--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Catholicism Re: james ossuary a fake - scientists
>
>
>
> >
> > One very interesting interpritation I have come across ( and give a lot
> of
> > credibility to) has to do with the "unleveness" of the bread. And the
> effects
> > that wine can have. Without the yeast unleven bread can contain quite a
> bit
> > of argot, a fungus that grows on grains. Argot contains sylisiben which
> is an
> > halucinagen. It might be that Jesus intent was for his disiples to reach
> a
> > "spiritual" state by ingesting sylisiben and achohaul. While this is
> contrary
> > to the beliefs of most christians it is not actualy very extream as
> religious
> > practices go. It certainly does make the whole buisness make a lot more
> > sence. It gives it purpous which is otherwise quite contirved.
>
> I have a problem with that. It contradicts what we know from early
> writings. For example, when Communion is discussed by Paul, the very
> thought of becoming drunk on communion wine was scandalous. Since his
> letters were reverently copied and passed by the early church, its hard to
> believe that he would not either
>
> 1) accept the practice
>
> or
>
> 2) attack those that teach that this practice was correct.
>
> Rather, he simply mentions that he heard some folks were doing it, and was
> shocked that they would do such a bad thing.
>
> Dan M.
>
1) Not all christians beleive in the validity of these docs. Christianity has
allways existed both outside and inside catholocism.
2) We know that King James added, removed, and edited sections as he pleased.
Becouse the can disagree with the greek and hebrue.
3) And most importatntly, You can not deniy that their was a definate schism
between the apostles. It is apparent even within KJ. Looking at the various
letters etc. they do tend to agree that they disagree on the same things.
(BTW this can be used to suggest that the docs you speak of were in fact
valid.) It is perfectly reasonable that ~some~ of the early christians
definatly did believe that intocsication was at least part of the intent.
Especialy when, as you say, groups of the early christians were in fact doing
this.
4) Perhaps Paul took issue with dedening the halucionogenic effect of the
argot which was almost certainly there, all though it was probably in a lot
more than just the bread used for communion.
My personal view is that it was intended as a celibration. The catholic
version of communion (in fact most christian versions) are very "Paulican",
and anything but a celibration. And my personal opinion of Paul is that he
tried to take the place of Jesus and interjected many of his own silly ideas.
While I may not believe in all the fantasticness and nonverifiability of the
religion. I certainly do think that Jesus existed, was a good man, and was if
nothing else briliant at social engenearing. Paul, on the other hand I am not
so sure of.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
