The Last Supper Never Happened

Read Time:4 Minute, 34 Second
Pic courtesy of artbible.com
Pic courtesy of artbible.com

Saint Paul, the most prolific author in the New Testament, had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. He hadn’t read any of the gospels, as they hadn’t been written yet. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation,) when in the first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed.

The writer had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. He used a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, and even claimed to quote him, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together.

“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was trying to change some of the social habits of a community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times. He invented a story about the Lord to do it. He made the ridiculous claim God punished people with death for not eating at the right time. This sort of deluded hyperbole wasn’t unusual from the obsessive Paul. What’s more surprising is that he acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person, the Lord Jesus, ate, drank and talked with others; nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus said or did, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation.

There are three other compelling reasons why this story isn’t historical.

– No sane person would predict his own impending death as part of a covenant with his god/dad. Jesus, who I think was crucified as a political insurgent by the Romans, would’ve had no intention of dying, and most definitely not as a sacrifice to save sinners. In those days some fanatics had bizarre religious ideas, but nothing as downright delusional as this.

– He was Jewish, as were his disciples, and they obeyed the Torah (the Jewish Law, as written in the first five books of Scripture.) To them, eating human flesh or drinking blood, even in a symbolic sense, would have broken the strict kosher dietary rules. Even today Jews still insist on draining blood from slaughtered animals, as written in scriptures, (Lev. 7:26–27, 17:10–14,) and will only eat the meat from animals that chew cud and have cloven hooves (Lev. 11:3, Deut. 14:6.) Jesus, undoubtedly raised on a kosher diet, would’ve been repulsed by the thought of anyone drinking his blood or eating his body.

– This Last Supper scene wasn’t something new. It was borrowed from Mithraism, a religion that had existed for two thousand years before Jesus, and with which Paul was familiar. He had grown up in Tarsus, a multicultural city which was a major centre of Mithraic belief. Practitioners believed that by eating a bull’s flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again. This was supposed to give physical strength, and bring salvation to the soul. Yeshua wouldn’t have copied these concepts from a competing cult. Paul, or one of his interpolators, made this up to mimic a popular pagan practice.

The synoptic gospels, written much later, have similar verses, and their inspiration was probably Paul’s letter.

The reenactment of this scenario is part of some modern Masses in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, yet it has no truthful basis.

Christianity quite deliberately blends guilt, dependence and ceremony to create church-centred dogma. The ritual that Paul discusses here brings people together to do something. Communion commemorates the sacrifice of a man dying because you’re a sinner. By participating in the event, people are repeatedly reminded they’re flawed and need Christ and the church to be redeemed. That promotes power; there’s nothing petty about it, and priests know it.

About Post Author

Mark Fulton

Dr Mark Fulton is a practising physician living on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. He has spent many years researching the origins of Christianity, and has written a book, soon to be published, titled "Get over Christianity by Understanding it." His website is at www.markfulton.org
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
100 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

9 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sewmouse
10 years ago

Why do you dignify his fake “conversion” on the road to Damascus by referring to this individual as “Saint Paul”? His name was Saul. Saul of Tarsus. He was no saint – he was a lying, misogynist pig.

He stood by and watched while “St. Stephen” was stoned to death for following Jesus. He was a member of the sanhedrin and did his level best to destroy the movement of those following Jesus’ teachings – and when that didn’t work, he faked a conversion and turned his own prejudices and sloptwaddle into “holy writ”.

Saul of Tarsus deserves the respect of no man – and certainly no woman!

Reply to  sewmouse
10 years ago

Yes…. I agree he was seriously nasty little man. I’m doing my best to help people realise this…http://www.markfulton.org/paul-a-complex-character and Sex, Marriage, and Saint Paul.

Joe Hagstrom
10 years ago

It says we aren’t all kind and loving like me and Jesus Mark.
And a “second rate war monger” from where you get that I don’t know, Jesus sure did become famous. And c’mon man. How can you not get a kick out of those lyrics? Unless you’re a Godspell man. And that’s how I try to convert “you people” here at MMA. Day by Day…

Reply to  Joe Hagstrom
10 years ago

Forget the nursery rhymes for a minute and read some real history here…
https://madmikesamerica.com/2013/09/jesus-the-great-resurrection-myth/ and http://www.markfulton.org/more_on_the_jesus_myth

Joe Hagstrom
10 years ago

Paul’s is my least favorite of all the books in The Bible. I say that since they’re all of course favorites. Peter thought Paul was a prick. I tend to agree with that.

Even you non believers have to love the lyrics in many of our Catholic songs though. A good one for irony considering Jesus was the Prince of Peace and doing unto others goes: “Eat His body. Drink His blood. Then we’ll sing a song of love. Alleluia…”

“Lord of the Dance” is another beauty.

How can you people still embrace atheism after this good music? And you think I’m nuts.

Reply to  Joe Hagstrom
10 years ago

Hi Joe, it’s a little unclear how serious you are!

I’m not sure where you get Jesus being the “prince of peace” from. I reckon he was a second rate warmonger, which was why he was strung up on a tree.

Sorry… I don’t get the same kicks from the lyrics that you seem to.

But we do agree on one thing; Paul was a prick. He was also the probable founder of Christian theology. That doesn’t say much for Christian theology, does it?

What’s this about “you people?” The only thing that most of the readers here have in common is their atheism.

10 years ago

I’ve conjectured, even before I read Hayam Macoby that Saul or whatever his real name might have been, was raised in or was at least very familiar with cults like that of Attis, where one was somehow saved by eating the body or washing in the blood of a sacrificial animal — the Attis bull. Macoby, if I remember correctly, makes a case in Paul and the invention of Christianityfor his not having been Jewish at all.

If the pagan baggage wasn’t all his, then perhaps Paul’s intended converts were comfortably intrenched in such mystery cults — with The bull of heaven killed by Mithras for instance. A smart missionary integrates local myths with the one he has for sale. His Christianity was a sort of Voodoo in that respect. Paul was a damn smart missionary, if not quite smart enough for his own good.

Although this Paul may have heard something about Jesus, I agree that the Jesus he wrote about was the Jesus he imagined. Perhaps he had communal meals, perhaps they were used as occasions to preach or teach and there were rituals unique to the cult, but it was like Shakespeare writing about history. He had no idea what Marc Anthony said to his Roman friends and countrymen. Captivating, poetic, moving, but hardly accurate.

Admin
10 years ago

I have a hard time believing that I once believed all this BS. I guess that’s what brainwashing from a young age will do to you.

10 years ago

It’s the old “the ends justify the means” that has been an excuse for lying since the first parent tried to raise the first child. That religion lies to achieve its goals is noth8ing new.

Paul has been demonstrated to be a liar many other times. It’s nice to have details, but hardly news, is it?

Previous post Why Do Black Dogs Suffer Discrimination? Does Color Really Matter?
Next post Walmart Employee Fired After Helping Besieged Woman
9
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x