Talk:Eucharist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eucharist article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 Dec 2003 - Jul 2005
Archive 2 Jul 2005 - Jan 2006
Archive 3 Jan 2006 - Nov 2007
Archive 4 Nov - Dec 2007


Contents

[edit] Requires prior knowledge

One of the very worst articles regarding christian rituals in the entire Wiki. Not only does it require tons of prior knowledge to even be understandable--such as the out-of-the-freakin-blue mention of "any real change in the bread or wafer" without(!) even mentioning what the heck transsubstantiation means--it doesn't make much sense even with that required prior knowledge. I am so tempted to say that this is "typical for religious zealots", but that would be a) falling to temptation, and b) an ad hominem. I have read the entire article thrice, and I still haven't got a clue what the eucharist even is. I somehow gathered that it's a rite, but that's about it. Seriously, I haven't got a clue. This article is beyond the pale. Shape up, or delete it immediately. 128.214.133.2 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In essence it is a cracker that probably was unleavened bread which serves as part of the passover meal of bitter spices on roasted lamb, and unleavened bread. The meal was suppose to be a reminder to Israel of the haste of leaving Egypt after the plagues. The reminder in the New Testament is that the perfect sacrificial lamb is Christ, whose body and blood not only serve as a reminder of our redemption from slavery, but are the very essence of our salvation. As death came by Adam, so to in Christ the last Adam, Jesus has brought the congregation up out of sin into the promise of eternal rest by his body on the cross, his blood being the purchase of our souls. User:bwildasi Wed Apr 16 01:31:57 UTC 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.50.80 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There's a reason for the WP:RS rule

I'm checking footnnotes and I find the primary sources routinely selectively quoted and not given proper sourcing.

I would propose rather than starting with bickering about content, start with makinig proper footnotes and eliminating all pontificating on the primary sources quoted. Give the translator and year of publilshing of all primary sources, and don't use anonymous sources.

Start there. Eschoir 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Bad sources are a good way to mess up a page. With good sources, even people who disagree with each other can work together. Leadwind (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested reapportionment of existing material

Eucharist (Theology) Contents
1.0 Names currently in use for Eucharist (partially new)
2.4 Some early sources on the Eucharist
2.4.1 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
2.4.2 Mark 14:22-25

2.4.3 Matthew 26:26-29
2.4.4 Luke 22:13-20

2.4.5 Didache

2.4.6 Ignatius of Antioch

2.4.7 Justin Martyr

4 Ritual and liturgy
4.2 Anglican
4.3 Baptist
4.4 Eastern Christianity
4.5 Jehovah's Witnesses
4.6 Latter Day Saint movement
4.7 Lutheran
4.8 Reformed/Presbyterian
4.9 Roman Catholicism
4.10 Open and closed communion
3 Christian theology concerning the Eucharist
3.1 Roman Catholic Church
3.2 Eastern Christianity: true sacrifice and objective presence but pious silence on the particulars
3.3 Anglicans/Episcopalians: Real Presence with opinion
3.4 Lutherans — the sacramental union: "in, with, and under the forms"
3.5 Methodism — Real Presence as "Holy Mystery"
3.6 Calvinist Reformed: spiritual feeding, "pneumatic" presence
3.7 Latter Day Saint movement
3.8 Zwinglian Reformed: no Real Presence
3.9 Summary of views
6 See also
7 References
8 Books
9 External links
9.1 Liturgical texts & services
9.2 History, theology, practice, etc.

Eucharist (Origins) Contents [hide]
1 Histories and Derivations of Names used for Eucharist
2 History
2.05 Traditional view (words of institution)
2.75 Contemporary view (scholarship)
2.1 Jewish origins
4.0 Greek precursors (new)
5.2 Dionysus theory
5.25 Mithras theory (new)
5.3 Theophagy theory
5.4 Mushroom theory
4.1 The Agape feast
2.2 Allusions to the Eucharist in the New Testament
2.3 Early Christianity
5.1 Jesus Seminar
5.5 Survey of views on blood-drinking in the Eucharist

Eschoir 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still gotta cut by half.

First to go, the quotations from primary sources that should be linked.Eschoir (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just one more of Eschoir's distractions, intended to dodge discussion. Clear up one problem before creating more. Lima (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone stopping you from discussing? Eschoir (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead

Eschoir did a bang-up job on the lead, and I have high standards for leads. Lima reverted it without explanation. FTR, I'm for Exchoir's new, better lead. Leadwind (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening, Leadwind. You are the answer to my oft-repeated pleas for someone to do so. I have confidence that you will discuss matters rationally. May I add that I agree fully with, I think, absolutely all the changes you have made to Eschoir's text. Many more are needed. I wish you joy in your work on this article, even if - or rather, especially if - Eschoir continues to employ the same tactics. It was impossible to keep up with all his many changes; so I insisted that we discuss one section at a time, leaving to him the choice of section. I could not accept his constantly shifting text as a basis for discussion, except, as I said, one section at a time. Now that you have compared the latest introduction with the older, I have no difficulty in accepting that the older be replaced. Lima (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I trust Leadwind will notice that Eschoir has once more put back a version of his own without deigning to discuss the differences between it and the text that existed before he made his personal changes. Even the older version has many elements of his, and it is good to see that Leadwind has begun dealing with them. While some (by no means all) of Eschoir's edits are quite acceptable, others have appeared to be only means of distracting attention away from concrete discussion of any of them. One excellent result (so far) of Leadwind's intervention is that Eschoir has ceased adding more of the changes that I refused to allow to distract from the topic(s) under discussion. Lima (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While some (by no means all) of Eschoir's edits are quite acceptable, others have appeared to be only means of distracting attention away from concrete discussion of any of them.

So you are reverting edits that are acceptable to you? Why?Eschoir (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To try to get you to discuss your changes, one section at a time, instead of continually inserting distractions. Lima (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, stop reverting Eschoir just because you want him to edit slower, OK? If you don't have a reason to revert, don't revert. Plus, no editor gets to set the pace of editing. Now, is Eschoir doing something wrong that you'd like me to try to help you stop? Is there some biased, anti-RCC POV that he's pushing somewhere? Leadwind (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never accused Eschoir of bias, only of inexactitude, and of making Wikipedia state as fact what is only the opinion of some writer he likes. I am glad that you have started dealing with the problem. Please keep it up.
The primary sources that you are working on now, who do you think put them in? Lima (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That's just sad, Lima. Eschoir (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I applaud your quick work, Leadwind. I question the usefulnes of the Ignatius and Justin Martyr excerpts in the body, they are candidates for linking. Didache too, for that matter. Trim those, review the sources (II would lean to a 'no sources from pre-Dead Sea Scrolls' rule)and links and the appropriateness of the Footnotes, and this article is about ready for prime time. Eschoir (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two requests

  1. The references (footnotes) are in a mess. Would the authors of this version please fix them.
  2. If the lead is supposed to summarize the article, something must be done about the affirmations in it about the origins and history of the Eucharist, since these questions are no longer dealt with in the article.

Lima (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article should address the origins and history of the E, as should the lead. Leadwind (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Then would you please undo Eschoir's hiving off of all that matter and making it into a new separate article. I have given up trying to undo Eschoir's changes, now that someone else is doing the work much more effectively. Thanks. Lima (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Some idiot (me) had imbedded one reference in another. Weird. Fixed. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The origins was 'hived off' with your approval, Lima. At 78KB the article is still too long. Eschoir (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it be easier to remove the history summary from the lead and leave the history matter elsewhere? Lima (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Have you decided whether you are pro- or anti-hive?Eschoir (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank God, I can now leave such matters to Leadwind, who is doing good work on the article and has yet more to do.
He will, I am sure, also do something about the "see below" in the introduction that refers to a section on names for the Eucharist that he has temporarily hidden. He may perhaps wish to restore the "Names" section to something like (of course, not exactly the same text as) how it was in September 2005, when it was called "Terminology". It was considered important then, because of differences of view on what should be the title of the article. Lima (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "No last supper in John"

I have not made the obvious correction to this evidently false statement, by changing the words "last supper", since Leadwind, who has attributed the statement to a source (not quoted exactly), doesn't want me to touch what he attributes to sources. So I can only put in a citation request, seeing that I cannot believe that Harris did made this statement. After all, Harris doesn't hold - or does he? - that Jesus had another supper after the one immediately before his arrest to which John devotes five chapters (13-17). And Leonardo's painting of the Last Supper is taken to represent the reactions of the disciples when, at the meal John writes of, Jesus told them: "One of you will betray me", as described in John 13:21-25, not in the other gospels. Lima (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad. There's a last supper, but no bread, wine, body, blood, or covenant. Leadwind (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow! How could he have left all that out? Was it so unimportant that he just forgot it? 51kwad (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
In John, the "bread of life" discourse in Chapter 6 takes the place of the Institution Narrative at the Last Supper. Virtually all scholars believe that John was the last Gospel written, so its first readers would have been familiar with at least one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), not to mention the oral "tradition" of the Words of Institution, as recorded by Paul in I Corinthians 11:23-25 (Also, in all probability, I Corinthians was written before any of the Gospels were put in writing.) --Midnite Critic (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Histories and Derivations of Names in use for Eucharist

This section is a giant pile of punishment for the reader. It might be worth saving as a separate page. Leadwind (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Or it might perhaps be reduced to what it was three months ago, when it was only "Names for the Eucharist". Lima (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and it was only 675 words long the day of my first post, in September. Now it's up to a bloated . . . erm. . . 525 words long. Without footnotes. Get your facts straight before you make accusations. Eschoir (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anabaptist View

I noticed there is no mention of the Anabaptist tradition. Any reason why this should not be added? 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins, elements, anthropological analysis and comparitive religion

I actually came to the Eucharist article when searching for "Holy Communion." What I was looking for was more information about the roots of the rite and its commonality with other rites, symbology and beliefs in other spiritual practices. While, 'Eucharist' is a christian topic, i was hoping that at least there would be mention as to such things such as parallels in other cultures and traditions.

Just throwing it out there. Maybe it was discussed before. But just curious. Thank you.

Lehel Kovach (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Edit

Referring to the "Calvinist Reformed: spiritual feeding, "pneumatic" presence" part of this page, I felt that the wording of "Many Reformed Christians, who follow John Calvin hold that Christ's body..." is incorrect. Calvinists are Christians, we follow Christ, not John Calvin. I've decided to edit it to "Many Reformed Christians hold that Christ's body..." in order to be more correct. (Also hope I did this in the right =p) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)