means that the Eucharist ISNT PRESENT.
Why?
Not because God can't make it happen without those two things... Not because He NEEDS those things to make it happen - but because those are the things that He ORDAINED NECESSARY for it to happen.
So yes, in a manner of speaking - it is "God not wanting to do it when those two aren't present."
He gave us a sacrifice and a sacrament in which to commemorate and share in that sacrifice, if we don't offer it according to the way He asked us to, then we ARE NOT sharing in it.
I'm not trying to start a denomination battle here, but if you think that doritos and a coke can be a valid Eucharist - you are POORLY mistaken, not because God can't make it valid... but because He told us under what circumstances He will make it valid, and doritos and a coke dont qualify.
[This message has been edited by kbaum07 (edited 5/30/2008 3:27a).]