Scriptural literacy

[RandFan]

Mythology. Bronze age oral traditions from a small group of largely iliterate nomads. Hey, I know, let's make a religion out of it.

2,000 years from now Obi-Wan Kenobi will be worshiped as a messiah who was sacrificed and whose spirit become one with the force.

 

[Greediguts]

.
"For we know that when this tent we live in now is taken down... when we die
and leave these bodies...we will have wonderful new bodies in Heaven, homes
that will be ours for evermore, made for us by God Himself, without human hands."
II Corinthians 5:1 (Living Bible)
Jude, the brother of Jesus describes them as "angels, having left their first estate in heaven".

Looking at II Corinthians 5:1, I don't see this as a reference to "layers" of heaven or to O.B.E. / near-death experiences. Paul is referring to the human body as an "earthly tent". Yes, Paul feels the body is actually a barrier preventing us from truly being with God (See II Cor. 5:6), but the larger picture that Paul is talking about are the themes of affliction/consolation. Whatever hardships you suffer, they are temporary and not eternal. (See II Cor.4:1-18).

You were in heaven, but its secret had not been revealed to you and a worthless mystery you knew." - although the Four Archangels' concern surely contradicts this mocking remark. Other Apocryphal books say that even now they are held and tortured in the terrible Fifth Heaven, set aside for just this purpose. (I Enoch XIII describes the Watchers/Grigori as stricken mute with guilt and terror after Enoch's reproof, and indeed in II Enoch the Grigori imprisoned in the Fifth Heaven are voiceless giants.) The world, meanwhile, is swept clean in a great earthquake and flood, destroying the Nephilim's lands, to which many writers trace the worldwide legends of a catastrophic inundation

.
The space between here and there is a place where the fallen ones or some of them are imprisoned, and actually numbered as the fifth heaven.

As I am not very familiar with the Book of Enoch (or many of the Apocryphal books) I had to do some searching. For those interested the site here gives detailed background about the book and when it was written. It appears that it was several texts cobbled together from different authors and time periods. I also searched for "giants" on the site. It would appear that the "giants" they referred to in the O.T. were not a distinct race, but very large men living among the other tribes. You can read that here.

Its written in the Qumran that there is seven skies
did Allah meant seven heavens or seven layers of skies?
It’s repeated more than 1 time in Qumran

If you want to discuss the Koran I suggest starting a different thread. My knowledge and understanding of the Koran is limited at best (and when I say limited I meant almost non-existent).

http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_three_heavens.htm

On the web page you provide they only discuss 3 layers of heaven (I have come across people saying scripture supports 3, 5, and 7 layers). They offer several different verses to support their opinion. To support the location of God's throne room in the 3rd layer, they refer us to Isaiah 14:13. I am going to show verses 12-14 to give some more background.

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon;I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High."
(Isaiah 14:12-14 taken from the Oxford Annotated bible NRSV)

In some translations, they point out that the word "Zaphon" is missing and the words "assembly in the north" replace it as "Zaphon" meant north.

These lines show where the origins of these verses originated. The Canaanites had 2 gods Helel and Shahar (also referred to as Morning Star and Dawn) who fall from the heavens as a result of rebellion. Zaphon was the "Mt. Olympus" for this pantheon of gods. "Most High" was often used as a title representing "El Elyon" a deity of the Canaanite pantheon. In Christianity, this myth reemerged as the fall of Lucifer.

Chances are the original meaning of those verses in Isaiah are to mock a Babylonian ruler....

 

[Hokulele]

Looking at II Corinthians 5:1, I don't see this as a reference to "layers" of heaven or to O.B.E. / near-death experiences.

<snip>

Fair warning, edge (and DOC) tends to use the New Living Translation of the Bible to support his arguments.

Just sayin'.

 

[edge]

Enoch has an out of body experience along with premonition type dreams earlier and later in the texts.
He is taken up in the spirit and this seems to be the earliest type of revelations written with much more clarity and definitions and understanding.
There are many parallels to Revelations at the end of the Bible.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe017.htm


Piggy says,

In that case, you agree that there are irreconcilable inconsistencies in the Bible.

You agree that Genesis 1 and 2 preserve two different and conflicting creation traditions.

Sure and the references made in Enoch describe why it all happened.

Date and Value.
The book was probably written between 50 B.C. and 70 A.D.; the first date is given by the fact that Ethiopic Enoch, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon are used; the second by the fact that the destruction of the Temple is not mentioned at all. The quotations from Slavonic Enoch in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which Charles uses as additional evidence in establishing the date, are strongly doubted by Schürer. The Slavonic Enoch furnishes new material for the study of religious thought in Judaism about the beginning of the common era. The ideas of the millennium and of the seven heavens are the most important in this connection; both have been treated in detail by Charles in his introduction and commentary, published together with Morfill's translation. Another very interesting feature is the presence of evil in heaven—the fallen angels in the second heaven, and hell in the third. This belief, although probably at first current among the Christians also, was, together with the idea of the seven heavens, afterward rejected by the Church. The idea of hell in the third heaven may have been derived from expectations expressed in Isa. 1xvi. 23, 24; that is, that the pleasures of the righteous in paradise will be enhanced by seeing the sufferings of the wicked.G.

Greediguts says :

It appears that it was several texts cobbled together from different authors and time periods.

Of this literature a collection of fragments or single, independent pieces has come down to us in the so called "Ethiopic Enoch,"

Fragments where found in the remains of the Alexandria library and then larger portions where found amongst the Dead Sea scrolls.
Based on various dating methods, including carbon 14, paleographic and scribal, the Dead Sea Scrolls were written during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 A.D.

Enoch’s linage….
http://www.allaboutgod.com/truth-topics/enoch.htm

Looking at II Corinthians 5:1, I don't see this as a reference to "layers" of heaven or to O.B.E. / near-death experiences. Paul is referring to the human body as an "earthly tent". Yes, Paul feels the body is actually a barrier preventing us from truly being with God (See II Cor. 5:6), but the larger picture that Paul is talking about are the themes of affliction/consolation. Whatever hardships you suffer, they are temporary and not eternal. (See II Cor.4:1-18).

With IICor:5 I was making a point of the spirit as a starter and of it longing to rejoin in heaven and yes I am in agreement with what you are saying.

For we know that when this tent we live in now is taken down... when we die
and leave these bodies...we will have wonderful new bodies in Heaven, homes....

The King James Version is different, but closer to the Hebrew.

2 Corinthians 5:1 (King James Version)
2 Corinthians 5
1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=5&version=9
What I was trying to show there is that, after death there is a heaven, that we go to; in references to his comment about Jesus not fulfilling his statement about the second coming, since till his physical second coming it is we that fulfill it when we die.
Jesus also makes it clear on the cross that the thief is under the second covenant and grace, when he basically says for today you will be in paradise.
How can that be if the thief would have to wait for the physical second coming of Christ?

Everything that we know and recorded, “taken in a positive aspect”, about what people believe happens when N.D.Es occurs, points to this as what actually happen after death.

from your link:

Canaanites had 2 gods Helel and Shahar (also referred to as Morning Star and Dawn) who fall from the heavens as a result of rebellion. Zaphon was the "Mt. Olympus" for this pantheon of gods. "Most High" was often used as a title representing "El Elyon" a deity of the Canaanite pantheon. In Christianity, this myth reemerged as the fall of Lucifer.

In Enoch it is made quite clear who the Canaanites where and why they where to be destroyed and that’s something that most of the skeptics are angry and don’t understand, that is, why an all-loving God would do such a thing.
Your link here,
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=215&letter=G&search=giants#778
Names them and his, “Enoch’s revelation” explains also the reason for the great deluge to come as per my link on the previous page, which should be this one. :
http://crusader37.webs.com/giants.htm


The way I understand it is like this; the third heaven is where Gods throne is and there are seven there, all called the third heaven, the second heaven is the universe and our atmosphere and planet is the first and all this from our perspective.

This is intresting,
CHAPTER CVIII.
1. Another book, which Enoch wrote for his son Methuselah and for those who will come after him,
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe112.htm

If you want to discuss the Koran I suggest starting a different thread. My knowledge and understanding of the Koran is limited at best (and when I say limited I meant almost non-existent).

Well the parallel is that they believe in the one God too and basically the 7 heavens.

As far as the three heavens it makes the verse where Jesus says “not a generation shall pass with out see him coming in the clouds” a reality not a false prophesy. This backed by what medical science has recorded about N.D.Es. Or what should really be called resurrection episodes.
That was my main point.


Now here’s another point, Enoch was before Noah and that’s in the biblical linage.


Mormon atheist, with you the force, may be not!

 

[Radrook]

Irreconcilable parts?

What they mean is that they cannot reconcile. Obviously there re scholars who do reconcile. So it all boils down to the rejection of explanations that do reconcile in favor of those which don't. Just a tactic used to create a Godless universe where they can feel comfortable. Nothing more.

 

[Hokulele]

So it all boils down to the rejection of explanations that do reconcile in favor of those which don't.

Or a rejection of those that do not reconcile in favor of those that do, due to your preconception that the bible must be inerrant.

The whole point of this thread is to examine the evidence for both perspectives and see which is more likely to be true in various passages.

 

[Greediguts]

What I was trying to show there is that, after death there is a heaven, that we go to; in references to his comment about Jesus not fulfilling his statement about the second coming, since till his physical second coming it is we that fulfill it when we die.
Jesus also makes it clear on the cross that the thief is under the second covenant and grace, when he basically says for today you will be in paradise.
How can that be if the thief would have to wait for the physical second coming of Christ?

According to the Oxford Annotated Bible , during Jesus' time "Paradise" was a term for the lodging place of the righteous dead prior to the resurrection.

I think there is something here that can be discussed. Luke is the only Gospel writer who mentions this exchange between the others being crucified and Jesus. Mark & Matthew mention Jesus being mocked by the others being crucified, John mentions others being crucified, but they don't mock Jesus. Why did the author of Luke add this dialogue?

We've spent alot of time on John...maybe take a break and have a go at Luke for awhile? Randel Helms in Who Wrote the Gospels makes the case that the author of Luke/Acts was a female. At the very least Luke shows more concern for women that the other Gospel writers. Main points of Helms argument would be:

1. Angelic Annunciation of Jesus' conception made to Mary (Luke 1:31) rather than Joseph (Matt. 1:20)
2. Only Luke seemed to be interested in Mary's "inner life"(2:18,34,51)
3. Luke gives the verses that praise pregnancy;"My soul doth magnify the Lord" (1:46);"Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" (1:42)
4. Only Gospel writer to mention fetal quickening and to describe it as evoking visitation of the Holy Spirit (1:41).
5. Only Gospel to imply that Jesus' female followers outnumbered his male followers (8:2)
6. First to call Jesus "Lord" is a woman in Luke (1:43)
7. Only N.T. author to insist that women were the first to believe and preach the resurrection faith, male disciples refused to believe (24:10-11)
8. Only writer to cite a "prophetess, Anna" (2:36)
9. Only author that deals with female osteoporosis (13:10-13 - heals woman bent over and unable to stand straight)
10. Only author that praises women for speaking up to men (1:60) and questioning an angel (1:34)

In Acts-

1. Only author that stress both "men and women" shall prophesy (Acts 2:18)
2. First person resurrected after Jesus is a woman ( Acts 9:40)
3. First European Christian is a woman (Acts 11)

Overall, Luke gives us the largest cast of female characters in the N.T.

---------

Regarding the works of Enoch, I found these verses:

" And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones." (Book 1 Chapt. 7 verses 1-6)

edge, are you suggesting this should be read literally? This is truly why the worldwide flood happened? You mention the Dead Sea Scrolls containing the Books of Enoch. They also contain the Book of Giants. Notice one of them is named Gilgamesh.....does that name ring a bell?


If you want to discuss how scripture proves O.B.E.s, near-death experiences, Bigfoot, UFOs, or Scott Baio being the Anti-Christ, might I suggest a different thread?

 

[edge]

If you want to discuss how scripture proves O.B.E.s, near-death experiences, Bigfoot, UFOs, or Scott Baio being the Anti-Christ, might I suggest a different thread?

Actually O.B.Es and N.D.Es Proves that Scriptures are truthfully about life after death, if you don't want to discuses that then don’t.

As far as 1 through 10, each reporter has a slightly different story and that's to be expected, so?
The song still remains the same.

It's not just one gender or another, “many saintly people where resurrected, out of their graves”
It seems bias for you to think that way when the other parts of resurrection stories don't specify one way or the other and again that doesn't negate the miracle of fulfilling the prophecy of graves being opened and the resurrections of the dead does it?

Randel Helms in Who Wrote the Gospels makes the case that the author of Luke/Acts was a female. At the very least Luke shows more concern for women that the other Gospel writers.

I don’t see what the gender of a scribe or a reporter has to do with the news, or a Christian????

edge, are you suggesting this should be read literally? This is truly why the worldwide flood happened?

He predicts the flood and the name Noah before it happens.
I have found the evidences that are visible... still in geology..... when we have been told that there is none.
It’s not everywhere but it is there and all across the country.

You can believe it or not, I don’t really care nor will I lose sleep over what you think.
If you can’t put all the information from the gospels together that’s your problem.
I have shown you how to look at what you and others, “as I quoted from some ones post about a flawed prophecy that Jesus spoke ”, or feel is a flaw in the scriptures and how science proves it, Oh but I forget you won’t believe that either, oh well.


Gilgamesh, what difference does that make, are you assuming it was not a common name? Or are you making a connection to the epic?
Why not try one thing or question at a time and I will try to explain it for you, If you are truly interested?
Like I said you are over analyzing things.

Acts 9:40 (King James Version)
"But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up".

Do you think that he had a choice in the gender?
If she was a chimp or some ones pet lizzard I could understand your concern.


Below your #3 is wrong.
3. First European Christian is a woman (Acts 11)
Unless I am missing something???


1. Only author that stress both "men and women" shall prophesy (Acts 2:18)
Well this seems to ring true today, so?

I haven’t got a clue at what you are getting at here.

I truly feel sorrow for you if you can’t piece this together for yourself.


Lets see what the whole thing says,

this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

"In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.”


Well it seems like a prophesy even in today’s world.
I forgot your point?
Your #7
" Only N.T. author to insist that women were the first to believe and preach the resurrection faith, male disciples refused to believe (24:10-11)"


Again your taking things out of context, why because of their honesty?

“ 9When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.”



I mean really wouldn’t you feel the same.
Good lord man, lets see…. any one can play the game your playing.


Further down,

“20The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."
25He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christhave to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
28As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.
30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"
33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." 35Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost” .


I don’t know about your world, but in mine, I am glad those women have a part in it.
As smart as you are you can’t see this?


I am really not going to waste my time here unless you really want to know how to translate this.....

 

[edge]

The word which is translated, "giants", in the King James version of the Bible is, in Hebrew, "Nephilim", which means, "Those who fell, or ... the fallen ones". Jude, the brother of Jesus describes them as "angels, having left their first estate in heaven". These fallen angels came to earth for a serious purpose.

 

[Greediguts]

I am really not going to waste my time here unless you really want to know how to translate this.....

Thank you for your comments....please feel free not to waste your time.

 

[Greediguts]

These verses from Luke now stand out a little more:

"Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them* out of their resources. (Luke 8:1-3)

* - some ancient texts have him instead of them

This is unique to Luke. The notion that more women than men were following Jesus and the women were supporting the group doesn't appear in the other Gospels. The Gospel of John made mention of the community purse that Judas stole from. Luke mentions the women providing for the group (or at the very least, providing for Jesus). Why the emphasis?

 

[Hokulele]

These verses from Luke now stand out a little more:

"Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them* out of their resources. (Luke 8:1-3)

* - some ancient texts have him instead of them

This is unique to Luke. The notion that more women than men were following Jesus and the women were supporting the group doesn't appear in the other Gospels. The Gospel of John made mention of the community purse that Judas stole from. Luke mentions the women providing for the group (or at the very least, providing for Jesus). Why the emphasis?

I can see why Joanna would be mentioned (as I would suppose the political connections would be important), but I am not sure that the "many others" necessarily means women. It could be gender neutral.

I was planning on re-reading Acts at some point. This might be as good as any to see how the gender roles play out there.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Quotes regarding the Eucharist in Gnostic texts:

“The Eucharist is Jesus. For they call him in Syriac pharisatha, which is, “the one who is spread out”. For Jesus came and he crucified the world.” (Gospel of Phillip v.53 - taken from Lost Scriptures by Erhman).

“We give thanks to you and we celebrate the eucharist, O Father, remembering for the sake of thy Son, Jesus Christ that they come forth [...] invisible [...] thy [Son....] his [love...] to [knowledge ......] they are doing thy will through the name of Jesus Christ and will do thy will now and always. They are complete in every spiritual gift and every purity. Glory be to thee through thy Son and they offspring Jesus Christ from now and forever. Amen.”

“[...] in the [...] the word of the [....the] holy one it is [...] food and [drink...] Son, since you [...] food of the [...] to us the [...] in the [life ..] he does [not boast...] that is[...] Church [...] you are pure [...] thou art the Lord. Whenever you die purely, you will be pure so as to have him [...] everyone who will guide him to food and drink. Glory be to thee forever. Amen.” (These quotes taken from The Nag Hammadi Library by Robinson from a Codex that looks to be a Valentinian exposition).

I'm just trying to find what's out there regarding the Eucharist to help give some idea of how it was viewed by other early "Christians"....

Thanks. I'm still grappling with the whole idea of Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet and what that might have meant for some of the early conceptions of the Eucharist. All we seem to get from Paul is that it was a communal meal that included bread, and wine and he was angry because some people would get there early and eat all the food, drink all the wine, and get drunk -- while others had little to eat or drink later.

I was just wondering, because it seems logical to me, that, if the early groups were really apocalyptic, they would view this meal as a new sort of Passover. Here is my reasoning -- Paul seemed, at least in most of his legitimate letters, to imply that belief in Jesus would bring eternal life. The alternative seems to have simply been death -- non-believers die while believers live forever -- rather than eternal torment. If that is the case, it would seem to be a new sort of Passover -- instead of the first born being saved from the angel of death it would be all who live in Christ. I was just wondering if some of these early groups might view the Eucharist as participating in a new Passover meal that commemorates a future event -- the return of Jesus heralding the New Age. The problem is that we don't seem to have much (any) evidence of this. I am also still a little leery of the idea that twenty or forty years after Jesus' death they were writing apocalyptic tracts expecting his imminent return. I guess that still makes some sense with Paul, but Mark still bothers me.

I think the Johannine group and the gnostics would have viewed the Eucharist very differently. The John group, in particular, as you point out considered Jesus' work to be done, so the Eucharist would have meant something very different to them from any group who thought Jesus was going to return and create a new kingdom on earth.

Different, but related, issue -- what do you think it means for the Eucharist foods to be what they are? Bread and wine are not natural foods but require some processing -- grinding and baking grain mixed with yeast, pressing grapes and fermentation. Do you think the early practitioners took this into account, the mix of man and nature?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

These verses from Luke now stand out a little more:

"Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them* out of their resources. (Luke 8:1-3)

* - some ancient texts have him instead of them

This is unique to Luke. The notion that more women than men were following Jesus and the women were supporting the group doesn't appear in the other Gospels. The Gospel of John made mention of the community purse that Judas stole from. Luke mentions the women providing for the group (or at the very least, providing for Jesus). Why the emphasis?

Very interesting. I was just about to re-read Luke and Acts but got side-tracked into Maccabees.

 

[Greediguts]

I can see why Joanna would be mentioned (as I would suppose the political connections would be important), but I am not sure that the "many others" necessarily means women. It could be gender neutral.

I was planning on re-reading Acts at some point. This might be as good as any to see how the gender roles play out there.

The Oxford Annotated Bible makes it a point of saying that "others" is referring to "other women". I assume in the original text the "female" version of the word is used??

 

[Hokulele]

The Oxford Annotated Bible makes it a point of saying that "others" is referring to "other women". I assume in the original text the "female" version of the word is used??

Could be, my RSV just has "others" without the footnote.

It is a bit odd that that particular chapter starts off talking about talking about the number of people following Jesus (almost inflating the numbers), but in the rest of the chapter, Jesus constantly stresses the need for secrecy. For example, his whole explanation for speaking in parables rather than outright, and the parents of the reseurrected girl being told to tell no one. In between, he is described as preaching to multitudes. Odd dichotomy throughout this chapter.

 

[Greediguts]

I am also still a little leery of the idea that twenty or forty years after Jesus' death they were writing apocalyptic tracts expecting his imminent return. I guess that still makes some sense with Paul, but Mark still bothers me.

Well, now it's been over 2000 years after his death and people still write books expecting him to show up any day now.....

Different, but related, issue -- what do you think it means for the Eucharist foods to be what they are? Bread and wine are not natural foods but require some processing -- grinding and baking grain mixed with yeast, pressing grapes and fermentation. Do you think the early practitioners took this into account, the mix of man and nature?

I could have sworn that it refers back to the O.T. One of the O.T. prophets? Ack! I've read so much scripture over the past couple of months that parts are just a sludgy mess....

I'll see if I can come up with the verses...or maybe I just think there was.....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, now it's been over 2000 years after his death and people still write books expecting him to show up any day now.....

True. Point taken. But the Millerites gave up when the day didn't dawn on schedule.

Except for Ellen White. And, um, I guess, hundreds of thousands of Adventists who still think...........................ah, hell..............

I could have sworn that it refers back to the O.T. One of the O.T. prophets? Ack! I've read so much scripture over the past couple of months that parts are just a sludgy mess....

I'll see if I can come up with the verses...or maybe I just think there was.....

No, right, but this is supposed to be the blood and body of God and both of the "foods" are semi-manufactured instead of being natural. Just wondering what that means, if anything.

 

[Hokulele]

No, right, but this is supposed to be the blood and body of God and both of the "foods" are semi-manufactured instead of being natural. Just wondering what that means, if anything.

It is only very recently that nature and "natural" things (foods, medicine, etc.) have been considered good or beneficial. Historically, nature was seen as dangerous and unpredictable. I read in a history of cooking that medieval chefs deemed highly processed food (called "prepared" foods) were much preferred. Roasting meat, then stewing it, then baking it into a meat pie or pasty was the norm. Raw foods were (rightfully) considered risky. I can see how that would be considered smart thinking when food poisoning was a regular risk, as can be seen in many of the kosher diet restrictions. As such, processed food such as wine and bread would be seen as more healthful than, say, a carrot and a cup of well water.

 

[Greediguts]

It is only very recently that nature and "natural" things (foods, medicine, etc.) have been considered good or beneficial. Historically, nature was seen as dangerous and unpredictable. I read in a history of cooking that medieval chefs deemed highly processed food (called "prepared" foods) were much preferred. Roasting meat, then stewing it, then baking it into a meat pie or pasty was the norm. Raw foods were (rightfully) considered risky. I can see how that would be considered smart thinking when food poisoning was a regular risk, as can be seen in many of the kosher diet restrictions. As such, processed food such as wine and bread would be seen as more healthful than, say, a carrot and a cup of well water.

Excellent point Hokulele!

The visual image of a priest carrying a veggie tray and some dip just makes me grin.....