Talk:Last Supper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
The nonsense of "after pantomine practice" entered the Last Supper page at "15:58, 12 Dec" by 195.194.148.2
"15:56" was the first abuse, "15:58" then reverted most but not all of the first abuse, leaving that nonsense fragment with its unusual spelling behind.
195.194.148.2 received a "fourth level warning" on 19 Dec.
This talk page and the article are from 2001 before there was a cut-and-paste move of the article to The Last Supper
If anyone cares, I have put the three variant names (Eucharist, Communion, and Lord's Supper) as redirection links to this page because the Last Supper is the common root of their history, and they are best understood in that context.
As an attempt to support the Neutral Point of View, I didn't see that using any of the three names as the main document name would support neutrality. All traditions can agree that their observance meeting is from the Last Supper, but there are those who would be upset characterizing their observance as 'just another name' for another denomination's service.
Larry, so you disagree with my reasoning?
I personally don't see anything wrong with it...
- well, I would disagree that people in the Catholic tradition would expect The Last Supper to be the main entry. The Eucharistic liturgy is part - the greater part, but still part - of the Mass. Communion as practiced in much of the Protestant tradition is at its most frequent weekly (the denomination called the 'Christian Churches') and often only quarterly (the Calvinist tradition). So, no, I don't think it's neutral. Certainly the highly developed Catholic *theology* of the Eucharist is going to get an entry of its own, at least. In the Catholic tradition "communion" has another, separate ecclesiological meaning of 'what bishops are in union with each other", sobornost in the Russian orthodox tradition. --MichaelTinkler
You know my name; it would be nice to know yours!
I guess I am disagreeing with your reasoning, although I apologize for failing to note why I made my changes. (I didn't read closely enough.) I think that each of these traditions has its own meaning and history. Why not put each on its own page? Wikipedia has lots of room to grow; there's no particularly good reason to want to condense everything onto one page. Certainly the roots of each of these traditions can be explored on the one The Last Supper page, insofar as the traditions have similar roots. Otherwise, why should someone go to a page called The Last Supper to learn what's idiosyncratic about the Eucharist, for example? The logical place to look would be a Eucharist page.
Besides, there doesn't have to be any one "main entry," for the same reason--we've got endless room to grow. So I think we should discuss widgets on pages about widgets. :-) --Larry Sanger
Okay, I'll go with separating them, after all you have more experience in this than I do. I agree the theology of the different traditions will make a difference, I just thought that putting them all on the same page would make it easier to contrast and compare, rather than requiring a reader to go to four or more separate pages, with their necessary duplications (due to establishing context).
But it would certainly make sense to compare and contrast them on some page, perhaps The Last Supper. We can do both! This is Wikipedia! --LMS
If I remember correctly, having been brought up as a Catholic, we called it communion just as often as we called it eucharist. I know communion also has another meaning (what Michael mentioned), but that's not something a young boy or girl going their first communion (never in my experience called first eucharist) would realise... We never called it the Lord's Supper though. -- SJK
I am considering editing the following text because I believe it asserts an interpretation more than it presents actual facts; however, being new to Wikipedia I am hesitant to just post an edit without floating the idea first. The current text I wish to edit reads:
'This belief is based on the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels, but the chronology in the Gospel of John has the Last Supper occurring before the Passover, for in that Gospel, Christ's death occurs at the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs (this latter chronology is the one accepted by the Orthodox Church).'
I would propose it should read:
'This belief is based on the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels, but the chronology in the Gospel of John is regarded by many as placing the Last Supper on the evening before the Passover (John 13:1, 18:28). References in John's Gospel to the Day of Preparation of the Passover (John 19:14, 31, and 42), are also taken by many to indicate that Christ's death occured at the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs (this latter chronology is the one accepted by the Orthodox Church). However, those that place the Last Supper during a Thursday evening Passover Seder generally regard Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 as the only explicit references in the Gospels to the slaying of Passover lambs at the time of Christ's crucifixion, and take the Day of Preparation in the Gospel of John as a likely reference to the Passover Friday during which preparations were made for the weekly Sabbath rest.'
I further consider the following statement to be a mischaracterization and overstatement of what the Synoptic Gospels actually say:
'The Synoptic Gospels state ... that in the morning of the same day the Paschal lamb, for the meal, had been sacrificed.'
Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7, in fact only state that the Paschal lambs were killed on the first Day of Unleavened bread during which Jesus' disciples prepared to eat the Passover, without any clear reference as to what portion of the day the slaying took place. The phrase "in the morning" is absent from the Synoptic accounts on this subject so far as I can tell, and therefore the ensuing discussion in the article of the unfamiliarity of Synoptic Gospel writers with Jewish time reckoning has little factual merit in my view.
Absent a specific chapter and verse Gospel reference that substantiates the statement in the article, I would propose to delete that paragraph or at a minimum change it to read that 'The Synoptic Gospels state that the Last Supper took place during a Passover Seder, and imply that in the morning of the same day the Paschal lamb, for the meal, had been sacrificed.' and add at the conclusion of the paragraph that 'The statements of the Synoptic Gospel on the subject of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb are seen by many as being sufficiently broad to allow the sacrifice to have taken place in the evening.'
I also would like input and help on how best to incorporate the specific Gospel chapter and verse references. --RichInChrist
Since no one has chosen to respond to my earlier discussion, I have chosen to make edits to the Chronology Section based on the discussion I presented above. As my statements reflect and credibly defend the widely held opinion of a Thursday evening Last Supper during a Passover Seder while acknoledging alternative views, I feel my edits are in accordance with the NPOV.
I also believe that John 13:1 does not state that the Last Supper was held before the Passover, but rather that boiled down it states "Now before the Feast of Passover ... He loved (His own disciples who were in the world) to the end". The greek here is very difficult, so I won't be dogmatic, but it appears to me that the many qualifying phrases simply are intended to distinguish this particular Passover from the previous ones in John's Gospel where Christ's hour had not yet come.
The statement that those who turned Jesus over to Pilate would not enter the Preatorium so that they might eat the Passover (John 18:28) is probably the most compelling verse for holding that John's Gospel presents an alternative chronology from that of the Synoptic Gospels. However, scholors such as Mathew Henry have identified other sacrifices offered during the day following the evening Passover meal (called the Chagigah or passover-bullock) that would have been eaten by the priestly class and likely would have been considered to be part of eating the Passover. --RichInChrist
I'm going to remove the vandalism from this article (the Big Mac reference and other atrocities).--128.36.70.128 17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The last supper was very happy because Jesus The Lord, has resen again. I've got here song for you
(1) Lord Jesus Christ you will come to us Mary Son; you have a tancion ofcourse you do you have a love from us; living lord!
So lights up the fire let them grow. Open the doors and Jesus Return. Take sits of the spirit let them grow, and tell to the people of Jesus that he is love show
(2) Go Through the park turn into the mind; the sun has go up the night came to die and ask to the people of Jesus where is he gone
So lights up the fire let them grow. Open the doors and Jesus Return. Take sits of the spirit let them grow, and tell to the people of Jesus that he is love show
Contents |
[edit] Just a note on signing comments
Please remember to sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically print your signature and date-stamp the comment. Thank you. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The decision to entitle this article The Last Supper strikes me as odd. The phrase "The Last Supper" occurs nowhere in scripture. The designations The Lord's Supper, Communion, and Eucharist either occur in scripture (I Corinthians 11:20 κυριακον δειπνον, Lord's Supper) in direct reference to the Christian practice or derive from Biblical discussion of the same (I Corinthians 10:16, κοινωνια ... του αιματος του Χριστου ... κοινωνια του σωματος Χριστου, "communion ... of the blood of Christ ... communion of the body of Christ"; I Corinthians 11:24 και ευχαριστησας "and having given thanks" [eucharistesas]). Also, I think that it ought to be acknowledged that the earliest account is not that of Mark or the other Evangelists but that which the Apostle Paul says he received from the Lord (I Corinthians 11:23 and following).Bro. Neal 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just saw this on MSN 07/27/2007 ... New ‘Last Supper’ theory crashes Web sites Amateur scholar claims Leonardo painting reveals mysterious figures
[edit] Da Vinci code
The Last Supper painting is argued to confirm that the figure to the lest of Jesus is not John, but Mary Magdalene, Jesus's wife... see Da Vinci Code, q.v. , a book of FICTION, but written esp from theories of Jesus marrying the Magdalene esp espoused in Holy Blood Holy Grail, q.v.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.179.179 (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The claims of The Da Vinci Code are poppycock. Dan Brown is really good at drumming up controversy, which is really good for drumming up sales. But his "historical research" is laughable, as a number of real historians have proved beyond doubt. With regard to "Mary Magdalene" in the Last Supper, even the most cursory examination of other contemporary artists reveals that they also depict John as a young man with delicate features, an artistic tradition which was already old in Da Vinci's day. There is nothing remarkable in his depiction of John in the Last Supper; nothing to suggest he intended anything other than a traditional Christian depiction. The work was, after all, commissioned; and any sensible artist is not going to challenge the beliefs of his client. Da Vinci was a good businessman, whatever his personal beliefs might have been. At any rate, imho, this discussion probably belongs in the article The Last Supper (Leonardo) rather than here. MishaPan (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Superimposed images of Da Vinci's pix
Supposedly superimposing DaVinci's Last Supper with its mirror image produces an additional figure that looks like a Templar Knight and another figure cradling a baby. In addition, a chalice appears in front of Jesus. I have seen the chalice, but don't have the proper tools to examine the image further. Jim-Merced, CA
- I don't see the things you say. Where can I get a wiki-copyright-compatible better resolution version of this pix, to produce a better overlaid image? E4mmacro 06:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Earliest description
I rectified what looked like a glaring omission - the first written description of the Lord's Supper, that in 1 Cor. I suppose there will be some objection to saying the next description is Mark's - some will claim Matthew, but it appears clumsy to say the next written description is one of the synoptic gospels, which ever was written first. E4mmacro 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
