ChristmasIsALie.com

THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think

ARTICLES


INTRODUCTION

If you are a sincere Christian, and all you seek is to do the will of God as made known to you in the Scriptures, you will probably very easily see through the idiotic and deluded arguments now being put forth by these sad and pitiful people.  No greater example of this case is found in the Biblical Archaeology Review, which also had the idiotic commitment to "propaganda" to claim  with a straight face, those Romans practicing Necromancy in Rome's catacombs, were "Christians", and the devil-mixtures of Christ as Apollo they painted on the walls of their rot-filled tombs, (where they were gathered together to fondle the rotting flesh of filthy corpses, inducing themselves into demonic seizures and conjuring up "spirits" of dead people), was a "christian", "Christmas".

This same bunch of deluded lying Neanderthalic morons have now offered their intellectual skills, of fact twisting for pay, at offering denials of the plain words of the texts in the New Testament, and when you see the "rational" for their logic, it should be enough to make you want to visit a Roman vomitorium, stick a finger down your throat, and empty every filthy word you just got finish wasting your time, to digest, into a hole in the ground made for such things.

Below is the article from Babelical Archablobogy Review (a/k/a Biblical Archeology Review).  It reads as a history of deceit re-offered as "truth" by a magazine that many unsuspecting Protestants are erroneously supporting with their reading time and subscription money.

AND THE DUNG AWARD GOES TO...


THE DUNG AWARDS

Mal 2:2-3  
If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it. 

For a professional "disinformationist", it's simply an academic exercise, to find creative ways to confuse, mislead, muddy, and obscure.  But for those who call themselves by the name of those found in the New Testament, these kinds of academic exercises by professional "pay-per-lie", liars or private "christian" devil worshipers, should not be falsely graced with any air of dignity.  And they should be called what they are, and their work, what it is.  Disinformation.

There is a difference of opinion that exists between two different perspectives each based on the same set of real facts.  There is another kind of "opinion" that is "promoted" simply because of how it manipulates the public (and is done so without concern to whether it is in all honesty, even "true" or not). Most often these disingenuous "opinions" require hiding, obscuring, discounting, marginalizing or ignoring the known facts of something in order to promote the lie.  Liars of this order do not "share a difference of opinion", they simply purposefully lie.  And their lies begin with burying the facts as deep as possible in as big a hole as can be dug, and covered in as much dung as can be gathered to smother it.  Their intent is malicious, their motives are ulterior, and their master always turns out to have the same name, mammon.

Government, Corporate and Institutional paid for and sponsored deceit, passed out by academic deceivers, with no conscience except that which is bought by the highest bidder, should have no place in discussions about real history, Biblical theology, religious faith, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary had a little lamb, happy meal toys, the price of potatoes in China, or anything else.  And to the extent it does, it not only "creates" ignore-ance in a society, but promotes it, and rewards the truth where-ever found with secretive, illegal and immoral persecution.

These kinds of slime bags, lined up in rows, falling all over themselves to tell Americans, there was no link between cigarette smoking and lung disease for decades.  They have been lying since Genesis 3, and have disgraced the halls of history from the Valladolid debates, to the lies they told for Nazi Germany propaganda, to the lies they told for Soviet communist propaganda, add infinitum.  And they are always the same bunch of rotten apples, and they alway come with nice degrees from famous schools. Otherwise, there would be nothing m oresitting in the chair to testify but the lie itself, easily spotted for what it is, on it's own merits as nothing more than a self-evident lie.

They have lied here in America for the tobacco industry, the oil industry, the communists, the Nazis, the klan, the drug companies, the politicians, the Pope, the lawyers... anybody with a checking account and the ability to write a check had these professional liars from some famous university or academy, falling all over themselves standing in line, volunteering to use their credentials to be the lucky liar that won the check, as the "expert", the "scholar", the "scientist", the "academic".  And the examples of the eternal "liar for hire" on the payroll to say whatever lie is strategically important for the biggest liar with the most money, at any given point in history no matter how deceptive, depraved or revolting, could fill volumes of books without end.  It could be a "college major" on it's own right, and have it's own section in the library.  (Ironically the only section that actually seems to be missing)

You can walk through all the libraries on earth, from your local small-town corner library, to the "Library of Congress" if you wish. You can even scan the shelves and sections of any bookstore.  There you will find entire sections on everything from "vampires" to "breast-feeding", from "gay and lesbian studies" to "native american religion", from "trivia" to "recipes", from "art", "geography","medicine","herbology" to crossword puzzles. But you will never see a "section" devoted to that subject.

An enlightened Protestant needs to learn to use their own mind and evaluate arguments on their own merits (not just "My Preacha said") no matter the source, or the esteem of the "liar for hire" behind the bogus claims.  If you use Celebrex and notice it seems to be killing you, ignore the "liar for hire" they quote to tell you it is "safe and effective".  They are not the ones it will kill. And it is absolutely amazing how quickly "Academic" opinion "changes" when there is more money to be made suing people because it kills you, than declaring it is "safe" in a cooked "report".

The Dung Awards, are "awards" offered to public voices of notoriety, on religion, that express such complete and utter ignorance or deceit despite their status, degrees or titles, that one can only assume that they are either complete morons with undeserving credentials, simply a "pay-per-lie" liar without a functioning conscience or normal sense of shame, or are openly serving the devil.  Usually indicated by such a lie,  that it displays a preference for any lie on earth, even if it is blatantly moronic or incredulous to the point of repugnance, rather than simply admitting an obvious, but apparently woefully unwanted truth.  To these batch of public liars, that defame, malign, victimize and bury the truth under piles upon piles of intellectual or academic dung, we present the DUNG AWARDS in recognition of their faithful service to the "Lord of the Flies". ( And that is usually what is "creating all the buzz" and found "buzzing around them").

It is hoped this award brings shame and humiliation to it's "winners" befitting the whoredom these academic "sock puppets" exhibit in their speeches.  While that hope is admittedly completely and hopelessly in vain,  it will at least, entertain readers, with a sense of personal satisfaction.(and hopefully stress an important theological point [found in Sacred text] in the process, about the nature of these sources). Yes, "motives" are being questioned here. Make no mistake about it.


CRITICAL REVIEW OF ARTICLE


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,[1][2] 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[1]), 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".



JONATHAN KLAWANS - Was Jesus Last Supper A Seder



Dung by Jonathon Klaw-ans
Babelical Archabloby Redo
(a/k/a Biblical Archaeology Review)

Many people assume that Jesus’ Last Supper was a Seder, a ritual meal held in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Passover. And indeed, according to the Gospel of Mark 14:12, Jesus prepared for the Last Supper on the “first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb.” If Jesus and his disciples gathered together to eat soon after the Passover lamb was sacrificed, what else could they possibly have eaten if not the Passover meal? And if they ate the Passover sacrifice, they must have held a Seder.

Three out of four of the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) agree that the Last Supper was held only after the Jewish holiday had begun. Moreover, one of the best known and painstakingly detailed studies of the Last Supper—Joachim Jeremias’s book The Eucharistic Words of Jesus—lists no fewer than 14 distinct parallels between the Last Supper tradition and the Passover Seder.1

The Jewish holiday of Passover commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. The roots of the festival are found in Exodus 12, in which God instructs the Israelites to sacrifice a lamb at twilight on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan, before the sun sets (Exodus 12:18). That night the Israelites are to eat the lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The lamb’s blood should be swabbed on their doorposts as a sign. God, seeing the sign, will then “pass over” the houses of the Israelites (Exodus 12:13), while smiting the Egyptians with the tenth plague, the killing of the first-born sons.

Exodus 12 commands the Israelites to repeat this practice every year, performing the sacrifice during the day and then consuming it after the sun has set. (According to Jewish tradition, the new day begins with the setting of the sun, so the sacrifice is made on the 14th but the beginning of Passover and the meal are actually on the 15th, although this sequence of dates is not specified in Exodus.) Exodus 12 further speaks of a seven-day festival, which begins when the sacrifice is consumed (Exodus 12:15).

Once the Israelites were settled in Israel, and once a Temple was built in Jerusalem, the original sacrifice described in Exodus 12 changed dramatically. Passover became one of the Jewish Pilgrimage festivals, and Israelites were expected to travel to Jerusalem to sacrifice a Passover lamb at the Temple during the afternoon of the 14th day, and then consume the Passover sacrifice once the sun had set, and the festival had formally begun on the 15th. This kind of celebration is described as having taken place during the reigns of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chronicles 30 and 35).

As time passed, the practice continued to evolve. Eventually, a number of customs, recorded in rabbinic literature, began to accumulate around the meal, which became so highly ritualized that it was called the Seder, from the Hebrew for “order”: Unleavened bread was broken, wine was served, the diners reclined and hymns were sung. Furthermore, during the meal, the Exodus story was retold and the significance of the unleavened bread, bitter herbs and wine was explained.

The bread and wine, the hymn, the reclining diners—many of these characteristic elements are shared by the Last Supper, as Jeremias pointed out. (Jeremias’s 14 parallels are given in full in endnote 1.) What is more, just as Jews at the Seder discuss the symbolism of the Passover meal, Jesus at his Last Supper discussed the symbolism of the wine and bread in light of his own coming death.

It is not only Jeremias’s long list of parallels that leads many modern Christians and Jews to describe the Last Supper as a Passover Seder. 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. The Christian celebration of the Eucharist (Communion)—the Last Supper—is the fundamental ritual for many Christians. And among Jews the Passover Seder is one of the most widely practiced of all observances. In these times of ecumenicism and general good feeling between Christians and Jews, many people seem to find it reassuring to think that Communion (the Eucharist) and the Passover Seder are historically related.

History, however, is often more complex and perhaps a little less comforting than we might hope. Although I welcome the current ecumenical climate, I believe we must be careful not to let our emotions get the better of us when we are searching for history. 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.

Of course a number of New Testament scholars—the Jesus Seminar comes to mind—tend to doubt that the Gospels accurately record very much at all about Jesus, with the exception of some of his sayings. Obviously if the Gospels cannot be trusted, then we have no reason to assume that there ever was a Last Supper at all. And if there was no Last Supper, then it could not have taken place on Passover.2

Furthermore, several Judaic studies scholars—Jacob Neusner is a leading example—very much doubt that rabbinic texts can be used in historical reconstructions of the time of Jesus. But rabbinic literature is our main source of information about what Jews might have done during their Seder meal in ancient times. For reasons that are not entirely clear, other ancient Jewish sources, such as Josephus and Philo, focus on what Jews did in the Temple when the Passover sacrifice was offered, rather than on what they did afterward, when they actually ate the sacrifice. 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.

There is something to be said for these skeptical positions, but I am not such a skeptic. I want to operate here under the opposite assumptions: that the Gospels can tell us about the historical Jesus,3 and that rabbinic sources can be used—with caution—to reconstruct what Jews at the time of Jesus might have believed and practiced.4 Even so, I do not think the Last Supper was a Passover Seder.

While three of the four canonical Gospels strongly suggest that the Last Supper did occur on Passover, we should not get too comfortable based on that. The three Gospels that support this view are the three synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark and Luke. As anyone who has studied these three Gospels knows, they are closely related. In fact, the name synoptic refers to the fact that these three texts can be studied most effectively when “seen together” (as implied in the Greek etymology of synoptic). Thus, in fact we don’t really have three independent sources here at all. What we have, rather, is one testimony (probably Mark), which was then copied twice (by Matthew and Luke).

Against the “single” testimony of the synoptics that the Last Supper was a Passover meal stands the lone Gospel of John, which dates the crucifixion to the “day of Preparation for the Passover” (John 19:14). According to John, Jesus died just when the Passover sacrifice was being offered and before the festival began at sundown (see the sidebar to this article). Any last meal—which John does not record—would have taken place the night before, or even earlier than that. But it certainly could not have been a Passover meal, for Jesus died before the holiday had formally begun.

So are we to follow John or the synoptics?5 There are a number of problems with the synoptic account. First, if the Last Supper had been a Seder held on the first night of Passover, then that would mean Jesus’ trial and crucifixion took place during the week-long holiday. If indeed Jewish authorities were at all involved in Jesus’ trial and death, then according to the synoptics those authorities would have engaged in activities—holding trials and carrying out executions—that were either forbidden or certainly unseemly to perform on the holiday. This is not the place to consider whether Jewish authorities were involved in Jesus’ death.6 Nor is it the place to consider whether such authorities would have been devout practitioners of Jewish law. But this is the place to point out that if ancient Jewish authorities had been involved in something that could possibly be construed as a violation of Jewish law, the Gospels—with their hatred of the Jewish authorities—would probably have made the most of it. 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.

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 
was being offered but before Passover began at sundown. John’s timing of events supports the Christian claim that Jesus himself was a sacrifice and that his death heralds a new redemption, just as the Passover offering recalls an old one. Even so, John’s claim that Jesus was killed just before Passover began is more plausible than the synoptics’ claim that Jesus was killed on Passover. And if Jesus wasn’t killed on Passover, but before it (as John claims), then the Last Supper could not in fact have been a Passover Seder.

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.

A number of scholars now believe that the ritual context for the Last Supper was not a Seder but a standard Jewish meal. That Christians celebrated the Eucharist on a daily or weekly basis (see Acts 2:46–47) underscores the fact that it was not viewed exclusively in a Passover context (otherwise, it would have been performed, like the Passover meal, on an annual basis).

An ancient Christian church manual called the Didache also suggests that the Last Supper may have been an ordinary Jewish meal. In Chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, the eucharistic prayers are remarkably close to the Jewish Grace After Meals (Birkat ha-Mazon).7 While these prayers are recited after the Passover meal, they would in fact be recited at any meal at which bread was eaten, holiday or not. Thus, this too underscores the likelihood that the Last Supper was an everyday Jewish meal.

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? Where are the bitter herbs? Where are the four cups of wine?a

We are left with only one important parallel (Jeremias’s 14th) that can be explained in terms of a Seder: the surprising fact that Jesus at his Last Supper engaged in symbolic explanation of the bread and 
wine, just as Jews at the Seder engage in symbolic explanations, interpreting aspects of the Passover meal in light of the Exodus from Egypt: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant’” (Matthew 26:26–28=Mark 14:22; see also Luke 22:19–20). Is this not a striking parallel to the ways in which Jews celebrating the Seder interpret, for example, the bitter herbs eaten with the Passover sacrifice as representing the bitter life the Israelites experienced as slaves in Egypt?

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.

When Jews today sit down to celebrate the Passover Seder, they use a book known as the Haggadah. The Hebrew word haggadah literally means “telling”; the title refers to the book’s purpose: to provide the ordered framework through which the story of Passover is told at the Seder. Telling the story of Passover is, of course, one of the fundamental purposes of the celebration, as stated in Exodus 13:8: “And you shall tell your child on that day, ‘It is because of what the Lord did for me when I went forth from Egypt.’”

The traditional text of the Haggadah as it exists today incorporates a variety of material, starting with the Bible, and running through medieval songs and poems. For many Jews (especially non-Orthodox Jews), the process of development continues, and many modern editions of the Haggadah contain contemporary readings of one sort or another. Even many traditional Jews have, for instance, adapted the Haggadah so that mention can be made of the Holocaust.8

How much of the Haggadah goes back to ancient times? In the 1930s and 1940s, the American Talmud scholar Louis Finkelstein (1895–1991) famously claimed that various parts of the Passover Haggadah were very early, stemming in part from the third century B.C.E.9 In 1960, Israeli scholar Daniel Goldschmidt (1895–1972) effectively rebutted practically all of Finkelstein’s claims. It is unfortunate that Goldschmidt’s Hebrew article has not been translated, because it remains, to my mind, the classic work on the early history of the Passover Haggadah.10 Fortunately, a number of brief and up-to-date treatments of the history of the Haggadah are now available.11 A full generation later, the Goldschmidt-Finkelstein debate seems to have been settled, and in Goldschmidt’s favor. Almost everyone doing serious work on the early history of Passover traditions, including Joseph Tabory, Israel Yuval, Lawrence Hoffman, and the father-son team of Shmuel and Ze’ev Safrai, has rejected Finkelstein’s claims for the great antiquity of the bulk of the Passover Haggadah. What is particularly significant about this consensus is that these scholars are not radical skeptics. These scholars believe that, generally speaking, we can extract historically reliable information from rabbinic sources. But as demonstrated by the late Baruch Bokser in his book The Origins of the Seder, practically everything preserved in the early rabbinic traditions concerning the Passover Seder brings us back to the time immediately following the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.12 It’s not that rabbinic literature cannot be trusted to tell us about history in the first century of the Common Era. It’s that rabbinic literature—in the case of the Seder—does not even claim to be telling us how the Seder was performed before the destruction of the Temple.b

Let me elaborate on this proposition by examining the Haggadah’s requirement of explaining the Passover symbols:

Rabban Gamaliel used to say: Whoever does not make mention of the following three things on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation: namely, the Passover sacrifice, unleavened bread (matzah) and bitter herbs.

(1) The Passover sacrifice, which our ancestors used to eat at the time when the Holy Temple stood—what is the reason? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt. As it is said, “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover...” (Exodus 12:27).

(2) The unleavened bread, which we eat—what is the reason? Because the dough of our ancestors had not yet leavened when the King of Kings, the Holy One Blessed be He revealed Himself to them and redeemed them. As it is said, “And they baked unleavened cakes...” (Exodus 12:39).

(3) These bitter herbs, which we eat—what is the reason? Because the Egyptians made the lives of our ancestors bitter in Egypt. As it is said, “And they made their lives bitter...” (Exodus 1:14).

On first reading, Jeremias might appear to be correct: Jesus’ explanation of the bread and the wine does seem similar to Rabban Gamaliel’s explanation of the Passover symbols. Might not Jesus be presenting a competing interpretation of these symbols? Possibly. But it really depends on when this Rabban Gamaliel lived. If he lived later than Jesus, then it would make no sense to view Jesus’ words as based on Rabban Gamaliel’s.

Unfortunately for the contemporary historian, there were two rabbis named Gamaliel, both of whom bore the title “rabban” (which means “our master” and was usually applied to the head of the rabbinic academy). The first lived decadesbefore the destruction of the Temple, according to rabbinic tradition.13 It is this Gamaliel who is referred to in Acts 22:3, in which Paul is said to have claimed that he was educated “at the feet of Gamaliel.” The second Rabban Gamaliel was, according to rabbinic tradition, the grandson of the elder Gamaliel. This Gamaliel served as head of the rabbinic academy sometime after the destruction of the Temple. Virtually all scholars working today believe that the Haggadah tradition attributing the words quoted above to Gamaliel refers to the grandson, Rabban Gamaliel the Younger, who lived long after Jesus had died.14 One piece of evidence for this appears in the text quoted above, in which Rabban Gamaliel is said to have spoken of the time “when the Temple was still standing”—as if that time had already passed. Furthermore, as Baruch Bokser has shown, the bulk of early rabbinic material pertaining to the Passover Haggadah is attributed in the Haggadah itself to figures who lived immediately following the destruction of the Temple (and were therefore contemporaries of Gamaliel the Younger). Finally, a tradition preserved in the Tosefta (a rabbinic companion volume to the earliest rabbinic lawbook, the Mishnah, edited perhaps in the third or fourth century) suggests that Gamaliel the Younger played some role in Passover celebrations soon after the Temple was destroyed, when animal sacrifices could for this reason no longer be offered.15

Thus, the Passover Seder as we know it developed after 70 C.E. I wish we could know more about how the Passover meal was celebrated before the Temple was destroyed. But unfortunately, our sources do not answer this question with any certainty. Presumably, Jesus and his disciples would have visited the Temple to slaughter their Passover sacrifice. Then they would have consumed it along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, as required by the Book of Exodus. And presumably they would have engaged in conversation pertinent to the occasion. But we cannot know for sure.

Having determined that the Last Supper was not a Seder and that it probably did not take place on Passover, I must try to account for why the synoptic Gospels portray the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Of course, the temporal proximity of Jesus’ crucifixion (and with it, the Last Supper) to the Jewish Passover provides one motive: Surely this historical coincidence could not be dismissed as just that.

Another motive relates to a rather practical question: Within a few years after Jesus’ death, Christian communities (which at first consisted primarily of Jews) began to ask when, how and even whether they should celebrate or commemorate the Jewish Passover.16 This was a question not only early on, but throughout the time of the so-called Quartodeciman controversy. The Quartodecimans (the 14-ers) were Christians who believed that the date of Easter should be calculated so as to coincide with the Jewish celebration of Passover, whether or not that date fell on a Sunday. The Jewish calendar was (and is) lunar, and therefore there is always a full moon on the night of the Passover Seder, that is, the night following the 14th of Nisan. But that night is not always a Saturday night. The Quartodeciman custom of celebrating Easter beginning on the evening following the 14th day apparently began relatively early in Christian history and persisted at least into the fifth century C.E. The alternate view—that Easter must be on a Sunday, regardless of the day on which the Jewish Passover falls—ultimately prevailed. Possibly the Gospels’ disagreements about the timing of the Last Supper were the result of these early Christian disputes about when Easter should be celebrated. After all, if you wanted to encourage Christians to celebrate Easter on Passover, would it not make sense to emphasize the fact that Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples just before he died?

Related to the question of when Christians should recall Jesus’ last days was a question of how they should be recalled. Early on, a number of Christians—Quartodecimans and others—felt that the appropriate way to mark the Jewish Passover was not with celebration, but with fasting. On the one hand, this custom reflected an ancient Jewish tradition of fasting during the time immediately preceding the Passover meal (as related in Mishnah Pesachim 10:1). On the other hand, distinctively Christian motives for this fast can also be identified, from recalling Jesus’ suffering on the cross to praying for the eventual conversion of the Jews.17


Click to view a slide show of larger images and captions.
The German New Testament scholar Karl Georg Kuhn has argued that the Gospel of Luke places the Last Supper in a Passover context in order to convince Christians not to celebrate Passover. He notes that the synoptic Last Supper tradition attributes to Jesus a rather curious statement of abstinence: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Paschal lamb with you before I suffer, for I tell you that I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God...[and] I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:15–18; cf. Mark 14:25 [“I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”]=Matthew 26:29). The synoptics’ placement of the Last Supper in a Passover context should be read along with Jesus’ statement on abstinence; in this view, the tradition that the Last Supper was a Passover meal argues that Christians should mark the Passover not by celebrating, but by fasting, because Jesus has already celebrated his last Passover.18 Thus, until Jesus’ kingdom is fulfilled, Christians should not celebrate at all during Passover.

New Testament scholar Bruce Chilton recently presented an alternate theory. He argues that the identification of the Last Supper with a Passover Seder originated among Jewish Christians who were 
attempting to maintain the Jewish character of early Easter celebrations.19 By calling the Last Supper a Passover meal, these Jewish-Christians were trying to limit Christian practice in three ways. Like the Passover sacrifice, the recollection of the Last Supper could only be celebrated in Jerusalem, at Passover time, and by Jews.c

Without deciding between these two contradictory alternatives (though Kuhn’s is in my mind more convincing), we can at least agree that there are various reasons why the early church would have tried to “Passoverize” the Last Supper tradition.20 Placing the Last Supper in the context of Passover was a literary tool in early Christian debates about whether or not and how Christians should celebrate Passover.

Other examples of Passoverization can be identified. The Gospel of John, as previously noted, and Paul (1 Corinthians 5:7–8) equate Jesus’ crucifixion with the Passover sacrifice: “Our Paschal lamb, Christ has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” This too is a Passoverization of the Jesus tradition, but it is one that contradicts the identification of the Last Supper with the Seder or Passover meal.

Both of these Passoverizations can be placed in the broader context of Exodus typology in general. W.D. Davies and N.T. Wright have argued that various New Testament sources depict the events of Jesus’ life as a new Exodus. Early Christians interpreted Jesus’ life and death in light of the ancient Jewish narrative of redemption par excellence, the story of the Exodus from Egypt. Surely the depiction of the Last Supper as a Passover observance could play a part in this larger effort of arguing that Jesus’ death echoes the Exodus from Egypt.21

This process of Passoverization did not end with the New Testament. The second-century bishop Melito of Sardis (in Asia Minor) once delivered a widely popular Paschal sermon, which could well be called a “Christian Haggadah,” reflecting at great length on the various connections between the Exodus story and the life of Jesus.22

Passoverization can even be found in the Middle Ages. Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic custom of using unleavened wafers in the Mass is medieval in origin. The Orthodox churches preserve the earlier custom of using leavened bread.23 Is it not possible to see the switch from using leavened to unleavened bread as a “Passoverization” of sorts?

Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder? Most likely, it was not.

the Passover lambs are 
being sacrificed.
(The Last Supper is not 
mentioned by John, but 
it would have taken 
place the night before 
the crucifixion or even 
earlier.)



RETURN TO ARTICLES

A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z    ALL

THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think

INTRO    THE STORY    THE REASON     THE CHRIST     THE MASS    THE SAINT     THE TREE    THE CHURCH     THE GOSPEL    THE MAGIC   THE SPIRIT     THE JOY     THE SCROOGE     YES VIRGINIA    THE GRINCH   THE WAR