----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 1:45 AM Subject: Re: Catholicism Re: james ossuary a fake - scientists
> > --- 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. Let me get this straight. Your suggestion is that the letters of Paul (the actual letters of Paul, not duceo-Paul) were questioned by a number of folks in the early church. I'd very much appreciate references on this. > 2) We know that King James added, removed, and edited sections as he pleased. > Becouse the can disagree with the greek and hebrue. Yea, so? I admit, since I do not read Greek and Hebrew, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage..I have to ask my daughter or wife about the origional texts. :-) However, the translations that I read and use are based on the best understanding of ancient texts. A very good book on the process is "The Text of the New Testiment" by Bruce Metzger. > 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. (As an aside, what in the world gave you the idea that I use the KJ translation?) There certainly are differences between the viewpoints of numerous figures in the early church. They are documented in scripture and out of scripture. Some of the differences are clearly deliniated: faith vs. works, the degree one needs to conform to Jewish law to be a Christian. Others are hinted at: the differences between Paul and pseudo-gnostics of the time (the consensus is that real gnosticism came into Christianity during the 2nd century.) But, I've seen no mention of getting high as the origional goal of the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the writings of all four cannonical gospel give the obvious foundation of that goal: Jesus as the lamb. It is most clear in John, but the celebration of Passover on the night before the death of Jesus, and "this is my body and this is my blood" while celebrating the feast is not simply a coincidence. The idea that it must really be getting stoned, instead, is trying to cram ancient ideas into a modern pigeonhole. > (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. I'd be interested to see the ancient writings you base this on. In particular, it would be worthwhile to see Christian writings that predate Paul. The oldest Christian writing that I know of is a hymn that is quoted by Paul. As far as his silly ideas go, let us consider the main radical ideas he had: Christianity is as much for the Gentiles as the Jews, one does not need to be a Jew to be a good Christian. One does not even have to adopt the law to be a good Christian. Salvation comes through the grace that is made available to us through our faith in Christ. It does not require perfect obedience to the law of Moses. Why do you think these ideas are so silly? > 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. Huh? Dan M. Paul, on the other hand I am not > so sure of. Out of curiosity _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
