Leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist

kx9

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
 

jmbejdl

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Aylesbury
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Your information is incorrect. It is one of the differences between us and the RCs but was not in itself a cause of the Great Schism. We do believe that it is wrong to use unleavened bread but Rome had been doing it prior to the Schism whilst remaining in communion with us. The practice was criticised but it was not used as a reason for severing communion.

James
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This is interesting...
Why was it criticised? What exactly is the reason(s) for claiming that it is a doubtful practise?

As an RC, I have not really heard exactly why this point was in dispute. According to RC sacramental theology, it does not affect the validity of the sacrament at all.

As a wild guess... Was it considered wrong by the Easterners because the bread people normally ate at the time of Christ was leavened and that it was this bread He used himself?
If so, it would be an argument which I  would  personally be very sympathetic to, at least initially, even if it turns out to be wrong, since I am always more sympathetic to the traditional side  in any dispute anyway :)

 

kx9

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jmbejdl said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Your information is incorrect. It is one of the differences between us and the RCs but was not in itself a cause of the Great Schism.  
I obtained this information from Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism
...Prominent among these were the issues of "filioque", whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist[3] the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.[4]


We do believe that it is wrong to use unleavened bread
So what is the reason that it is an error to use unleavened bread?

I heard that the Catholic position why they believe that using unleavened bread is correct is that [The passover week is for eating unleavened bread, Exodus 12:18-20]
 

jmbejdl

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Aylesbury
kx9 said:
I obtained this information from Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism
...Prominent among these were the issues of "filioque", whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist[3] the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.[4]
I was about to say 'don't trust Wikipedia' but then went and read the passage in question and it seems to me that you just misinterpreted it. It doesn't say it was a cause of the schism but that it was one of the things which east and west had disputed prior to the schism, which is closer to what I wrote in my reply.


So what is the reason that it is an error to use unleavened bread?

I heard that the Catholic position why they believe that using unleavened bread is correct is that [The passover week is for eating unleavened bread, Exodus 12:18-20]
I doubt I know all the reasoning behind it, though I could probably look it up, but we certainly don't believe that the Last Supper took place during Passover but rather before and I'm pretty certain that the Greek used specifies leavened not unleavened bread (artos as opposed to azymes).

James
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
I hope you have read and found the answers to be informative (I certainly did). I think, however, that the larger question is whether such a difference is indicative of larger issues. I think that the reason why the EO made such a big deal about this is that they were (and still are) opposed to the RC way of forging ahead without regard to the rest of the Church--that is, as if only the Roman Catholic Church is the Church. I think it was quite natural for the RC to then proclaim the unorthodox (and heretical) dogma of Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, for example. So, this is issue is tied in with many others, just as it was in the 11th Century.
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
The schism is about good ole Power. Who gets to wield it and who does not. Leavened or unleavened bread and all the rest is just superfluous trappings.

I think it was quite natural for the RC to then proclaim the unorthodox (and heretical) dogma of Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, for example. So, this is issue is tied in with many others, just as it was in the 11th Century.
That is not the song that was being sung at the Council of Florence.
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
If one looks at the actual 11th and 12th century sources, it is the main issue.

The Byzantines saw unleavened bread (άζυμα) as a Judaizing practice, a denial of the new life in Christ, and also as an Apollinarian denial that Christ had a human soul, since the bread had no "soul" in it. See the works of Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, Niketas Stethatos, or even the 13th century records of the union negotiations at Nymphaeum. The main issue was Christological for the Byzantines: only those who deny some aspect of the Incarnation, and Christ's presence in the bread, would use a flat, lifeless, Jewish-inspired, Old Law-style bread for Holy Communion. There were also linguistic and historical arguments, e.g. the Scripture talks of Christ using άρτος (leavened bread), not άζυμα (unleavened).

The Latins/Germans, in turn, said the Byzantines were Judaizers for not shaving their beards, as if they were Nazarenes.

In short, there were a lot of polemics having to do with liturgical customs. Both sides believed they had the original tradition and explained the significance of those traditions with various theological arguments. Very, very few of the polemical works discussed the filioque: that had more or less reached a detente after the healing of the Photian schism, although it could obviously pop up as another example in the long list of contested practices.

Modern scholars have shown that both leavened and unleavened bread were used in the early centuries, but that leavened became the norm for several centuries, to be replaced in the West no later than the time of Bede. Armenians, however, started to use unleavened a bit earlier. It may actually be the Byzantine dislike for Armenians that played a role in their dislike of the unleavened bread they saw in the Latin rite churches in Constantinople in the 11th century. Also, they didn't like that the new German-backed Pope was making the Byzantine Rite churches in Italy use it.

So, in summary, leavened bread had been the most common thing for some time, but it became common in the West to use unleavened bread for centuries leading up to the 11th century, and, as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all.

Basically, no one knew about how diverse Christian liturgical practices had been, and assumed their way was the only way ever. As for why this became such a big issue: Much easier to get excited about something tangible like this. Just look at people's visceral (and theological) responses to those who have used or proposed using something like Doritos and Pepsi for communion today; or, less extreme, the polemics one can find over beards and clerical attire.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
pensateomnia said:
as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all
What is the source for this?  I'd love to read it.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
pensateomnia said:
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
If one looks at the actual 11th and 12th century sources, it is the main issue.

The Byzantines saw unleavened bread (άζυμα) as a Judaizing practice, a denial of the new life in Christ, and also as an Apollinarian denial that Christ had a human soul, since the bread had no "soul" in it. See the works of Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, Niketas Stethatos, or even the 13th century records of the union negotiations at Nymphaeum. The main issue was Christological for the Byzantines: only those who deny some aspect of the Incarnation, and Christ's presence in the bread, would use a flat, lifeless, Jewish-inspired, Old Law-style bread for Holy Communion. There were also linguistic and historical arguments, e.g. the Scripture talks of Christ using άρτος (leavened bread), not άζυμα (unleavened).

The Latins/Germans, in turn, said the Byzantines were Judaizers for not shaving their beards, as if they were Nazarenes.

In short, there were a lot of polemics having to do with liturgical customs. Both sides believed they had the original tradition and explained the significance of those traditions with various theological arguments. Very, very few of the polemical works discussed the filioque: that had more or less reached a detente after the healing of the Photian schism, although it could obviously pop up as another example in the long list of contested practices.

Modern scholars have shown that both leavened and unleavened bread were used in the early centuries, but that leavened became the norm for several centuries, to be replaced in the West no later than the time of Bede. Armenians, however, started to use unleavened a bit earlier. It may actually be the Byzantine dislike for Armenians that played a role in their dislike of the unleavened bread they saw in the Latin rite churches in Constantinople in the 11th century. Also, they didn't like that the new German-backed Pope was making the Byzantine Rite churches in Italy use it.

So, in summary, leavened bread had been the most common thing for some time, but it became common in the West to use unleavened bread for centuries leading up to the 11th century, and, as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all.

Basically, no one knew about how diverse Christian liturgical practices had been, and assumed their way was the only way ever. As for why this became such a big issue: Much easier to get excited about something tangible like this. Just look at people's visceral (and theological) responses to those who have used or proposed using something like Doritos and Pepsi for communion today; or, less extreme, the polemics one can find over beards and clerical attire.
Great post. Thanks, you always have good stuff. Informative as it is disheartening. Seems as if they go hand in hand.

 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
choy said:
pensateomnia said:
as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all
What is the source for this?  I'd love to read it.
Here is something else to consider: The leavened bread represents the Risen Christ, the living Christ in that the warmth of the hot water that is added to the wine (red, never white) reminds us that God in Christ is alive and our Salvation.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JoeS2 said:
choy said:
pensateomnia said:
as Cardinal Humbert pointed out, the Byzantines had stopped giving communion in the hand, which was the most ancient of all
What is the source for this?  I'd love to read it.
Here is something else to consider: The leavened bread represents the Risen Christ, the living Christ in that the warmth of the hot water that is added to the wine (red, never white) reminds us that God in Christ is alive and our Salvation.
Oh yes, definitely!  As we have said, the bread is alive, literally!  As the leaven is actually living organism.

But I'd still like to see Cardinal Humbert's statement supporting Communion in the Hand.  I'd like to give some trads a heart attack :p
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
  Oh My I just love the Liturgy, it is the high point of my week.  Its the only thing that matters....
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have to continue this discussion in light of a video I saw of the Armenian OO Archbishop who used unleavened bread, like Latins do, in the Eucharist.

Is this standard OO practice of the Eucharist? Or is this only the Armenian Rite? Or, dare I say, a non-standard practice of the Holy Sacrifice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6erre_9lvc4
 

JoeS2

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
Abington, PA USA
xOrthodox4Christx said:
I have to continue this discussion in light of a video I saw of the Armenian OO Archbishop who used unleavened bread, like Latins do, in the Eucharist.

Is this standard OO practice of the Eucharist? Or is this only the Armenian Rite? Or, dare I say, a non-standard practice of the Holy Sacrifice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6erre_9lvc4
Maybe, but I think they also bless themselves 'left to right' as well. 
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
xOrthodox4Christx said:
I have to continue this discussion in light of a video I saw of the Armenian OO Archbishop who used unleavened bread, like Latins do, in the Eucharist.

Is this standard OO practice of the Eucharist? Or is this only the Armenian Rite? Or, dare I say, a non-standard practice of the Holy Sacrifice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6erre_9lvc4
Standard just for the Armenians.  It has been an issue in the past for the other OO, but not now.  It has not really been an issue for the EO, not like it has been with the Latins.
 

sheenj

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
1,429
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
JoeS2 said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
I have to continue this discussion in light of a video I saw of the Armenian OO Archbishop who used unleavened bread, like Latins do, in the Eucharist.

Is this standard OO practice of the Eucharist? Or is this only the Armenian Rite? Or, dare I say, a non-standard practice of the Holy Sacrifice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6erre_9lvc4
Maybe, but I think they also bless themselves 'left to right' as well. 
All OO cross themselves left to right, but only the Armenians use unleavened bread.
 

sheenj

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
1,429
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
*Facepalm*  :-[

Fixed, thanks for the heads up.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper. 
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper. 
There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,149
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper
Even if we accept the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, this isn't a convincing reason.  The NT clearly distinguishes between leavened bread (ἄρτος) and unleavened bread (ἄζυμος), and all NT accounts of the Last Supper specify that Christ used ἄρτος, even if they disagree on details such as whether or not the Last Supper was actually the Passover meal.        
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Wandile said:
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.  
There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.
The last supper was in Passover week and according to the Law it says :
Lord:


Ex 13:3 And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.
13: 7  Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.
 8 And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.
 

sheenj

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
1,429
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Wandile said:
The last supper was in Passover week
Let's see what St. John has to say about that...

Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. - John 19:31
So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. - John 19:42
The Day of Preparation is when the Leavened bread, or Artos, is discarded and was the day of the Crucifixion, after the Last Supper already occured.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
sheenj said:
Wandile said:
The last supper was in Passover week
Let's see what St. John has to say about that...

Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. - John 19:31
So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. - John 19:42
The Day of Preparation is when the Leavened bread, or Artos, is discarded and was the day of the Crucifixion, after the Last Supper already occured.
Wrong The preparation was a reference to the Sabbath as Mathew , Mark and Luke all point out and as John meant ,since gospels don't contradict each other. The preparation day of the Sabbath is a few days into the Passover week . We read :

order to maintain that Christ ate the Last Supper on the first day of unleavened bread, a response must be formulated to the passage in John 19:14-18, which seems to indicate that Christ was crucified on the “Preparation of the Passover.” First, it must be noted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke each state that Christ was crucified on the “day of preparation.” Matthew, in speaking of the day after Jesus’ crucifixion, affirmed: “Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again’ ” Matthew 27:62-63). Mark’s account, in dealing with the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, observed: “And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus” (15:42-43). Not only did Mark specify the day of Jesus’ crucifixion as “the Preparation,” but he also defined that day for his readers as “the day before the Sabbath.” Finally, Luke related virtually the same facts in 23:50-54:


And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), a man of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain. And it was the day of the Preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper
Even if we accept the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, this isn't a convincing reason.  The NT clearly distinguishes between leavened bread (ἄρτος) and unleavened bread (ἄζυμος), and all NT accounts of the Last Supper specify that Christ used ἄρτος, even if they disagree on details such as whether or not the Last Supper was actually the Passover meal.        
The original language provides no assistance in ascertaining whether the bread was leavened or not. The Greek word used to identify the bread distributed by Christ at the Last Supper is artos (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), which is the general word for any kind of bread (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 110). The use of this word does not exclude the possibility that it was unleavened bread, since the Septuagint translators used the word artos to refer to unleavened bread (Leviticus 8:2,26). At the same time, use of the term does not demand that it was unleavened bread. In fact, another Greek word, azumos, could have been used to mean strictly unleavened bread (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 19). Therefore, from the word used to describe the bread eaten by Jesus at the Last Supper, we can deduce only that it could have been either leavened or unleavened. As noted earlier, the only way to prove from the Bible that the bread was unleavened is to verify that Jesus ate the Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan—the actual Passover.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Wandile said:
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.  
There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.
Further proof is that the last supper happened on the 14th day of Nissan, that's is; the first day of the feast of unleavened bread  

Matthew's account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Wandile said:
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.  
There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.
The last supper was in Passover week and according to the Law it says :
Lord:


Ex 13:3 And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.
13: 7  Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.
 8 And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.
This has been answered at length against the Protestant side of your coin.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25677.msg413150.html#msg413150
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Wandile said:
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.  
There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.
Further proof is that the last supper happened on the 14th day of Nissan, that's is; the first day of the feast of unleavened bread  

Matthew's account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).
According to the Bible (Let. 23:5) the first day of unleavened bread falls on the 15th of Nissan. According to the same source, the sacrifice occurs on the 14th Nissan.  The only way the various verses make sense is if the Mystical Supper happened on the evening of the 14th Nisan, i.e. after sunset between the 13th and 14th, when the Jews get rid of the leaven, Biyur Khametz, e.g.:
Traditionally, Jews do a formal search for remaining leaven (Hebrew chametz, as in bedikat chametz) after nightfall on the evening before Passover. A blessing is read (על ביעור חמץ – al biyur chametz, "on the removal of leaven"), and one or more members of the household proceed from room to room to check that no crumbs remain in any corner. In very traditional families, the search may be conducted by the head of the household; in more modern-style[citation needed] families, the children may be the ones who do the search, under the supervision of their parents.
It is customary to turn off the lights and conduct the search by candlelight, using a feather and a wooden spoon: candlelight effectively illuminates corners without casting shadows; the feather can dust crumbs out of their hiding places; and the wooden spoon which collects the crumbs can be burned the next day with the chametz. However, most contemporary Jewish-Orthodox authorities permit using a flashlight, while some strongly encourage it due to the danger coupled with using a candle. Because the house is assumed to have been thoroughly cleaned by the night before Passover, there is some concern that making a blessing over the search for chametz will be for naught (bracha l'vatala) if nothing is found. Thus, 10 morsels of bread smaller than the size of an olive are traditionally hidden throughout the house in order to ensure that some chametz will be found; today, it is common to exercise this by leaving pieces of dry cold breakfast cereal, Cheerios (which are made of oat flour) and shredded wheat being popular.
On the morning of the 14th of Nisan, any leavened products that remain in the householder's possession, along with the 10 morsels of bread from the previous night's search, are burned (s'rayfat chametz). The head of the household repeats the declaration of biyur chametz, declaring any chametz that may not have been found to be null and void "as the dust of the earth". Should more chametz actually be found in the house during the Passover holiday, it must be burnt as soon as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Search_for.2C_and_burning_of_leaven
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Shanghaiski said:
Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.
Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born  under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Wandile said:
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.  
There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.
Further proof is that the last supper happened on the 14th day of Nissan, that's is; the first day of the feast of unleavened bread  

Matthew's account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).
According to the Bible (Let. 23:5) the first day of unleavened bread falls on the 15th of Nissan. According to the same source, the sacrifice occurs on the 14th Nissan.  The only way the various verses make sense is if the Mystical Supper happened on the evening of the 14th Nisan, i.e. after sunset between the 13th and 14th, when the Jews get rid of the leaven, Biyur Khametz, e.g.:
Traditionally, Jews do a formal search for remaining leaven (Hebrew chametz, as in bedikat chametz) after nightfall on the evening before Passover. A blessing is read (על ביעור חמץ – al biyur chametz, "on the removal of leaven"), and one or more members of the household proceed from room to room to check that no crumbs remain in any corner. In very traditional families, the search may be conducted by the head of the household; in more modern-style[citation needed] families, the children may be the ones who do the search, under the supervision of their parents.
It is customary to turn off the lights and conduct the search by candlelight, using a feather and a wooden spoon: candlelight effectively illuminates corners without casting shadows; the feather can dust crumbs out of their hiding places; and the wooden spoon which collects the crumbs can be burned the next day with the chametz. However, most contemporary Jewish-Orthodox authorities permit using a flashlight, while some strongly encourage it due to the danger coupled with using a candle. Because the house is assumed to have been thoroughly cleaned by the night before Passover, there is some concern that making a blessing over the search for chametz will be for naught (bracha l'vatala) if nothing is found. Thus, 10 morsels of bread smaller than the size of an olive are traditionally hidden throughout the house in order to ensure that some chametz will be found; today, it is common to exercise this by leaving pieces of dry cold breakfast cereal, Cheerios (which are made of oat flour) and shredded wheat being popular.
On the morning of the 14th of Nisan, any leavened products that remain in the householder's possession, along with the 10 morsels of bread from the previous night's search, are burned (s'rayfat chametz). The head of the household repeats the declaration of biyur chametz, declaring any chametz that may not have been found to be null and void "as the dust of the earth". Should more chametz actually be found in the house during the Passover holiday, it must be burnt as soon as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Search_for.2C_and_burning_of_leaven
The law prohibiting leavened bread commences on the 14th.. the bible says

" the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" exodus 12:18-20
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
All moot. The West used leavened bread before the 8th century. Was it wrong?

Wandile said:
Shanghaiski said:
Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.
Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born  under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Shanghaiski said:
Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.
Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)
Proving further that leaven was eaten: the Passover meal is eaten AFTER the passover lamb was sacrificed.  The way you are misreading scripture, it would be Maundy Friday, as they would be eating it Friday evening.

Wandile said:
2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)
Even more proof you are wrong.
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. Leviticus (23:5)
Wandile said:
The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.
Don't know what you are trying to say here.

Wandile said:
3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born  under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses
Yes, why it was leavened bread.

Wandile said:
All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.
You should stop hanging around the Jesus seminar.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Shanghaiski said:
All moot. The West used leavened bread before the 8th century. Was it wrong?

Wandile said:
Shanghaiski said:
Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.
Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born  under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.
Read my first post. I said both traditions are correct. In that they are both valid. They are just based on different theology
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Wandile said:
kx9 said:
The issue over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist is one of the many reasons for the Great Schism of 1054 which split the Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The EOC uses leavened bread while the RCC uses unleavened bread.

So I started this thread to find out why this is such a big issue.

I'd like to hear from both EO's and RC's why their own position (on leavened and unleavened bread) is correct.
Both traditions are correct. The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the "living bread" of the Eucharist must have yeast. The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.  
There is no proof of that last statement. There's no surety that it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Last Supper.
Further proof is that the last supper happened on the 14th day of Nissan, that's is; the first day of the feast of unleavened bread  

Matthew's account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).
According to the Bible (Let. 23:5) the first day of unleavened bread falls on the 15th of Nissan. According to the same source, the sacrifice occurs on the 14th Nissan.  The only way the various verses make sense is if the Mystical Supper happened on the evening of the 14th Nisan, i.e. after sunset between the 13th and 14th, when the Jews get rid of the leaven, Biyur Khametz, e.g.:
Traditionally, Jews do a formal search for remaining leaven (Hebrew chametz, as in bedikat chametz) after nightfall on the evening before Passover. A blessing is read (על ביעור חמץ – al biyur chametz, "on the removal of leaven"), and one or more members of the household proceed from room to room to check that no crumbs remain in any corner. In very traditional families, the search may be conducted by the head of the household; in more modern-style[citation needed] families, the children may be the ones who do the search, under the supervision of their parents.
It is customary to turn off the lights and conduct the search by candlelight, using a feather and a wooden spoon: candlelight effectively illuminates corners without casting shadows; the feather can dust crumbs out of their hiding places; and the wooden spoon which collects the crumbs can be burned the next day with the chametz. However, most contemporary Jewish-Orthodox authorities permit using a flashlight, while some strongly encourage it due to the danger coupled with using a candle. Because the house is assumed to have been thoroughly cleaned by the night before Passover, there is some concern that making a blessing over the search for chametz will be for naught (bracha l'vatala) if nothing is found. Thus, 10 morsels of bread smaller than the size of an olive are traditionally hidden throughout the house in order to ensure that some chametz will be found; today, it is common to exercise this by leaving pieces of dry cold breakfast cereal, Cheerios (which are made of oat flour) and shredded wheat being popular.
On the morning of the 14th of Nisan, any leavened products that remain in the householder's possession, along with the 10 morsels of bread from the previous night's search, are burned (s'rayfat chametz). The head of the household repeats the declaration of biyur chametz, declaring any chametz that may not have been found to be null and void "as the dust of the earth". Should more chametz actually be found in the house during the Passover holiday, it must be burnt as soon as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Search_for.2C_and_burning_of_leaven
The law prohibiting leavened bread commences on the 14th.. the bible says

" the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" exodus 12:18-20
Ah, so you are a Wednesdayist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus_Christ#Day_of_week_and_hour
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wandile said:
Shanghaiski said:
All moot. The West used leavened bread before the 8th century. Was it wrong?

Wandile said:
Shanghaiski said:
Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.
Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)

2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)

The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.

3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born  under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses

All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.
Read my first post. I said both traditions are correct. I'm that they are both valid. They are just based on different theology
Yes, Orthodox and heretical.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,180
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
ialmisry said:
Wandile said:
Shanghaiski said:
Given tradition, it's ridiculous to argue for unleavened bread from Scripture. It's like trying to make a dogmatic argument for a celibate priesthood.
Its ridiculous to argue against unleavened bread given the ample evidence from scripture :

1. The last supper was a Passover meal evidenced by the gospels themselves e.g. "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” Luke (22:7)
Proving further that leaven was eaten: the Passover meal is eaten AFTER the passover lamb was sacrificed.  The way you are misreading scripture, it would be Maundy Friday, as they would be eating it Friday evening.

Wandile said:
2. The law Moses in exodus explicitly banned all leavened bread during the festival of unleavened bread :

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread" Exodus (12:18-20)
Even more proof you are wrong.
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD; seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. And ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days; in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. Leviticus (23:5)
Wandile said:
The very law of Moses that Jesus adhered to strictly bar the Sabbath.
Don't know what you are trying to say here.

Wandile said:
3. Jesus and the disciples kept the law. Jesus was born  under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses
Yes, why it was leavened bread.

Wandile said:
All the evidence and point to unleavened bread and modern scholarship says so too. Its quite undeniable actually.
You should stop hanging around the Jesus seminar.
Exodus 12:18-20
Luke 22:7-15
 
Top