Jesus Christ healed with marijuana

[Reverend Blair]

The four gospels in the modern bible were all written decades if not centuries after Jesus' death. So it seems likely that they have been modified and expanded over the years before they were written down.

Not to mention that there are many other religious texts that the Church has not seen fit to include in the Bible. Many of those texts are not available to anybody outside of the Vatican.

The "miraculous" aspects of the healing would have been played up, as were other later inventions, such as the virgin birth,
which isn't even mentioned in the gospels that come earlier.

Again, shades of Arthur and Merlin.

That is indeed an interesting topic. Many people believe that Jesus used some sort of substance, possibly a cannabis extract, to fake his death on the cross.

I saw a whole show on that once. It was pretty cool. Apparently a mixture of certain oils and vinegars along with some drugs can induce a death-like coma.

also, wasn't mary magdalene (sp?) a floozie, a misbegotten woman, jesus took into his fold to protect?

A lot of biblical scholars have disputed that. It's a tradition in the church that seems to appear around the time they decided that priests couldn't marry. There was an atmosphere of misogyny that was almost palpable in religious writings of the time.

jewish women & men were allowed to live together for a while, before marriage.

That's in the context of being closely supervised by their families though. No hanky panky allowed.

If you did any real research, you will find that there is plenty of research that proves that the man Jesus walked the earth some 2000 years ago.

No, actually, there isn't.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The four gospels in the modern bible were all written decades if not centuries after Jesus' death. So it seems likely that they have been modified and expanded over the years before they were written down.

Not to mention that there are many other religious texts that the Church has not seen fit to include in the Bible. Many of those texts are not available to anybody outside of the Vatican.

The "miraculous" aspects of the healing would have been played up, as were other later inventions, such as the virgin birth,
which isn't even mentioned in the gospels that come earlier.

Again, shades of Arthur and Merlin.

That is indeed an interesting topic. Many people believe that Jesus used some sort of substance, possibly a cannabis extract, to fake his death on the cross.

I saw a whole show on that once. It was pretty cool. Apparently a mixture of certain oils and vinegars along with some drugs can induce a death-like coma.

also, wasn't mary magdalene (sp?) a floozie, a misbegotten woman, jesus took into his fold to protect?

A lot of biblical scholars have disputed that. It's a tradition in the church that seems to appear around the time they decided that priests couldn't marry. There was an atmosphere of misogyny that was almost palpable in religious writings of the time.

jewish women & men were allowed to live together for a while, before marriage.

That's in the context of being closely supervised by their families though. No hanky panky allowed.

If you did any real research, you will find that there is plenty of research that proves that the man Jesus walked the earth some 2000 years ago.

No, actually, there isn't.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The four gospels in the modern bible were all written decades if not centuries after Jesus' death. So it seems likely that they have been modified and expanded over the years before they were written down.

Not to mention that there are many other religious texts that the Church has not seen fit to include in the Bible. Many of those texts are not available to anybody outside of the Vatican.

The "miraculous" aspects of the healing would have been played up, as were other later inventions, such as the virgin birth,
which isn't even mentioned in the gospels that come earlier.

Again, shades of Arthur and Merlin.

That is indeed an interesting topic. Many people believe that Jesus used some sort of substance, possibly a cannabis extract, to fake his death on the cross.

I saw a whole show on that once. It was pretty cool. Apparently a mixture of certain oils and vinegars along with some drugs can induce a death-like coma.

also, wasn't mary magdalene (sp?) a floozie, a misbegotten woman, jesus took into his fold to protect?

A lot of biblical scholars have disputed that. It's a tradition in the church that seems to appear around the time they decided that priests couldn't marry. There was an atmosphere of misogyny that was almost palpable in religious writings of the time.

jewish women & men were allowed to live together for a while, before marriage.

That's in the context of being closely supervised by their families though. No hanky panky allowed.

If you did any real research, you will find that there is plenty of research that proves that the man Jesus walked the earth some 2000 years ago.

No, actually, there isn't.

 

[tibear]

RB,

Again, I say, you say.

Who's right. Who cares.

 

[tibear]

RB,

Again, I say, you say.

Who's right. Who cares.

 

[tibear]

RB,

Again, I say, you say.

Who's right. Who cares.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Jesus Christ healed w

It's not "I say, you say." I'm an internet-ordained atheist, but I did survive 13 years of Catholic education. I've got an odd interest in Jesus for a variety of reasons, so I've done a fair bit of reading and watch a lot of the shows that come on.

Remember that series of Bible stories they used to have on A&E? I watched the whole thing just to here the female narrator read. She could have been reading the phone book and I would have watched.

The views I put forth are held by qualified scholars, I didn't just make them up. The same holds true for your views, tibear...you didn't invent them, they came from someplace.

It's a discussion that we can all learn from, but you have to accept that those of us who don't share your views are going to have different views.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Jesus Christ healed w

It's not "I say, you say." I'm an internet-ordained atheist, but I did survive 13 years of Catholic education. I've got an odd interest in Jesus for a variety of reasons, so I've done a fair bit of reading and watch a lot of the shows that come on.

Remember that series of Bible stories they used to have on A&E? I watched the whole thing just to here the female narrator read. She could have been reading the phone book and I would have watched.

The views I put forth are held by qualified scholars, I didn't just make them up. The same holds true for your views, tibear...you didn't invent them, they came from someplace.

It's a discussion that we can all learn from, but you have to accept that those of us who don't share your views are going to have different views.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Jesus Christ healed w

It's not "I say, you say." I'm an internet-ordained atheist, but I did survive 13 years of Catholic education. I've got an odd interest in Jesus for a variety of reasons, so I've done a fair bit of reading and watch a lot of the shows that come on.

Remember that series of Bible stories they used to have on A&E? I watched the whole thing just to here the female narrator read. She could have been reading the phone book and I would have watched.

The views I put forth are held by qualified scholars, I didn't just make them up. The same holds true for your views, tibear...you didn't invent them, they came from someplace.

It's a discussion that we can all learn from, but you have to accept that those of us who don't share your views are going to have different views.

 

[tibear]

RB,

It's a discussion that we can all learn from, but you have to accept that those of us who don't share your views are going to have different views.

There's something we can agree on.

Yes, there are "scholars" that don't believe that the man Jesus walked the earth, but there are also "scholars" who believe that the earth was created in seven days as well.

It is a given fact among historians that all of the people involved, certainly with the crucifixion were all real people. It is in historical records that Pontius Pilate had a rebel Jewish leader executed by crucifixion at Golgatha. These are all historical facts.

As stated earlier, the debate is about Christ's divinity not whether he walked the earth.

I taken many theology courses and understand the bible and what the significance of the stories are. To think that the bible is written by men/women that have a direct line to God is a simple concept but not practical. Rather it is a book of stories that depict a people's struggles and how their "God" helped them through the struggles. Certainly the old testament is alot more fictional than the new testament, but even parts of the new testament could very well have some exagerations to emphasize certain aspects.

I've heard many different stores about Mary Magdelane and her relationship to Jesus. These minor details have very little significance to Christ and his existence. However, the overall story is one of love, compassion and hope.

So... Is everything written in the bible unquestionably true and given straight from the lips of God? Probably not. Did the historical man Jesus walk the earth? Absolutely. That's been proved over and over again.

 

[tibear]

RB,

It's a discussion that we can all learn from, but you have to accept that those of us who don't share your views are going to have different views.

There's something we can agree on.

Yes, there are "scholars" that don't believe that the man Jesus walked the earth, but there are also "scholars" who believe that the earth was created in seven days as well.

It is a given fact among historians that all of the people involved, certainly with the crucifixion were all real people. It is in historical records that Pontius Pilate had a rebel Jewish leader executed by crucifixion at Golgatha. These are all historical facts.

As stated earlier, the debate is about Christ's divinity not whether he walked the earth.

I taken many theology courses and understand the bible and what the significance of the stories are. To think that the bible is written by men/women that have a direct line to God is a simple concept but not practical. Rather it is a book of stories that depict a people's struggles and how their "God" helped them through the struggles. Certainly the old testament is alot more fictional than the new testament, but even parts of the new testament could very well have some exagerations to emphasize certain aspects.

I've heard many different stores about Mary Magdelane and her relationship to Jesus. These minor details have very little significance to Christ and his existence. However, the overall story is one of love, compassion and hope.

So... Is everything written in the bible unquestionably true and given straight from the lips of God? Probably not. Did the historical man Jesus walk the earth? Absolutely. That's been proved over and over again.

 

[tibear]

RB,

It's a discussion that we can all learn from, but you have to accept that those of us who don't share your views are going to have different views.

There's something we can agree on.

Yes, there are "scholars" that don't believe that the man Jesus walked the earth, but there are also "scholars" who believe that the earth was created in seven days as well.

It is a given fact among historians that all of the people involved, certainly with the crucifixion were all real people. It is in historical records that Pontius Pilate had a rebel Jewish leader executed by crucifixion at Golgatha. These are all historical facts.

As stated earlier, the debate is about Christ's divinity not whether he walked the earth.

I taken many theology courses and understand the bible and what the significance of the stories are. To think that the bible is written by men/women that have a direct line to God is a simple concept but not practical. Rather it is a book of stories that depict a people's struggles and how their "God" helped them through the struggles. Certainly the old testament is alot more fictional than the new testament, but even parts of the new testament could very well have some exagerations to emphasize certain aspects.

I've heard many different stores about Mary Magdelane and her relationship to Jesus. These minor details have very little significance to Christ and his existence. However, the overall story is one of love, compassion and hope.

So... Is everything written in the bible unquestionably true and given straight from the lips of God? Probably not. Did the historical man Jesus walk the earth? Absolutely. That's been proved over and over again.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Yes, there are "scholars" that don't believe that the man Jesus walked the earth, but there are also "scholars" who believe that the earth was created in seven days as well.

Since scholar implies that they have looked at and weighed the evidence, I'd have to say that there are no scholars who believe that the earth was created in seven days.

It is a given fact among historians that all of the people involved, certainly with the crucifixion were all real people. It is in historical records that Pontius Pilate had a rebel Jewish leader executed by crucifixion at Golgatha. These are all historical facts.

Pontius Pilate had many rebel jewish leaders imprisoned or killed. He was like Joeseph Stalin, or George W. Bush.

Certainly the old testament is alot more fictional than the new testament, but even parts of the new testament could very well have some exagerations to emphasize certain aspects.

They almost certainly do. As was mentioned previously, the texts the church has decided to release as the Holy Bible are selected from many texts that didn't make the cut for one reason or another. The New Testament certainly wasn't edited for brevity, so it's fairly safe to assume that there was a fair bit of "doesn't fit the tone of this publication" going on. Can you imagine that? I've gotten some pretty cool rejection slips, but never one from somebody claiming to be speaking for a god.

Some things about what was left out of the Bible are pretty bizarre though. Why isn't the Book of Thomas in there? He was reputed to be Jesus' brother. I wouldn't want one of my brothers scribbling a book about me either, but if the New Testament is a biography, as much of it is purported to be, why wouldn't that be in there?

I've heard many different stores about Mary Magdelane and her relationship to Jesus. These minor details have very little significance to Christ and his existence.

From an anthropological point of view they are fascinating. Social norms, taboo breaking, human interaction. By the way, the word Christ is Greek and the concept it represents (often represent by an x...as in x-mas) of a saviour sent by or related to the gods goes back to early Greek mythology. Hercules was a Christ figure, for instance.

So... Is everything written in the bible unquestionably true and given straight from the lips of God? Probably not. Did the historical man Jesus walk the earth? Absolutely. That's been proved over and over again.

It has never been proven. It has been inferred as being likely. We have no verifiable grave, no remains, no physical proof of either Jesus or his family. That's part of the reason why the bone box found a few years ago made such big news among the scientific community...it would have been proof that a brother of somebody named Jesus and a father named Joseph actually existed. All the results were inconclusive in the end though. Some say the box is genuine, others say it is a fake.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Yes, there are "scholars" that don't believe that the man Jesus walked the earth, but there are also "scholars" who believe that the earth was created in seven days as well.

Since scholar implies that they have looked at and weighed the evidence, I'd have to say that there are no scholars who believe that the earth was created in seven days.

It is a given fact among historians that all of the people involved, certainly with the crucifixion were all real people. It is in historical records that Pontius Pilate had a rebel Jewish leader executed by crucifixion at Golgatha. These are all historical facts.

Pontius Pilate had many rebel jewish leaders imprisoned or killed. He was like Joeseph Stalin, or George W. Bush.

Certainly the old testament is alot more fictional than the new testament, but even parts of the new testament could very well have some exagerations to emphasize certain aspects.

They almost certainly do. As was mentioned previously, the texts the church has decided to release as the Holy Bible are selected from many texts that didn't make the cut for one reason or another. The New Testament certainly wasn't edited for brevity, so it's fairly safe to assume that there was a fair bit of "doesn't fit the tone of this publication" going on. Can you imagine that? I've gotten some pretty cool rejection slips, but never one from somebody claiming to be speaking for a god.

Some things about what was left out of the Bible are pretty bizarre though. Why isn't the Book of Thomas in there? He was reputed to be Jesus' brother. I wouldn't want one of my brothers scribbling a book about me either, but if the New Testament is a biography, as much of it is purported to be, why wouldn't that be in there?

I've heard many different stores about Mary Magdelane and her relationship to Jesus. These minor details have very little significance to Christ and his existence.

From an anthropological point of view they are fascinating. Social norms, taboo breaking, human interaction. By the way, the word Christ is Greek and the concept it represents (often represent by an x...as in x-mas) of a saviour sent by or related to the gods goes back to early Greek mythology. Hercules was a Christ figure, for instance.

So... Is everything written in the bible unquestionably true and given straight from the lips of God? Probably not. Did the historical man Jesus walk the earth? Absolutely. That's been proved over and over again.

It has never been proven. It has been inferred as being likely. We have no verifiable grave, no remains, no physical proof of either Jesus or his family. That's part of the reason why the bone box found a few years ago made such big news among the scientific community...it would have been proof that a brother of somebody named Jesus and a father named Joseph actually existed. All the results were inconclusive in the end though. Some say the box is genuine, others say it is a fake.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Yes, there are "scholars" that don't believe that the man Jesus walked the earth, but there are also "scholars" who believe that the earth was created in seven days as well.

Since scholar implies that they have looked at and weighed the evidence, I'd have to say that there are no scholars who believe that the earth was created in seven days.

It is a given fact among historians that all of the people involved, certainly with the crucifixion were all real people. It is in historical records that Pontius Pilate had a rebel Jewish leader executed by crucifixion at Golgatha. These are all historical facts.

Pontius Pilate had many rebel jewish leaders imprisoned or killed. He was like Joeseph Stalin, or George W. Bush.

Certainly the old testament is alot more fictional than the new testament, but even parts of the new testament could very well have some exagerations to emphasize certain aspects.

They almost certainly do. As was mentioned previously, the texts the church has decided to release as the Holy Bible are selected from many texts that didn't make the cut for one reason or another. The New Testament certainly wasn't edited for brevity, so it's fairly safe to assume that there was a fair bit of "doesn't fit the tone of this publication" going on. Can you imagine that? I've gotten some pretty cool rejection slips, but never one from somebody claiming to be speaking for a god.

Some things about what was left out of the Bible are pretty bizarre though. Why isn't the Book of Thomas in there? He was reputed to be Jesus' brother. I wouldn't want one of my brothers scribbling a book about me either, but if the New Testament is a biography, as much of it is purported to be, why wouldn't that be in there?

I've heard many different stores about Mary Magdelane and her relationship to Jesus. These minor details have very little significance to Christ and his existence.

From an anthropological point of view they are fascinating. Social norms, taboo breaking, human interaction. By the way, the word Christ is Greek and the concept it represents (often represent by an x...as in x-mas) of a saviour sent by or related to the gods goes back to early Greek mythology. Hercules was a Christ figure, for instance.

So... Is everything written in the bible unquestionably true and given straight from the lips of God? Probably not. Did the historical man Jesus walk the earth? Absolutely. That's been proved over and over again.

It has never been proven. It has been inferred as being likely. We have no verifiable grave, no remains, no physical proof of either Jesus or his family. That's part of the reason why the bone box found a few years ago made such big news among the scientific community...it would have been proof that a brother of somebody named Jesus and a father named Joseph actually existed. All the results were inconclusive in the end though. Some say the box is genuine, others say it is a fake.

 

[merryclaire]

misogyny was almost(almost in italics here) palapble in religious writings?
i have to point out just for the fun of it, that most writing of our entire history was from a misogynest point of view. and most definately the bible. i am not against the bible, but fact is fact. did women even count? and when they did, were they not, evil, floozies, terrible jezebals to watch out for and be wary of, lest they turn you to sin with their wicked ways? eve-like?
i believe the bible was used as yet one more way to keep women downtrodden and chattel by scared little men.
they didn't even introduce mary as the virgin mother until quite late in the christian religion, what was it, i think around the 14 century, because they needed an image to soften things up. the fact was that a poor man being crucified and in terrible agony was not a happy enough image to keep the scores in line and become faithful followers.

it was the greeks, who interestingly enough, while they kept their noble women in absolute seclusion and the men were so unused to the sight of any woman other than their family that it was the absolute norm, in fact it was just done, that the sons would become the lovers of an older experienced man, who would mentor him and show him the ropes of life. after which, around middle age they would settle down to marry a noble woman, who they had no knowledge of in any way. socially, emotionally, probably physically, etc etc.

but interestingly enough, it is only the greeks as far as i know in history, who in spite of this treatment of women, actually made women goddesses, who were strong and noble and had powerful powers. they made a few evil ones, but there were more good ones and excepting for zeus, (where by the way, we got our image of God) the women were just as powerful, if not more powerful than the men and we all speak of them today. the most famous of course, would be athena, aphrodite. anyone ever read any greek plays? lysistra? (sp?) almost complete woman cast. to do this, means that women were honored and appreciated. so they while being scared of women, like as far as i know, all other societies and cultures (excepting perhaps sparta (hard chicks there) and rome (we all know about rome)), they at least recognized their power, their strength, their skills.

this is interesting to me. a real contrast from other cultures.


now i know that the romans had a few women goddesses too, but i believe they borrowed the majority of their gods/goddesses from greece. though i could be wrong on that. and rome, as we know was a whole new kettle of fish. i think anything went for anyone there.

 

[merryclaire]

misogyny was almost(almost in italics here) palapble in religious writings?
i have to point out just for the fun of it, that most writing of our entire history was from a misogynest point of view. and most definately the bible. i am not against the bible, but fact is fact. did women even count? and when they did, were they not, evil, floozies, terrible jezebals to watch out for and be wary of, lest they turn you to sin with their wicked ways? eve-like?
i believe the bible was used as yet one more way to keep women downtrodden and chattel by scared little men.
they didn't even introduce mary as the virgin mother until quite late in the christian religion, what was it, i think around the 14 century, because they needed an image to soften things up. the fact was that a poor man being crucified and in terrible agony was not a happy enough image to keep the scores in line and become faithful followers.

it was the greeks, who interestingly enough, while they kept their noble women in absolute seclusion and the men were so unused to the sight of any woman other than their family that it was the absolute norm, in fact it was just done, that the sons would become the lovers of an older experienced man, who would mentor him and show him the ropes of life. after which, around middle age they would settle down to marry a noble woman, who they had no knowledge of in any way. socially, emotionally, probably physically, etc etc.

but interestingly enough, it is only the greeks as far as i know in history, who in spite of this treatment of women, actually made women goddesses, who were strong and noble and had powerful powers. they made a few evil ones, but there were more good ones and excepting for zeus, (where by the way, we got our image of God) the women were just as powerful, if not more powerful than the men and we all speak of them today. the most famous of course, would be athena, aphrodite. anyone ever read any greek plays? lysistra? (sp?) almost complete woman cast. to do this, means that women were honored and appreciated. so they while being scared of women, like as far as i know, all other societies and cultures (excepting perhaps sparta (hard chicks there) and rome (we all know about rome)), they at least recognized their power, their strength, their skills.

this is interesting to me. a real contrast from other cultures.


now i know that the romans had a few women goddesses too, but i believe they borrowed the majority of their gods/goddesses from greece. though i could be wrong on that. and rome, as we know was a whole new kettle of fish. i think anything went for anyone there.

 

[merryclaire]

misogyny was almost(almost in italics here) palapble in religious writings?
i have to point out just for the fun of it, that most writing of our entire history was from a misogynest point of view. and most definately the bible. i am not against the bible, but fact is fact. did women even count? and when they did, were they not, evil, floozies, terrible jezebals to watch out for and be wary of, lest they turn you to sin with their wicked ways? eve-like?
i believe the bible was used as yet one more way to keep women downtrodden and chattel by scared little men.
they didn't even introduce mary as the virgin mother until quite late in the christian religion, what was it, i think around the 14 century, because they needed an image to soften things up. the fact was that a poor man being crucified and in terrible agony was not a happy enough image to keep the scores in line and become faithful followers.

it was the greeks, who interestingly enough, while they kept their noble women in absolute seclusion and the men were so unused to the sight of any woman other than their family that it was the absolute norm, in fact it was just done, that the sons would become the lovers of an older experienced man, who would mentor him and show him the ropes of life. after which, around middle age they would settle down to marry a noble woman, who they had no knowledge of in any way. socially, emotionally, probably physically, etc etc.

but interestingly enough, it is only the greeks as far as i know in history, who in spite of this treatment of women, actually made women goddesses, who were strong and noble and had powerful powers. they made a few evil ones, but there were more good ones and excepting for zeus, (where by the way, we got our image of God) the women were just as powerful, if not more powerful than the men and we all speak of them today. the most famous of course, would be athena, aphrodite. anyone ever read any greek plays? lysistra? (sp?) almost complete woman cast. to do this, means that women were honored and appreciated. so they while being scared of women, like as far as i know, all other societies and cultures (excepting perhaps sparta (hard chicks there) and rome (we all know about rome)), they at least recognized their power, their strength, their skills.

this is interesting to me. a real contrast from other cultures.


now i know that the romans had a few women goddesses too, but i believe they borrowed the majority of their gods/goddesses from greece. though i could be wrong on that. and rome, as we know was a whole new kettle of fish. i think anything went for anyone there.

 

[merryclaire]

sorry that's very muddled, was writing it quickly while 3 yr old hopping around my heels. gotta go. hope it wasn't too muddled.

 

[merryclaire]

sorry that's very muddled, was writing it quickly while 3 yr old hopping around my heels. gotta go. hope it wasn't too muddled.