Talk:Theories about the origin of the Eucharist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] table

"Open Commensality" what's that.

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

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This Commensality \Com`men*sal"i*ty\, n. Fellowship at table; the act or practice of eating at the same table. [Obs.] ``Promiscuous commensality. --Sir T. Browne. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

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

[edit] Lima's edits

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Claim not suppported by footnote

In this, Dionysus was like many more Greek gods, "personifications ... (of) human emotions and conditions"[1] felt within individuals, emotions and conditions such as love (Eros), fear (Phobos), youth (Hebe), old age (Geras), memory (Mnemosyne), etc.

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

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

[edit] Perhaps best to let Eschoir have his way

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

[edit] self-published web sites are not RSs

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

I appreciate your even-handedness. Notwithstanding, it's a closer call than that received on first glance. It's part of a church order, a contemporary Didache as it were. I put it in on the basis of its connection to an established church publication, not as a self-published web site, which it is actually not. That having been said, I rather compiled the attribution from inchoate sources. Peake's attribution is an inference, not a cite. Its a slender reed. Win some, lose some. Eschoir (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Peake's manual might not be, strictly speaking, self-published, but it's close. The site is not a scholarly site. I have to say the same thing about E.M.B. Green's address from 1961. It's old, it's used to support Joachim Jeremiah's information (rather than citing Jeremiah directly), and Green doesn't Google up as a stellar Bible scholar. Let's remove the material backed up by nonscholarly web sites. Overall, I'd like to streamline the article. You are doing valuable work in clearing up misinformed assumptions about the early eucharist, but that's better done with a clean, simple article with reputable citations. I'd want to see both web sites in the External Links section, but not cited in the body. Leadwind (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] This article rated B

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

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

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

[edit] restriction to baptized

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

The only accounts of first-century Christian celebrations of the Lord's supper or agape that I can think of are those in 1 Corinthians and Jude. These are spoken of as peculiar to Christians ("your", "you"), and certainly have no hint of participation by anyone outside the Christian community. Do you know of other accounts? Or do you think that the baptized and Christians were different sets of people? Lima (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Some early Christians (believers in Christ) delayed undergoing baptism. Baptism forgave sins, but sins you committed after baptism could bite you. So some believers would wait until they felt they were really ready to wipe their records clean. See Constantine and (I think) the martyr Thecla. If the Didache specifies that the unbaptized get excluded, then that's evidence that there were some unbaptized who wanted to be included and perhaps had been included earlier or elsewhere. If the lord's supper was explicitly restricted to the baptized from day one, surely there's an RS that would say so. Leadwind (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The context is that of first-century Christians, not of fourth-century Constantine (who may have favoured Christianity for political reasons rather than out of personal faith), nor even of the end of the second and the start of the third century, when Tertullian advised (against tradition) that people postpone baptism until they were married: whatever sins they committed before baptism would be forgiven, and marriage would make certain sins less likely. All the first converts to Christianity mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles were baptized immediately, even when large numbers were baptized together. If any first-century people were considered to be Christians without accepting baptism, surely there would be some "Reliable Source" that would say so. Lima (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that Eschoir wants more fight than what he has again provoked at Free Republic. I leave it to you to deal with his edits on this article. Lima (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Lima, I reverted your use of primary sources to support your point. Please find RSs. The Didache doesn't necessarily demonstrate anything about 1st-century practices. Leadwind (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, the earlier eucharist tradition in the Didache (ch. 10) doesn't mention restricting it to the baptized, only the older tradition (ch. 9). Looks like the Didache shows the restriction as a development, not an original element. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So, because Didache 10 does not actually say that only baptized Christians could take part in the Eucharist, it follows that others could! "Looks like" on Talk becomes fact in the article, where it is presented not as someone's theory, but as plain certain obvious fact! And though anyone who reads the Acts of the Apostles can see that, in every case, it says that those who accepted the preaching of the apostles and of other Christians, such as Philip and Ananias, were immediately baptized, and though they can also see that Paul, when writing of baptism to the Christians of Rome and Corinth, spoke of it as something they had all received (in fact presenting baptism as at least as universal as the Eucharist for those he wrote to), and though anyone who reads these passages can verify that they do not square with what is put in Wikipedia, we must prefer what is put in Wikipedia, without a thought for Luke and Paul, and we must all agree that there were in fact people at that early stage who became Christians (whatever that meant) without being baptized, and we must also all agree that it was only later that the unbaptized were excluded from the Eucharist, a notion - sorry, I mean a fact - so obvious that it needs no source to back it up! I must give up this article. Lima (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The only reason for the nascent heirarchy struggling to achive ecclesiastical hegemony articulating a rule saying "Christians (baptized) Only at the agape!" would be to counter a prevailing practice of unbaptized christians at the agape, and the direr the consequences threatened for violation would be in direct proportion to the ubiquity of the violation. That is a fact - so obvious that it needs no source to back it up! But it still would need a RS to be published at wiki in the face of a challenge.Eschoir (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If Leadwind, who I hoped would respond rationally, accepts Eschoir's latest displays of his logic and of his penchant for making statements about first-century practice based merely on his opinion and unsupported by any statement in a source of that time or even by any expression of opinion by a modern writer, then it is indeed best for me to let this article be. Lima (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thesis

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

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

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

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

I've got a reliable source that says Jesus did not include baptism as part of his ministry. Not sure whether that's relevant to this page. Leadwind (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A quite interesting source says: "Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing." You can find it on the Internet, for instance here. The same source gives further information here and again in another place already brought to Leadwind's attention. Unfortunately, there are those who do not consider this source reliable, since it isn't of the last half-century. Lima (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't think it is, but personally it tis interesting. Eschoir (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Historians don't think much of the gospel of John's reliability. Find a reliable source that says Jesus practiced baptism. Leadwind (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
While historians believe that what John says about such minor matters as whether Jesus, in the sense that John explains in the passage earlier brought to Leadwind's attention, baptized cannot be relied on as either certainly true or certainly false, they treat it as evidence to be taken into account. Certain Wikipedia editors believe that a late-twentieth-century writer has somehow come to know that the truth is quite certainly the opposite of what John says on the matter; and they expect others to join them in their belief. They also expect others to agree that they themselves actually know (and can state it as a fact without having to quote any source whatever) that first-century Christians celebrated the Eucharist with people who, though interested in hearing about Christ, did not accept baptism, which, curiously, is the way in which first-century sources described the process of becoming Christians. Lima (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

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

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

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

Source for what? Lima (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Why the convivium model [the elements of which are apparently disputed] is relevant to this article. Otherwise it is a non sequitur embodying mmore original research to promote a POV. Why not an exegesis of Polynesian meal practice of the time? What's the connection to the article? Eschoir (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Since in the Greco-Roman practice of the first and second centuries "convivium" was just the same as "συμπόσιον", or the same as "δεῖπνον" together with "συμπόσιον", how can information about it under its name of "convivium" be considered irrelevant to the treatment of it? But who would ever imagine that Polynesian meal practice of a quite different period was identical with Greco-Roman practice of that time! Lima (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your rhetorical question is not an answer. Eschoir (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Since in the Greco-Roman practice of the first and second centuries "convivium" was just the same as "συμπόσιον", or the same as "δεῖπνον" together with "συμπόσιον", information about it under its name of "convivium" is indeed relevant to treatment of the practice. Lima (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion. Eschoir (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In almost everyone's opinion, sourced information on what is being discussed (namely, meals in a first-century Greco-Roman host's dining room) is relevant. That anyone could think otherwise is surprising. Lima (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Still waiting for a source for why convivium is relevant to early Christian table worship. You say almost everybody, I just ask for one. Eschoir (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Not named Lima. Eschoir (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that a certain Eschoir holds that the meal customarily held in a first-century Greco-Roman host's dining room ("convivium" in Latin) is relevant to "early Christian table worship". Lima (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not a source. Neither are you. Try again. Eschoir (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And we may both quote sources: you for the relationship between the topic of the article and first-century Greco-Roman meals in private dining rooms, and I for the Latin name of such meals. Lima (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that all! I though there was more.Eschoir (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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