The Seder in 1 Corinthians? It's Greek to me.

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're a true believer like the millions that came before you, and a hack.

Your petty ad hominem is tiresome.

 

[dogsgod]

Your petty ad hominem is tiresome.

One ad hominem is tiresome. Whatever.

 

[Oberon]

arrested/betrayed (paradidomi) can basically mean "hand over" or "deliver up," e.g., Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Ephesians 5:2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. and 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her

Ironic that someone who can't read the greek is debating semantics of greek verbs with one who can. Yes, paradidomi can mean "handed up/over" (from didomi meaning "I give"), as well as betray. However, even if you put this into Paul's credal forumula, it still doesn't get you to the purely spritual christ you think Paul portrays. He is eating a meal prior to be handed over/betrayed. It is a clear reference to the passion narrative, an early part of Mark which scholars date to around Paul's time. Of course, as you are completely unfamiliar with scholarship, you wouldn't really know that, would you?

Right, and Jesus wasn't crucified.

Let me introduce you to some of the basics of historical methodology. When things happen in history (like Jesus' crucifixion), often enough (if these things are considered important) they are passed on by multiple sources. If we are lucky, we possess multiple sources. Sometimes, however, those sources are dependent on one another. For example, we can be fairly sure that Matthew and Luke used both Mark and Q (as well as independent oral material), because they often have such close similaraties, and there is virtually nothing in Mark that isn't in these two.

However, Paul is another independent source. That he says the same thing occasionally as what is in the gospels is EVIDENCE that it is more likely to have happened, not evidence of dependence. That is the way history works. Historians LIKE it when you have multiple sources which agree (like Josephus, the gospels, and Paul all stating independently that James was Jesus' brother). If you want to argue that the gospels were aware of and used Paul's letter, you have to use more than the fact that they occasionally agree. That isn't an argument for dependence. It is an argument for historicity (multiple attestation).

No there aren't, except maybe one about being paid for services. Some teacher. None of the epistle writers are aware of a Galilean ministry.

That isn't there purpose. None the less some of his teachings (like divorce) are presevered.

No, I dont read the gospels into Paul. You're delusional.

In our debate about James as a literal brother, you used Acts as evidence. You use what you consider "mythic literature" when you want as evidence, and discount it when you don't want to. I can quote you directly if you like.

You're a true believer like the millions that came before you, and a hack.

Very funny. You depend on google, and I depend on peer-reviewed journals and academic publications, and I'm the hack. hmmm...

You can't connect Paul's Lord's Super with a Passover meal without reading the gospels into it just like all the other hacks.

You mean, virtually every single one of thousands of experts in biblical history, NT studies, studies of ancient Judaism, and so on? All those hacks? Compared to your sources (whatever you can find on the internet, a professor of German studies, a classicist who has yet to publish his book on the historical Jesus, and one systematic theologian)?

Again, instead of hijacking this thread, why don't you take up the gauntlet in a thread devoted to the historical Jesus? Groundwork in Historical Jesus Research.

 

[dogsgod]

Ironic that someone who can't read the greek is debating semantics of greek verbs with one who can. Yes,

paradidomi​

can mean "handed up/over" (from

didomi​

meaning "I give"), as well as betray. However, even if you put this into Paul's credal forumula, it still doesn't get you to the purely spritual christ you think Paul portrays. He is eating a meal prior to be handed over/betrayed. It is a clear reference to the passion narrative, an early part of Mark which scholars date to around Paul's time. Of course, as you are completely unfamiliar with scholarship, you wouldn't really know that, would you?

I don't need to read Paul through a gospel lens to understand Paul. You apparently do.

Let me introduce you to some of the basics of historical methodology. When things happen in history (like Jesus' crucifixion), often enough (if these things are considered important) they are passed on by multiple sources. If we are lucky, we possess multiple sources. Sometimes, however, those sources are dependent on one another. For example, we can be fairly sure that Matthew and Luke used both Mark and Q (as well as independent oral material), because they often have such close similaraties, and there is virtually nothing in Mark that isn't in these two.

Basic historian methodology has it that Paul was not a witness to any crucifixion, and neither was anyone else that wrote of the story. And yes, it's a story, get over it.

That isn't there purpose. None the less some of his teachings (like divorce) are presevered.

LOL. One opinion as it relates to divorce is all you got. You're the expert, right?

In our debate about James as a literal brother, you used Acts as evidence.

Acts does not support silly notions about Paul meeting with the brother of Jesus, I pointed that out and you're still sore about it.

You use what you consider "mythic literature" when you want as evidence, and discount it when you don't want to. I can quote you directly if you like.

Go ahead. I can't help it that Acts does not support your notions about the brother of Jesus meeting with Paul. You're the expert, you should have known that going in, but if you want a non expert like myself to teach you another lesson, by all means, bring it on.

Very funny. You depend on google, and I depend on peer-reviewed journals and academic publications, and I'm the hack. hmmm...

You and all the others are true believers, join the minions.

You mean, virtually every single one of thousands of experts in biblical history, NT studies, studies of ancient Judaism, and so on? All those hacks? Compared to your sources (whatever you can find on the internet, a professor of German studies, a classicist who has yet to publish his book on the historical Jesus, and one systematic theologian)?

Again, instead of hijacking this thread, why don't you take up the gauntlet in a thread devoted to the historical Jesus? Groundwork in Historical Jesus Research.

Read all about the historical Jesus, look for it in the mythology section of your local library.

 

[Oberon]

I don't need to read Paul through a gospel lens to understand Paul. You apparently do.

I don't need to, nor do you. Both of us, and anybody interested in the historical Jesus should, however.

Basic historian methodology has it that Paul was not a witness to any crucifixion, and neither was anyone else that wrote of the story. And yes, it's a story, get over it.

Historians of ancient history do not rely solely on eyewitness accounts, as they often aren't available. Paul, the gospel authors, Papias, etc, all had access to people who were either eyewitnesses or who had the tradition passed on to them by eyewitnesses. Paul was in an excellent position to know what happened to Jesus. His short credal formula of the crucifixition is confirmed independently in the synoptics and in John.

LOL. One opinion as it relates to divorce is all you got. You're the expert, right?

No, as I said there are a few others.

Acts does not support silly notions about Paul meeting with the brother of Jesus, I pointed that out and you're still sore about it.

Yes. You used acts to support your case, even though you stated we shouldn't. You violated your own methodology. Acts doesn't support your case, but nonetheless you did exactly what you said shouldn't be done.

You and all the others are true believers, join the minions.

I know, Jews like G. Vermes, J. Neusner, and agnostics like B. Ehrman, lapsed excommunicated catholics Crossan, people in the Jesus seminar who have publicly announced a wish to correct the mistake of christianity, are all secretly "true believers" because they know that the mythicist position is baseless.

Read all about the historical Jesus, look for it in the mythology section of your local library.

Checked. Nothing there. However, in the Boston College, Harvard, and Boston University library there are plenty of highly regarded scholarly works on the historical Jesus. But I'm sure your google searches are more reliable.

I noticed you are continually avoiding to actually take up the challenge to debate this on a thread dedicated it, rather than continue to hijack this thread. I sympathize. It is difficult to enter into a debate when on your side you have whatever websites you can come up with, and on my side I have hundreds of thousands of pages of scholarship from the past century, some of them from the greatest authorities on the subject. So I tell you what. I will create a new thread myself, dedicated to addressing your claims and your various errors, so that everyone can judge for themselves how much weight your opinion should carry.

 

[dogsgod]

I don't need to, nor do you. Both of us, and anybody interested in the historical Jesus should, however.

Historians of ancient history do not rely solely on eyewitness accounts, as they often aren't available. Paul, the gospel authors, Papias, etc, all had access to people who were either eyewitnesses or who had the tradition passed on to them by eyewitnesses. Paul was in an excellent position to know what happened to Jesus. His short credal formula of the crucifixition is confirmed independently in the synoptics and in John.

Spoken like a true believer. What does Paul tell us about Jesus of Nazareth besides nothing?

No, as I said there are a few others.

Wrong again. There aren't any others than the two already mentioned, namely a comment on divorce and the one about being paid for services. That's all this non expert can come up with but since you claim to be an expert you can point out more teachings found in both Paul and the gospels. Make use of all that scholarship you have at your disposal, or do what I do and google it.

Yes. You used acts to support your case, even though you stated we shouldn't. You violated your own methodology. Acts doesn't support your case, but nonetheless you did exactly what you said shouldn't be done.

I shouldn't point out that the author of Luke/Acts never actually names any of Jesus's siblings, that he never introduces James as the brother of Jesus? I shouldn't use Acts to show it does not support notions of Paul meeting Jesus's brother? You're telling me I shouldn't do that and that it violates my own methodology? You've hit a brick wall.

I know, Jews like G. Vermes, J. Neusner, and agnostics like B. Ehrman, lapsed excommunicated catholics Crossan, people in the Jesus seminar who have publicly announced a wish to correct the mistake of christianity, are all secretly "true believers" because they know that the mythicist position is baseless.

Checked. Nothing there. However, in the Boston College, Harvard, and Boston University library there are plenty of highly regarded scholarly works on the historical Jesus. But I'm sure your google searches are more reliable.

I noticed you are continually avoiding to actually take up the challenge to debate this on a thread dedicated it, rather than continue to hijack this thread. I sympathize. It is difficult to enter into a debate when on your side you have whatever websites you can come up with, and on my side I have hundreds of thousands of pages of scholarship from the past century, some of them from the greatest authorities on the subject. So I tell you what. I will create a new thread myself, dedicated to addressing your claims and your various errors, so that everyone can judge for themselves how much weight your opinion should carry.

Your continuous appeals to authority prove you got nothing but a reliance on faith and tradition, just like the millions of true believers that have come before you. You're no match for non experts with google at their disposal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your continuous appeals to authority prove you got nothing but a reliance on faith and tradition, ...

No, it proves a reliance on authority. Feel free to challenge the credibility of that authority if you wish, but to simply dismiss reference to scholarship as "appeals to authority" is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Oberon]

Here: Addressing Dogsgod and the mythic Jesus Myth

Now you don't have to continue to hijack the thread.

Spoken like a true believer. What does Paul tell us about Jesus of Nazareth besides nothing?

Of the "earthly" Jesus, specifically that he had a brother, was crucified, and taught that divorce was wrong. However, Paul isn't concerned with the earthly Jesus. What he says is enough to know that Paul knew very well Jesus lived and worked in 1st century palestine.

Wrong again. There aren't any others than the two already mentioned, namely a comment on divorce and the one about being paid for services. That's all this non expert can come up with but since you claim to be an expert you can point out more teachings found in both Paul and the gospels. Make use of all that scholarship you have at your disposal, or do what I do and google it.

Wrong again.

Rom. 12.14,17 is also in Lk. 6.27-35
Rom 14.13 is in Lk 6.37ff.
Rom 14.14 is a direct appeal to Jesus' authority, and is also in Q.

1 Thess 5. 3 is not only very close to Lk. 21.34-36, they even use the same words (aiphnidios and ephistemi).

The betrayal of Jesus is in all the passion narratives, and in paul.

More than enough to show that Paul was acquainted with far more of the Jesus tradition than we have recorded in letters not meant to do this.

I shouldn't point out that the author of Luke/Acts never actually names any of Jesus's siblings, that he never introduces James as the brother of Jesus? I shouldn't use Acts to show it does not support notions of Paul meeting Jesus's brother? You're telling me I shouldn't do that and that it violates my own methodology? You've hit a brick wall.

Either we should use acts as a historical source, in which case you can make that argument (but then you have to deal with Acts being a historical source, and that ruins your argument) or you can't. Pick one.

And it doesn't matter is Acts doesn't mention James as Jesus' brother. This is hardly concerning, as James was well known enough by that time that he didn't need identification in christian circles. Josephus, on the other hand, writing to a different audience, explicitly identifies James as the brother of Jesus.

Your continuous appeals to authority

That's what scholarship is. Appeal to previous scholarship instead of google.

 

[dogsgod]

No, it proves a reliance on authority. Feel free to challenge the credibility of that authority if you wish, but to simply dismiss reference to scholarship as "appeals to authority" is intellectually bankrupt.

Excuse me, but blandly pointing to scholarship rather than stating said scholarship reasons given for a stated claim is intellectually bankrupt. One can't challenge something that isn't presented. Saying that a bunch of scholars believe Jesus to be historical is not only a useless appeal to authority but is also an appeal to the bandwagon theory.

 

[Oberon]

Excuse me, but blandly pointing to scholarship rather than stating said scholarship reasons given for a stated claim is intellectually bankrupt. One can't challenge something that isn't presented. Saying that a bunch of scholars believe Jesus to be historical is not only a useless appeal to authority but is also an appeal to the bandwagon theory.

1) Not a bunch. All of them.
2) I don't know if you ever went to college, but if you have ever written a paper for a professor you would know that scholarship builds on scholarship. You make a statement in a paper, and cite sources which support your view. If I had to build the case for the historical Jesus from the ground up, I would have to write hundreds of thousands of pages. Instead, I refer to established scholarly works. If you were familiar with scholarship in ANY field, you would know that this is how it progresses.

 

[dogsgod]

1) Not a bunch. All of them.
2) I don't know if you ever went to college, but if you have ever written a paper for a professor you would know that scholarship builds on scholarship. You make a statement in a paper, and cite sources which support your view. If I had to build the case for the historical Jesus from the ground up, I would have to write hundreds of thousands of pages. Instead, I refer to established scholarly works. If you were familiar with scholarship in ANY field, you would know that this is how it progresses.

Point to all the scholarship you like. Your so called scholarship is pathetic. Yes, those teachings sound like the teachings we read of in the gospels, but If you simply read Romans you will read that Paul attributes these teachings as coming from God.

Romans 12:3

• In virtue of the gift that God in his grace has given me . . . think your way to a sober estimate based on the measure of faith that God has dealt to each of you.

He's totally unaware that these teachings are attributed to Jesus, there's no mention by Paul of Jesus as teacher at all, but we can't blame him, the gospel fictions weren't written until after his death.

You might want to stop embarrassing yourself. Perhaps you should try google some day.

 

[Dunemeister]

Point to all the scholarship you like. Your so called scholarship is pathetic.

You might want to stop embarrassing yourself. Perhaps you should try google some day.

Yes, for google is far and away superior to research involving primary and secondary sources. Why haven't I understood this before now? Truly a revelation.

 

[Oberon]

Point to all the scholarship you like. Your so called scholarship is pathetic.

Right. You, the person who I have quoted in the thread I linked to as making error after error after error, judges the thousands of scholars who have dedicated years of study to this matter. Because you have google.

Yes, those teachings sound like the teachings we read of in the gospels, but If you simply read Romans you will read that Paul attributes these teachings as coming from God.

Romans 12:3

• In virtue of the gift that God in his grace has given me . . . think your way to a sober estimate based on the measure of faith that God has dealt to each of you.

Your quote doesn't support your claim. It doesn't say all of his statements come from god.

12:3 lego gar dia tes charitos tes dotheises moi panti to onti en hymin me hyperphonein par' ho dei phronein ala phronein eis to sophronein, hekasto hos ho theos emerisen metron pisteos/ For I say, through the grace having been to me, to all among us not to think [himself] above [us more than] it is right/necessary to think but to think with sound mind, to each the measure of faith God has assigned."

He's totally unaware that these teachings are attributed to Jesus, there's no mention by Paul of Jesus as teacher at all, but we can't blame him, the gospel fictions weren't written until after his death.

He mentions Jesus' teaching on divorce. I already quoted several teachings he states which are in the gospels (and the gospels show no awareness of Paul). He states specifically that he spent 15 days with Peter to receive the tradition, using the verbal form of the word for history.

You might want to stop embarrassing yourself. Perhaps you should try google some day.

No thanks. I'll stick to people who know what they are talking about. If I want the best information on linguistics, I'll talk to a linguist. If I want to know about greek and latin, I'll talk to a classicist. If I want to know about the historical Jesus, I'll talk to a historian who deals with this subject.

You can stick with wikipedia. Of course, as I have shown, that leads you to the multiple basic errors you have made.

 

[Smoke]

Contra the usual Western Christian position that the Last Supper was a seder, the Eastern Orthodox position is that it was not a seder, but an ordinary meal. The Western use of azymes in the Eucharist is considered incorrect, and some Orthodox theologians have even considered it heretical. Historically, Eastern Orthodox Christians have used azymites as a derogatory term for Roman Catholics.

 

[Dunemeister]

Contra the usual Western Christian position that the Last Supper was a seder, the Eastern Orthodox position is that it was not a seder, but an ordinary meal. The Western use of azymes in the Eucharist is considered incorrect, and some Orthodox theologians have even considered it heretical. Historically, Eastern Orthodox Christians have used azymites as a derogatory term for Roman Catholics.

Source?

 

[Smoke]

Source?

I didn't have a particular source in mind; I've studied Orthodoxy for thirty years and was Orthodox myself for more than 20 years. However, I found a few things online:

Father George D. Dragas, on the website of St. Barbara Hellenic Orthodox Church:

The Lord was crucified and died on the Friday along with the passover lambs which the Jews were to eat that evening

Father Michael Pomazansky:

The New Testament is established by the Eucharist of the Mystical Supper ("this is My blood of the New Testament"). If we acknowledge that before the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the eating of the Old Testament lamb took place (this is denied by many contemporary exegetists: see Clarendon Bible, Oxford, the explanations of the text of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke), then it is necessary to acknowledge that giving the disciples of the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine at the Mystical Supper was accomplished after the Old Testament rite of Passover and independently of it.

If the Mystical Supper had been in fact the Hebrew "Passover," fulfilled once a year, then the words of the Saviour this (i.e. this same kind of Supper) do in remembrance of Me would have been received as meaning that the Eucharist be accomplished once a year, whereas the disciples of Christ gathered for the "breaking of bread" each week (on the first day of the week) from the very beginning of the institution of the Eucharist. The Passover rites were fulfilled strictly by a ritual established by custom, but here they were not applied: the blessing of the bread and wine took place at the end of the Supper, while the Hebrew Passover ritual demands the blessing at the beginning of the supper; the one presiding at the Hebrew Passover table blesses not one chalice (as we see at the Mystical Supper), but four cups. The name of the supper as "Passover" possibly has a conditional meaning for the synoptic evangelists, transferring us to an understanding of the "New Testament Passover." The "lamb" of the New Testament Passover, the Lord Jesus Christ, was slain on the next day after the completion of the Mystical Supper.

(In the Orthodox Church, the Last Supper is referred to as the Mystical Supper.)


Wikipedia:

Azymites (from Gk. a privative, and zyme, leaven) is a term of reproach used by the Orthodox churches since the eleventh century against the Latin Churches ...

William Palmer, Dissertations on Subjects Relating to the "Orthodox" or "Eastern-Catholic" Communion (1853), pages 177-118:

As for the Azymes of the Latins, which the Greek in the eleventh century (probably soon after their introduction,) objected as a sufficient cause for separation as much as, and sometimes even more than the Filioque ...

... whether the Easterns even on this ground are justified in refusing, or are bound to refuse, their Communion till such time as the Latins return to the ancient and oecumenical practice? This case of the unlawful introduction of Azymes is much like that of the equally irregular introduction of Baptism by one immersion ...

"26 Martyrs of the Zographou Monastery on Mt. Athos at the hands of the Crusaders"

The Athonite monks sent a letter to Michael pointing out that the primacy of the Pope, his commemoration in the churches, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the insertion of the "filioque" ["and from the Son"] into the Creed, could not be accepted by Orthodox, and they asked the emperor to change his mind. "We clearly see," the letter said, "that you are becoming a heretic, but we implore you to forsake all this and abide in the teachings that were handed down to you.... Reject the unholy and novel teachings of a false knowledge, speculations, and additions to the Faith."

You could find more in The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware, The History of the Council of Florence by Ivan N. Ostroumoff, and in the Epistle on the Synod of Florence to All Christians by St. Mark of Ephesus, but I haven't found these online.

 

[Dunemeister]

Thanks for those sources. I have to say, though, that I think that if this represents Orthodox teaching, they're incorrect. Before the actual meal, Jesus' disciples ask him where they are to eat the Passover, and Jesus gives them instructions. At the meal itself, Jesus conducted the meal differently, but that shouldn't be a surprise. He was establishing a new covenant with its own meal. He was inaugurating something. Jesus used his re-worked seder as a way of introducing a new set of symbols and perspectives to the community that he was about to leave behind.

Summary: Yes, it was a seder. But it wasn't.

 

[Smoke]

Thanks for those sources. I have to say, though, that I think that if this represents Orthodox teaching, they're incorrect. Before the actual meal, Jesus' disciples ask him where they are to eat the Passover, and Jesus gives them instructions.

The gospel accounts cannot be reconciled. The synoptics clearly say the meal was eaten no earlier than the first day of Passover, while John clearly says it was not. Paul seems to anticipate John by referring to Jesus himself as the Passover sacrifice. So it becomes a matter of interpretation. The Orthodox have historically interpreted it as being a new kind of "Passover" meal, and not a proper seder. If it was a seder, it seems odd that Paul should have been unaware of it.

I doubt the historical details of the Last Supper. For one thing, I doubt that Jesus had designated twelve apostles from among his followers, so the idea that he gathered with the twelve apostles for a final mystical and symbolic meal is fishy from the outset. I think the whole event is likely a myth that grew out of Christian theological and liturgical traditions. I don't expect Christians to agree with that, but then I've never seen a convincing explanation of how all four canonical accounts could possibly be factual, either.

Summary: Yes, it was a seder. But it wasn't.

I think we can say with confidence that it was not an ordinary seder and that Paul didn't think of it as a seder.

 

[Oberon]

The gospel accounts cannot be reconciled. The synoptics clearly say the meal was eaten no earlier than the first day of Passover, while John clearly says it was not.

So ignore John. John isn't a particularly reliable source for the historical Jesus.

For one thing, I doubt that Jesus had designated twelve apostles from among his followers

This I have trouble with. For one thing, it is confirmed by Paul, who actually knew at least some of them. For another, it makes perfect sense for an eschatological prophet to pick out twelve of his followers to represent the 12 tribes. The twelve are attested to in all of our earliest sources. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, most of them seem to fade out. In later Christian sources, even in acts, most of the twelve hardly make any impression. That Jesus picked out twelve disciples is remembered well enough in the tradition, but even while Luke knows the tradition, his document on the earliest christian history ignores most of the twelve, probably because many turned away.

I don't expect Christians to agree with that, but then I've never seen a convincing explanation of how all four canonical accounts could possibly be factual, either.

You've never seen convincing scholarship that all four accounts contain oral narratives or teachings which go back to Jesus, or you've never seen convincing accounts that the entire narratives of each gospel aren't factual?

I think we can say with confidence... that Paul didn't think of it as a seder.

This we can't say with confidence at all. There is simply no evidence of it. The fact that Paul leaves out an adjective in a credal formula handed on to him, transcribed by a greek scribe, for an audience which wasn't necessarily all Jewish, and based on not a narrative but on a formula which is designed to be short, quick, to the point in order to be easily recalled, and seperated from context, is hardly convincing evidence, if it is evidence at all.

 

[Smoke]

This I have trouble with. For one thing, it is confirmed by Paul, who actually knew at least some of them.

Paul in one place mentions "the twelve," and he writes of having known Peter and John. Most of the twelve are complete ciphers in both the Pauline and synoptic literature, though some of them are fleshed out in John, which you have already said is unreliable.

For another, it makes perfect sense for an eschatological prophet to pick out twelve of his followers to represent the 12 tribes.

Indeed it does. It's a very appropriate myth, but the question is whether it's historical.

The twelve are attested to in all of our earliest sources. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, most of them seem to fade out. In later Christian sources, even in acts, most of the twelve hardly make any impression. That Jesus picked out twelve disciples is remembered well enough in the tradition, but even while Luke knows the tradition, his document on the earliest christian history ignores most of the twelve, probably because many turned away.

Indeed, while there is a tradition of "the twelve" they don't seem to have been at all prominent in the Jesus community, and they are, with few exceptions, nothing but names. Even the names are suspect. The lists are not consistent even among the canonical gospels -- not even among the synoptics. This is an odd state of affairs if they were Jesus' closest followers.

You've never seen convincing scholarship that all four accounts contain oral narratives or teachings which go back to Jesus, or you've never seen convincing accounts that the entire narratives of each gospel aren't factual?

I believe there are some historical facts in the gospels, but it is absolutely clear that none of them is entirely factual. The difficulty lies in sifting the facts from the whole.

This we can't say with confidence at all. There is simply no evidence of it. The fact that Paul leaves out an adjective in a credal formula handed on to him, transcribed by a greek scribe, for an audience which wasn't necessarily all Jewish, and based on not a narrative but on a formula which is designed to be short, quick, to the point in order to be easily recalled, and seperated from context, is hardly convincing evidence, if it is evidence at all.

Your interpretation requires a great deal of carelessness about the story of Jesus on the part of Paul and his followers; I think you're reaching. Even if we grant your point, though, it still shows that it if the Last Supper was a seder, that fact was unimportant in the early church.

I find a theology in which the Passover is celebrated before the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb awkward at best; if we suppose that this was foreseen and planned by Jesus himself, it seems uncharacteristically clumsy. There can be little doubt that the author of John has tailored the facts to fit his theology; however, it does not follow that the synoptic version is historical.