--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- 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. >
Dan, this is not an area I have studies in ages, and I am not going to go rumaging around in boxes and spending ours diging up a reference for something that is so basic and well known. Catholics may not like this, and may shun the authors who write about it, but non-secular historians have shown that their was quite a scism early on. this is so widely known I don't need to pull references for YOU. I don't have the time. As a dyslexic reading takes quite a bit out of me and I limmit it to things that I think REALLY MATTER. I a big part of spent my childhood on such studies and I would rather not rehash it all just to find a reference for YOU. If you would like references on this then go find them yourslef. It shouldn't be dificult. Looking in the bible it'self would be a good start. The differnt books give quite a diffent view. > > 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? So, KJV is a skewed view of christianity. There are perfectly other very valid interpritations and translations which spell out a very differnt practice. >I admit, since I do not read Greek and Hebrew, I'm at a bit of a > disadvantage.. I don't either, but my father does. >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. Much of what was written was originaly very poetic and could be interpreted in many diferent ways. The purpose of the writing was to say things that could not simply be spelled out in so many words. The importantce of the interpritation is left therefore to the reader. Translations are allways hindered by the interpritation of the traslator. > > 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?) Most traslations start with KJV as a basis even when other references are used. > There certainly are differences between the viewpoints of > numerous figures in the early church. Some of these so significant as to produce very differning practicis. > They are documented in scripture and > out of scripture. Some of the differences are clearly deliniated: faith vs. > works, Exactly this one is HUGE. > the degree one needs to conform to Jewish law to be a Christian. Also Huge. > 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.) The differences in the teachings of the appostles who went to differnt parts of the world. > But, I've seen no mention of getting high as the > origional goal of the Lord's Supper. John in the desert eating only the twigs of a wormwood. "Firey bush" acn be traslated to "wormwood". I wasn't suggesting htat geting high was the "goal" but rather worship in a trance like state, an altered state, what in a majority of cultures is considered a "spiritual state" is certainly more feasable than ...what? "eat me!, drink my blood"? How does that make any sence? Here eat this bread which has a high probablility of having an halusinogen in it and drink these firmented grapes which have alchohaul in it. Do this together and remember me, but DONT BE EFFECTED BY THE DRUGS. Come on! He didn't say here, take a little tiny tiny peice of bread, and here drink a little tiny bit of wine. Did he specificaly ~say~ don't get high on the argot. Don't get drunk on the wine? No. If he had ment it like that then why didn't he say here eat some figs it's my flesh, rink some sea water it's my blood ..or any thing else that didn't have DRUGS IN IT? Come on. If he was telling them to take THOSE things but he DIDN'T want them to get altered by it, don't you think he would have mentioned that part? > 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. Modern? much fewer people get "stoned" today that ever. And we are not talking about "geting stoned" we are talking about worship. Antering ones spiritual state is nothing new. Nearly every culture wraps such substances or trancing oneselft to such a state as spiritual. Once again, they were eating and drinking, why would Jesus pcik out those substances? Why not something different? If you argue that it was nothing special then let's follow that line. In that case these were things that they ate and drank all the time, so Jesus just picked out whatever was in front of him. Then why wasn't he just saying the following? "hay guys, when I am gone, get together and eat and drink and remember me. Everythings going to be fine." The communion thing is just silly. It doesn't make snese. Not even from the reading. > > > > (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 ===== _________________________________________________ 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
