WINNER OF THE RELIGIOUS LIAR'S AWARD
WHY A "DUNG AWARD"?
This article is not simply an article that someone might "disagree with". Obviously, there is nothing to be said about an honest disagreement, other than it's counter argument. And certainly such arguments deserve nothing more than a polite rebuttal. But here we do not have such an example. We do not have a simple argument, that deserves a simple rebuttal. We have displayed for us the 1700 year old problem that has plagued western civilization since the dawn of the Theodosius Codex.
We have here someone intelligent enough to know what they are doing, and to know the minutia of detail they are arguing, based on a contrived technicality to dismiss that New Testament texts say openly, straightforwardly and without confusion, the last supper was a PASSOVER. The "Lord's supper" was the "Passover Seder" in 1st century Israel, and that is precisely how the New Testament writers describe it, in no uncertain terms. To attempt to argue it is anything other than this, is a denial of the plain texts of scripture, and nothing more.
There is no "confusion" over what the New Testament calls this.There is no "confusion" over when it was done, how it was done, why it was done, and what it is that is being done. The only "confusion" comes from those who wish to 'create confusion" to make sure the plain and obvious fact of the matter is avoided. And here we have Biblical Archaeology Review coming to the rescue. Never mind what you see, never mind what you read, never mind what is known from history, you see if you take this word and twist it like this, and take that word and twist it like that, you can deny what it openly states. Isn't that nice?
1. QUOTE: "Many people assume that Jesus’ Last Supper was a Seder, a ritual meal held in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Passover."
"Many people "Assume"? Yes, and among those would be the writers of the New Testament themselves. The very Apostles and Prophets of the New Testament. And no they would not be "assuming" this, they would be calling it that.There is a vast difference between an "assumption" and a "fact". "Facts" are not "assumptions". Facts are facts. The New Testament literature calls it THE PASSOVER. That is what the writers of the New Testament called it. Since this is a discussion of factual matters within the New Testament, it is not an "assumption", it is a "fact".
People that attempt to make the factually obvious, "negotiable realities", are liars with ulterior motives, which it is clear Mr. Klaw-hands has here.
2. QUOTE: "The recent popularity of interfaith Seders (where Christians and Jews celebrate aspects of Passover and the Last Supper together) points to an emotional impulse that is also at work here."
Uh, no, what is "at work here" is that many Christians have realized (throughout all Christendom) Vatican Rome threatened to kill them if they kept the PASSOVER commanded by Christ. And so those who did, ARE NOW DEAD (including Christ's own family). And those who now remain his followers, and are still alive by the grace of God, after the slaughter of 150 million people in Europe, would like to REPENT now that they have the knowledge and THE FREEDOM in America to do precisely that.
The fact this is "getting in the way" of your desired political-religious social-engineering, is quite beside the point.
3. QUOTE: "Indeed, even though the association of the Last Supper with a Passover Seder remains entrenched in the popular mind, a growing number of scholars are beginning to express serious doubts about this claim."
A growing number of "scholars" (if it is fair to call these disinformation propagandists by this term) realize they have lost their control over the delusion of the masses on a very important deception, and are now back-peddling as fast as they can, and as soon as they can figure out how to do it. Any lie will do at this point, including the one "Klaw-hands" is about to tell. It's always amazing to hear people impugn the credibility of the Scriptures, with documents 100 times less credible, and never see their own stupidity in such logic. There are valid ways to do such things, if you are so inclined, but this would not be one of them. You don't overturn the US Constitition using a comic book from the 1960s, as more historically authentic to the era, unless you are just a moron. [Even open intentional deceivers do better than this] At least show some effort.
4. QUOTE: "Again, if we cannot know how Jews celebrated Passover at the time of Jesus, then we have to plead ignorance, and we would therefore be unable to answer our question."
Nope. Not at all. It's completely irrelevant "how" Jews celebrated Passover in the time of Jesus compared today. For a number of obvious reasons. (1) No one judges the shape and substance of original history by contemporary legends or practice. You move forward in time from the source, to study history, not backwards. (2) Whether you personally "know how" they did it or not, has nothing to do with the objective fact, that is what they called it.
Changing the definition by shifting the reference point away from it's valid primary source, to a secondary source, is like claiming the dictionary must be wrong, because Fox News used political opposite speak in one of it's many fabricated stories. But...even here, even if you hypothetically accepted this crooked stick as normal, and claim they technically did it "wrong", based upon a technical description of an ancient Babylonian Rabbi which constituted another competing religion altogether anyway, ... you are stuck with the historical fact, Rabbinical Judaism was not the indigenous Biblical Judaism of 1st century Israel and came later. That was it's rival. And even if you granted this reference point as the only valid reference, to do away with the other at your pleasure, you never-the-less, already admit you have no information. So the point here is not just invalid on a singular level, but on two. (1) A faulty reference with (2) Admittedly no information. So what's the beef?
This, as will be the case through his entire argument, is a baseless bias, for the sake of nothing else but asserting the bias. It's understandable that hating and disproving the Bible is about the only way any "serious" Academic can get any peer creds in secular Universities these days, especially after the disastrous century of mindless anti-scientific huckster pontifications we have all had to live through since long before the Scopes trials and the Wright brothers. It's well deserved, and that's not the complaint. The complaint is you have apparently settled for such weak, pathetic convoluted arguments, you're beginning to sound as bad as those hucksters you have apparently misjudged yourself in contrast too? Mindless minimalism is no better than mindless maximalism, they both do the same thing mindlessly.
If you just simply wish to ignore everything in the original source text to make up stuff, why claim they ate anything? Why not just say they were all sitting around passing gas and inducing themselves into delusional hallucinations off the methane fumes? It's much more entertaining? Who cares if it's completely disconnected to reality? Apparently, that's not a necessity, at least for Babelical Archaeoblobogy Review, or Boston University anyway.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First appearing in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek ἡ εἰς ἀτοπον ἀπαγωγη or he eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate. Reductio
Ad Absurdum, Wikipedia
5. QUOTE: "But it certainly could not have been a Passover meal, for Jesus died before the holiday had formally begun."
That depends on how you are counting. There were two calendars in use, just as there is today. The Biblical calendar is different from the rabbinical one. They are often off by two days. There is absolutely no reason to think Christ would not have been following the Biblical calendar in keeping with the reformation [Heb.9:10], and letting the rabbinical follow their own. His sect was making converts from among the Rabbinicals. They were obviously "converting" to something other than what they already were. The Biblical issue of the Passover being retained and practiced as commanded in the home (rather than the synagogue) was obviously an issue [Ex.12:22], as well as the discussions about the sacerdotal efficacy of conversion Mikvahs [Jo.3;1]. In both instances, Christ and his disciples were calling for a return to Biblical concepts and practices, not creating innovations, but confronting them to gain their following [the same exact way religious movements occur today]. Christ and his disciples were challenging the legitimacy of rabbinical innovations. Mtt. 22:34, Luk 7:36, 13:31, 14:1,3,19:39, Jo.3:1, 7:45,47 9:16, 12:42 Acts 15:5, 23:6,7,9
Furthermore, even if you reject the overly-obvious fact, the Jewish movement which produced the New Testament clearly described itself as a REFORM/REPENTANCE (Reformation/Return) movement Heb.9:10, you still are not off the hook. Here is another fact, though a completely unnecessary one, accommodations to when the meal was observed, were granted based upon schedule interruptions, the meal was to be kept even if you, by necessity, had to change it to the closest day still possible. Being "Crucified" would have been an "obvious schedule interruption" that such accommodation would have been obviously applicable too. But the "preparation" was notably mentioned, and for precisely this reason of distinction. [Mark14:15] (1)"Preparation" is required for Passover. (2) They were doing it in their home (3) They were doing it for Passover (4) Rabbinicals had a separate date for it.
And of course, all of these observations on this point are actually cursory, because the argument here is so blatently lame, it does not deserve the work, which could be offered, in smashing it to dust by a simple comparison chart on the use of the same terms this spin-doctor is ignoring in his argument? "Supper" and "Eat" (which were two entirely different things). They are different terms used for different activities [not the same]. Guess which one is used almost exclusively to denote a ceremonial "feast"? Mark 6:21; Luke 14:12,16,17,24; 22:20; John 12:2; 13:2,4; 21:20; 1Co. 11:20,21; Rev. 19:9,17; And guess which one denotes a common "meal"? Mat. 6:25,31; 12:1,4; 14:16,20; 15:2,20,27,32,37,38; 24:49; 26:17,21,26; Mark 1:6; 2:16,26; 3:20; 5:43; 6:31,36,37,42,44; 7:2,3,4,5,28; 8:1,2,8; 11:14; 14:12,14,18,22; Luke 4:2; 5:30,33; 6:1,4; 7:36; 9:13,17; 10:8; 12:19,22,29,45; 14:1,15; 15:16,23; 17:8,27,28; 22:8,11,15,16,30; 24:43; John 4:31,32,33; 6:5,23,26,31,49,50,51,52,53,58; 18:28; Acts 2:46; 9:9; 10:13,41; 11:3,7; 23:12,14,21; 27:35; Rom. 14:2,21,23; 1Co. 5:11; 8:7,8,10,13; 9:4; 10:3,7,18,25,27,28,31; 11:20,22,24,26,27,28,33,34; 15:32; Gal. 2:12; 2Th. 3:8,10,12; 2Ti. 2:17; Heb. 13:10; Jas. 5:3; Rev. 2:7,14,17,20; 10:9; 17:16; 19:18; And the distinction is virtually consistent. While "Eat" occurs occassionally with "Supper" [because that's what you do at a "Supper"], "Supper" does not occur with "Eat", when they are not having a ceremonial "Feast". [But who cares what the text actually really says? You don't need to know that to be a Religious or New Testament professor at Boston University and clear a 6 digit salary from your mindless minimalist publications and uninformed minimalist articles you write for Vatican sycophant magazines, you just have to bath occasionally, speak some Enlgish, hate the Bible, and look smart while you denounce anyone who bothers to read it] It's good for the political social-engineering you want be in charge of.
But regardless how one may wish to twist and strangle these texts, once again, the writers of the New Testament who wrote to the Jews of that day with this material, called it THE PASSOVER SUPPER. They called "meals" they ate just and precisely that, "meals" they "ate", not "Passover Supper". And Jews who heard the story, and knew the writings HAD NO CONTROVERSY WITH IT. There were many controversies, and many very ugly accusations, but this was not even a slight suggestion. ("It wasn't really the Passover" was never one of their "charges"), and furthermore, you do not "make preparations" [in advance] for a "regular meal". You just "eat", precisely as you will find all those texts above citing. You simply pick it up at the market, go home and eat it. In fact, you might not even do that. You just "eat". The "preparation" cited, completely eliminates this explanation as an "honest one", which the spin-doctor above perfectly knows, or at least should, otherwise he is being vastly over-paid.
6. QUOTE: " The synoptic account stretches credulity, not just because it depicts something unlikely, but because it fails to recognize the unlikely and problematic nature of what it depicts. It is almost as if the synoptic tradition has lost all familiarity with contemporary Jewish practice. And if they have lost familiarity with that, they have probably lost familiarity with reliable historical information as well."
No actually, what "Stretches credulity" is that Mr. Klaw-hands is making statements this stupid with all that Academia behind his name. It is a horrible reflection on the institutions that have given him their endorsements. Here ding bat gets the cart before the horse, and lets the tail wag the dog. Key phrase: "synoptic tradition has lost all familiarity with contemporary Jewish practice". What? You have to be kidding to make this comment with a straight face? Seriously, that has to be one of the most stupid arguments that has ever appeared on the internet. What historian would make these kinds of statements (with a straight face) and claim to be seriously investigating the Pilgrims? (which was only 400 years ago, not 2000) "Ships" today are made out of metal and we know the Pilgrims couldn't make metal ships, so they must not have landed at Plymouth in a "Ship"? Really? You get paid to come up with lies and this is the best you can do for a 5/6 figure salary?
Contemporary Jewish Practice is different therefore the Gospels must have had it wrong? What a moron. (Or perhaps how "Moronic" he thinks the Christian world must be?) Right, and since "Contemporary Jewish Practice" has no "sacrifices" in it, they must have gotten that whole "atonement" thing wrong too? Or how about "contemporary Jewish Practices" tracing their "Jewishness" through the "Mother" instead of the Father? In that case, you could say the same thing about the entire Bible, which traces linage through the father?
And how about Yiddish being absent form the Old Testament? That probably proves it was written by the Moabites! Or how about the "Contemporary Jewish Practice" of defining "Jewishness" by a mothers's membership in a "synagogue". That one puts Moses on the "outs" as well. My, my, Moses wasn't really a "Jew", he must have been really a Muslim. And water is not really wet, and the sky is not really blue.... and on and on the lies go... Brilliant logic here. Quick call Babelical Archeblobogy Review, Yiddish is not in the Old Testament! It was written by the Moabites!
Forget "contemporary Jewish practices", look at the Vatican on Easter? Right, do you see all that palatial regalia and pageantry you see at Easter at the Vatican anywhere in the New Testament with Christ and his disciples? Of course not! Talk about choking on gnats and swallowing camels, this is literally beyond words. In other words, there is such a double standard being employed in these arguments, it simply cannot be due to Mr. Klaw-hands lack of mental ability. This is caused by starting with a pre-determined mandated conclusion, and creating whatever road you have to, in order to get there, no matter how twisted the logic gets.
And that's the problem with State-Churches, and state-funded religious studies and teachers. They approach their craft, not as detectives solving historical riddles and mysteries or scholars in an altruistic search for truth, but as choir directors and drum majors and pied-pipers with religious-political social engineering agendas, front and center. It's a dishonest Merchant's trade, and Klaw-hands here, provides a fine example. A well-versed intelligent fundementalist in high-school (and yes there are some) could refute most of the convoluted baloney this high paid professional scholar is drivel-slobbering out as "scholarship" for that equally worthless magazine, that wasted perfectly good ink and paper to print.
7. QUOTE: "There are, of course, some reasons to doubt John’s account too. He may well have had theological motivations for claiming that Jesus was executed on the day of preparation when the Passover sacrifice"
One has to wonder, since he is speculating about "theological motivations" of people who lived 2000 years ago, spoke a different language, lived in a completely different culture, it is at least equally important to wonder what "theological motivations" Jonathan Klaw-hands has for spending so much time and effort propagating such pathetic lies he fully knows he is telling? Or even if there are any, as opposed to purely social, economic and political.
Now he's actually arguing it must not have been a PASSOVER, because you "can't really trust" the gospel accounts. So in other words, "we would rather believe anything at all, including they just lied that it was a Passover, than believe it was a Passover". (That's pretty desperate logic) Why would they lie about it? If you claim they didn't do it anyway? And it didn't matter to them it wasn't? Why would they lie that it was? Did Mr. Klaw-hands first lie, get in the way of his second? Not a very good liar for all that money. You know you're passing around too many lies, when the first lie, disproves the second lie. You should either insist they didn't do Passover (because that's not what they "really" meant even though that's what they really said [that lie is used a lot] )... or you should claim they didn't and just lied about it. But when you say (1) They didn't really mean what they said when they said what they said... and then follow up with (2) but anyway they lied about it? You see the problem? You just admitted in your second lie, that the first lie you told was really just a lie? Because there is no need to make the second point, if the first one is true. And vica versa. If the second lie is true, then there is no need to argue the first one. But in your zeal to call the authors of the New Testament liars, you DO BOTH? (And maintain your own superior "integrity"?) With an anonymous document with no author, fictional composition date, no origin, produced in the 1800s by the Vatican, cherry-picked from a pile of discarded antiquitous pseudo-pygrapha pulp-fiction? [see #9 below] Really?
I would suggest that the reader would do much better being suspicious of a 21st century Mr. Klaw-hands (making excuses for the Vatican who is running around like a female dog in heat for a NWO and using liars like Mr. Klaw-hands to mold and manipulate our little minds to get it) than they would, being suspicious of the original writing, the Apostles, and the people of the era, who knew precisely what they had written, to largely hostile audiences, none of whom ever made an issue of this argument. Meaning, it was not considered "innacurate" or "untrustworthy" nor even "controversial" when originally written or read by it's original audiences. (And Christian-Jews were still doing Passovers in this exact manner until they were, under law by Rome, discontinued by force under penalty of imprisonment or death). HISTORICAL FACT. (And according to some obscure sources, never stopped, particularly emanating out of Spain)
8. QUOTE: "What then of Jeremias’s long list of parallels? It turns out that under greater scrutiny the parallels are too general to be decisive. That Jesus ate a meal in Jerusalem, at night, with his disciples is not so surprising. It is also no great coincidence that during this meal the disciples reclined, ate both bread and wine, and sang a hymn. While such behavior may have been characteristic of the Passover meal, it is equally characteristic of practically any Jewish meal."
How do you know? You just got finished arguing you don't even know how they kept a Passover, and now you want to claim you have perfect historical knowledge on how every meal was observed? Ah yes, but contradictions of this sort never cease. They are simply required to tell the lie. Which is precisely what Mr. Klaw-hands is doing.
And while whatever construct you wish to build that constituted a "regular meal" in 1st century Israel, that you also claim not to have knowledge of concerning a Passover meal, which would be easier to know than mundane unnotable routines, you suddenly think that you know precisely what it was? And to such a degree that a meal which the New Testament writers identified themselves as the PASSOVER SUPPER, was not the PASSOVER SUPPER, because it was "common to any meal", except of course for the fact they called it THE PASSOVER SUPPER. Which "can't be trusted as historical" although claims to the contrary by the NWO Vatican can be? ...(after they admit they murdered the family of Christ to stop these practices)? ..?? ..??? Cow dung. And should you accidently translate that into the inappropriate unspoken vernacular (it would not here be even politely sufficient), and the sufficiently prophetic, string of Old Testament Hebrew idioms, that could adequately denounce this would be way too long and laborious to list and translate. So though we are left with only 2 words, they will have to suffice to simply represent all of the above, once again. Cow Dung.
9. QUOTE: "An ancient Christian church manual called the Didache also suggests that the Last Supper may have been an ordinary Jewish meal. "
Yes, of course, let's pull the standard corrupter of modern Christianity out of the Vatican's rabbit hat, the Didache. That ancient "church manual" that dates all the way back to the 1800s. That wonderful piece of Vatican trash from it's huge warehouse of mountain piles of discarded garbage psuedo-pygrapha literature, that miraculously advocates "communism" as "normative Christianity" (at a time when Communism was on the rise), and claims "everything with a "form' has a "soul" (materialism)? Just when these primitive materialistic-communist ideas were gaining popularity? How convenient they would "suddenly discover" this "ancient document" in their "possession"? And...They probably have one of those that proves Jesus was a Buddhist, Jesus was a Magician, or even Jesus was a magic Frog who became a Prince when kissed. If you have acres and acres of ancient documents piled aways somewhere, you can probably find just about anything. Including a few they will certainly keep hidden that also claim the Pope is the Antichrist. Perhaps they should look around for President Kennedy's missing "brain" as well?
The truth is the Vatican has so much ancient pulp-fiction confiscated in it's Archives they could produce a document claiming just about anything and stick the label on it "early Christain". When you have literally acres of stuff to "cherry pick", it's not that hard. Before our modern era, when this new method of parading out a "newly discovered" "ancient document" (they cherry pick from the garbage pile), they used to just blatantly scribble the lines into the documents everyone had, and then claim they were the only ones with the "official copy". These "document games" have been going on forever with the pathological liars inside the Vatican, and are probably the single greatest cause on earth why so many have en-toto rejected Christ completely in the world, fully assured that even the Scriptures themselves, cannot be trutsted as reliable.(Precisely as the Vatican would prefer to have them think) The Scriptures are about the only reliable thing, the Vatican does have, because they have reliably damned the Vatican!.. even before the Vatican confiscated them, and turned them into medieval contraban punishable by death to have in possession. Yes, the Scriptures are very very very reliable when it comes to damning the liars in the Vatican, and they are just as reliable today in doing it, as they were when the first reformers picked up the first copy and started reading it.
And no matter how much Rome and it's co-conspirators trash and defame the Scriptures, there are two unmovable historical facts which will always render them the Vatican's primary nemisis, despite all it's latest lip-service to hide their passive-agressive academic destruction program of them. They came first. And they defined what was true from false, for followers of Christ. End of story. You may think you have proven they were really written by Mickey Mouse himself, it will not matter. They came first. And they defined. So yes, they are as reliable today, at damning the liars who work for the Vatican, as they were 500 years ago. And in this respect nothing Rome will ever do, will ever change that, as long as Rome has a man on a throne who speaks above everything called God or that is worshiped (2 Thess 2). Rome will have a problem with the Scriptures, that only repentance will solve.
There is nothing "Christian" about the Didache, and it is simply another instance of Vatican document fraud, in spirit or letter, that Rome is now passing off to the world... again. In it's promotion of "traducianism". It matters not one twit what the "Didache" says. It was "invented" in the 1800s and by "invented" that is precisely the charge. No matter what the Didache is in reality, it is of no import to real Biblical Christianity. It is not in the collection of Apostolic literature, and it does not reflect either their traditions or their teachings. What it does do, along with Rome's other apostate forms of literature and document fraud, is document Rome's "apostacy" from New Testament faith, and that is pretty much it.
And by the way, what "CROOKED STICK" would "suspect" the New Testament documents as "not reliable" to make this sick twisted argument, and then cite a document that does not surface until the 1800s, with no known authorship, no known history, no known authenticity behind it, to over-ride the clear pronouncements of the New Testament? Which came millenia earlier, with the consent of the entire "Christian community" and the known and documented criticism of it's hostile adversaries?
The only thing that could be dumber here, is the person impressed by this argument, despite it's glaring use of extreme double-standards. This is literally the incarnation of "choking on a gnat, and swallowing a camel".
10. QUOTE: "Moreover, while the narrative in the synoptics situates the Last Supper during Passover, the fact remains that the only foods we are told the disciples ate are bread and wine—the basic elements of any formal Jewish meal. If this was a Passover meal, where is the Passover lamb?"
They're are on their plates, where they are supposed to be. The text doesn't reveiw every item of THE SUPPER, because they are writing to an audience that IS FAMILIAR WITH IT. The "preparation" for THIS PASSOVER, which these things do take time to prepare, are specifically mentioned. If all they were doing was eating a cracker and having a cup of wine, there would be no "preparations" necessary.
11. QUOTE: "However, this last parallel between the Last Supper and the Passover Seder assumes that the Seder ritual we know today was celebrated in Jesus’ day. But this is hardly the case."
No it does not. It assumes THE PASSOVER SUPPER was the PASSOVER SUPPER, and nothing else, which also has nothing to do with how a modern contemporary Rabbi might define a "Seder". He came second, not first to the Passover Table, and he is the one who has introduced "innovations" and "changes" which are not original to the PASSOVER, if there are any at all. You do not take a modern day Ford, and claim a model T is not a Ford because it was not made like a Mustang. What idoit would seriously argue this stupidity?
The expulsion of the Jewish community from Rome caused a set back to the progress of Christianity in that city, for in A.D. 49 it appears to have been only a distinctive movement with Judaism that Christianity was known there. p. 21, F.F.Bruce, Jesus & Christian Origins Outside The New Testament,(c)1974, WM.B.Eerdmans Pub. Co.
Mr. Klaw-hands is a liar. And he knows PRECISELY what he is doing.
It is a shame that Boston University has turned into such a "Center for propaganda", rather than offering "education" to it's students.
None of whom will realize how misinformed they are being made to become, especially in the "Department" of "Religion".