Was Jesus a cannabis user?

[ImNotTrent]

One thing nobody has brought up yet. Isn't Cannibis setiva a strictly New World plant? Where would Jesus get it to smoke/ingest it. I tend to think this is someone validating his own habit by connecting it to a well-known Religious Figure..

Taken from here: http://www.cannabis.net/hist/

It seems most likely that the cultivation of hemp may have originated in north-east Asia (north and north-east China and south-eastern Siberia). It is the only fibre plant of any great importance in the region and, as such, must have been eagerly sought out for its numerous technological uses. The earliest indirect evidence of hemp use is from decorated Chinese Neolithic pottery having cord impressions on it (see below for similar pottery from prehistoric Europe). Painted pottery from Honan province belonging to the Neolithic Yang-shao culture (c. 4200-3200 BC) also indicates the probably presence of cultivated hemp. Pieces of what are thought to be hemp cloth have been found on the inside of a jar belonging to a Neolithic culture at a site in the western province of Gansu (2150-1780 BC). Other probably finds of hemp fragments dated to the Chinese Neolithic period have been discovered at a site in Chekiang province. The earliest uncontroversial find of fibre cloth is from the Western Chou era.

As far as if jesus would smoke or not.. I doubt any of you were alive then to actually know. And saying jesus hates all drug use, how do you know? Are you a close personal friend? Do you visit his house in west Hollywood on a weekly basis?

[snuffypuffer]

Somehow I see Jesus smoking a fatty with Mary Magdalene and Peter as really, really funny. And he does have a hippy sort of message, "you just gotta love everybody, man."

[Chauncy]

LOL.....the image is very funny.

I wonder where he would have gotten the weed from? Where would he have been exposed to it?

Maybe they sold it at the market square.

[Chauncy]

LOL.....the image is very funny.

I wonder where he would have gotten the weed from? Where would he have been exposed to it?

Maybe they sold it at the market square.

[SilverCougar]

LOL.....the image is very funny.

I wonder where he would have gotten the weed from? Where would he have been exposed to it?

Maybe they sold it at the market square.

If only

[trublvr]

Early Christian documents found in Eygpt, thought to be a more accurate record than the New Testament, portray Jesus as an ecstatic rebel sage who preached enlightenment through rituals involving magical plants. Indeed, Bennett goes so far as to say that Jesus was probably not born the messiah but acquired the title when he was anointed with cannabis oil by John the Baptist. The baptism in the Jordan was probably to wash away the oil after it had done its work. The early Christians fought hard for followers in the ancient world, recognising the similarity of their own "foreign" god and his eucharistic meal to the Greek gods. Various sects and even the elite in what would eventually become the Roman Catholic church probably used the full range of available entheogens for baptism, ordination and the eucharistic meal.

New theories of Jesus (especially ridiculous ones) are always connected with documents that will allegedly supplant the New Testament because they give us a "more accurate" view of who Jesus was. As with the other much-vaunted documents, this Egyptian document seems to gather its steam solely from the fact that it causes one to conjure up images of Jesus smokin' a blunt/fatty. Whenever a document either has Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene, working gnostic/kabbalistic magic, teaching on the oneness of all the universe, or some other thing, it is viewed to be "MORE ACCURATE THAN THE NEW TESTAMENT!" or "HIDDEN FROM US BY THE EVIL CHURCH FATHERS!" or "SURE TO ROCK THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH!" The truth is sensationalists aren't concerned at all with truth or historicity in these instances. For example, I'd like for the writer of this article to come up with any reason why he deems these documents trustworthy--and more trustworthy than the gospels, at that.

When these documents come along, they usually present a picture of Jesus that makes us feel really at ease with him, like we could just be puffin' on some herb and he'd come up to us one day and ask for a toke. This tells us nothing about Jesus. However, it does tell us a heckuva lot about ourselves.

[Stellar]

Why does it seem like anything that degenerates the image of Jesus or the idea or whatever is always "wrong" according to some peeps? I found this article to not be an over zealouse attempt at making a pot head out of him, it just states that it could have happened back then and it was common, which I agree is a possibility. Theres no scientific backing either way, theres only knowledge of the world at the time.

[trublvr]

Why does it seem like anything that degenerates the image of Jesus or the idea or whatever is always "wrong" according to some peeps? I found this article to not be an over zealouse attempt at making a pot head out of him, it just states that it could have happened back then and it was common, which I agree is a possibility. Theres no scientific backing either way, theres only knowledge of the world at the time.

Stellar,

The article you are working from states this:

Early Christian documents found in Eygpt, thought to be a more accurate record than the New Testament, portray Jesus as an ecstatic rebel sage who preached enlightenment through rituals involving magical plants.

(emphasis mine)

When someone entertains the notion that some documents are more accurate in their portrayal of Jesus, it would be nice to have some evidence by way of comparison. Everything is possible, but not equally so. This view of Jesus is possible, but not nearly as equally possible as the New Testament portrayal of Jesus. This view of Jesus is not probable. You are correct in assuming that I (a Christian) would critique a view of Jesus that is not consistent with the Jesus I know. However, beyond my personal beliefs is an issue of scholarship. Even most vehemently non-Christian scholars do not subscribe to a Jesus-as-cannabis-user theory (there have been others I've seen).

As I said in my previous post, there are many other instances of this in popular culture. We find some arcane document or practice that existed in ancient world, and through scholastic gymnastics we connect it to Jesus and then use the "new Jesus" as a launching pad for taking a "revolutionary" (this is the kind of language that is used by such scholars and their book reviewers) look at Jesus, the gospels, and the early church, with the apostles usually re-cast as the villains who have "hidden" the real Jesus from us. It then becomes our job to dissect the New Testament and to find the real, revolutionary Jesus. This is pretty much the script for many of the so-called revolutionary looks at Jesus. "Revolution" doesn't mean that it'll change the world, or that it'll be the least bit important. Here, "revolution" means that it'll just be shocking or provocative, especially to Christians.

Usually, though, the "new Jesus" is just a Jesus that looks like us. It's like looking in a mirror. Many generations and many cultures since Christ have struggled with the relevance of Jesus to their specific cultural milieu. In fact, if one reads the book of Acts and the letters of the apostles, you find that even the earliest Christians struggled with this. But there is a difference between honestly looking at Jesus in order to discover his relevance for one's setting and elevating culture and personal preferences to a god-like status so that we try to re-shape Jesus into the image of our cultural framework and personal preferences.

[Chauncy]

Trublvr is there anything in scripture that says JC didn't use cannabis?

Just cause you do not 'know' JC as someone who would use cannabis doesn't mean he wasn't the type or that he didn't partake.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you could probably take every time JC actually spoke and say it all in about 2 hours, this is not by anymeans an example of the man's total personality. Obviously you've filled in gaps in this personality picture as to arrive at the JC you 'know'.

So the idea of JC utilizing this natural resource is not totally out of the question. Since it wasn't frowned apon in those days, he would have been perfectly within the moral standard to use cannabis.

[MoonBaby]

He would not advocate drug abuse of anykind ever as a matter a fact he hates it very much.

So just because someone uses cannibas that makes them a drug abuser? That's like saying Christ was a frikin' alcoholic because he drank wine sometimes. Good grief.

[trublvr]

Trublvr is there anything in scripture that says JC didn't use cannabis?

No, there's nothing in scripture that says that he didn't use cannabis. But so what?

Just cause you do not 'know' JC as someone who would use cannabis doesn't mean he wasn't the type or that he didn't partake.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you could probably take every time JC actually spoke and say it all in about 2 hours, this is not by anymeans an example of the man's total personality.

You can undoubtedly take every word that is ascribed to Jesus and recite it in a few hours. Yes, the New Testament writers have a very narrow focus. Actually, all historical documents have a narrow focus. This is especially true of the ancient world, where people didn't write a lot, and even then only wrote about folks who they thought were noteworthy. And when they wrote about noteable figures, they usually restricted their writings to the significant things these people did. Unlike us, they were not concerned with every single thing the person every did.

If you look at what I wrote, though, I did not pursue the line of argument saying, "Well, the New Testament authors never said Jesus used cannabis, so he did not!" Read my posts. In fact, I did not so much argue for what is/isn't in the New Testament as much as I critiqued the cannabis article. More specifically, I critiqued the claim that the article made that the Egyptian documents concerning the alternative Jesus are somehow more accurate than the New Testament in their portrayal of Jesus. I questioned the accuracy of such a statement. Then, I made a broader critique of the modern popularity of alternative Jesuses.

So the idea of JC utilizing this natural resource is not totally out of the question. Since it wasn't frowned apon in those days, he would have been perfectly within the moral standard to use cannabis.

Once again, not an argument that I made. Read my posts. Also, read the article. The article made reference to far more than cannabis usage. It claimed that the Egyptian documents showed Jesus to promote the achievement of enlightenment through rituals and the use of magical plants. Beyond the issue of whether or not Jesus used cannabis, this flies in the face of what we have in the New Testament because Jesus claimed that "enlightenment" (I don't mind using this term) was not attained from a bottom-up model, where humans use some vehicle to aspire to enlightenment. Jesus's was a top-down model, where God was breaking out into the world to enlighten people, and said enlightenment was an act of grace initiated by God, not by people.

I have no need to argue from the stand-point of what isn't in the gospels. There are plenty of things that the New Testament writers say nothing about. Just because the authors said nothing about whether Jesus did this thing or that doesn't automatically leave the door wide open for anyone to conjecture that, "Oh, well he may have done this!" If that were true, then we could assume that any historical figure did whatever our minds can come up with simply because their biographers left some things out.

Obviously you've filled in gaps in this personality picture as to arrive at the JC you 'know'.

Looooove the way you make assumptions about what I do/do not believe about Jesus. Why don't you ask, instead of assuming? What gaps have I filled in? As with most relationships that people have with one another, my ability to relate to Jesus is not predicated upon me knowing every single nuance of his earthly existence. I don't know about his life between the ages of 12 and 30, but this lack of knowledge doesn't mean that I cannot relate to Jesus significantly. None of our relationships with others are rooted in head-knowledge of every single facet of their lives. My fiancee and I are still amazed at how much we discover about one another! It's not that we are not close (after all, she is my fiancee), but there are some things that just never came up in conversation or experience. Our goal in relationships should not be to initially know someone exhaustively, but to know them sufficiently. I've been a Christian for 11 years now. I know Jesus much better now than I did 11 years ago or even 5 years ago. This, however, is not rooted in the fact that I uncovered some salacious tid bit about the missing years between 12 and 30. Instead, I know Jesus better because my spiritual bond with him gets stronger when I love him, others, and myself.

Edited June 11, 2004 by trublvr

[MoonBaby]

I would like for someone to give me one valid reason as to why they think there is something wrong with cannibas and why Jesus would not have used it.

Edited June 11, 2004 by MoonBaby

[Falco Rex]

It's just as rough on your lungs as cigarettes, and then there's the short term..what was I trying to say? Short term mem..Hey look! A squirrel!!

[MoonBaby]

Yes it is; has more resin. But where you smoke a pack or more a day of cigarettes you don't smoke that much cannibas. The memory thing, BS. But that was a cute way to put it .

Edited June 11, 2004 by MoonBaby

[reese2]

I would like for someone to give me one valid reason as to why they think there is something wrong with cannibas.

Well, some people become less productive and it actually hinders their ability to motivate. Then, you have the munchies, of course. That pretty much is a huge downfall... Unless you are too thin, which the world suffers not from.. So.. Two very good reasons right there.

Although, I am all for anything in moderation, as long as it does not damage the body. (And, you take care of your business, i.e. you go to WORK, take care of your kids, etc.) We all know smoking a cig, is far more dangerous than a joint. Actually, bong hits are the best for you, since the water works as a natural filter...

Hmm...... I did give two reasons though, in the beginning of that post.. It just ended up sounding like a commercial for it, naturally...

Reese

[Falco Rex]

Well, I used to smoke myself and it was Ok,I guess, but I eventually outgrew it and moved on. My friends that are still using it regularly at the age we're at now generally can't get focused long enough to think about or accomplish anything that has any complexity to it..

From my personal experience that doesn't seem very enlightened, just wasteful..

[reese2]

I just want to say, that not every pot smoker is a 'waste of space' so to speak. It should be legal definately.. Like I said before, those were the only 'bad' things I could come up with. When I smoked. It didn't affect me in a negative way at all, except for the damn munchies.. I did it all through school, and got very good grades. Always held a job, and took care of my business.. So, I am for it.. Just in moderation, of course.

[MoonBaby]

Then, you have the munchies, of course. That pretty much is a huge downfall... Unless you are too thin, which the world suffers not from.. So.. Two very good reasons right there.

If you keep healthy foods around (e.g. fruits, yogurt, etc.) not too much of a problem.

Well, I used to smoke myself and it was Ok,I guess, but I eventually outgrew it and moved on. My friends that are still using it regularly at the age we're at now generally can't get focused long enough to think about or accomplish anything that has any complexity to it..

From my personal experience that doesn't seem very enlightened, just wasteful..

Sucks for your friends, dude. That goes along w/ the moderation thing though.

[MoonBaby]

OK, so now that I'm done with my little rant, someone tell me again why JC would have been against it?

[Falco Rex]

I'll agree with that. I'm not of the opinion that there's really anything wrong with it, but it's difficult to find all that much right with it. To me it's one of those neutral "Whatever" issues..

[reese2]

He wouldn't have

If you do research on pot, you will see where the negativity comes from.. Just go look it up, and you will see who is REALLY against it, and where it all stems from..

(Hint hint, politics, hint, not making money from it, hint, hint)

It used to be legal here.... Back in the day... ( Way back, mind you)

[MoonBaby]

Hmm...... I did give two reasons though, in the beginning of that post.. It just ended up sounding like a commercial for it, naturally... 

Just saw that one.

[MoonBaby]

I know. I've done all kinds of reasearch on it. In fact, my hubby did his final paper over that in comp & research so we found all kinds of stuff. We checked out a book that was written by this ex-senator that was advocating it and telling all of the lies behind it. The AMA actually can't find anything wrong with it but the government still refuses to legalize it.

[Chauncy]

Theres this good documentary that explains the pot issue in North america. It starts a century ago, then moves through time. Its called 'Grass' and its narrated by Woody Harrelson.

It seems that the criminalization of weed is totally politically motivated.

http://www.reelcriticism.com/ziggyrealm/re...iews/grass.html

Oh and Trublvr I most certainly do read your posts so you can cease with the bold printed instructions.

[Stellar]

Trub: Thats a referance to others findings and it clearly says "though", so it seems to be fair game. Also, the whole article and subject is not based completely on that. Theres no proof that he didnt, and theres no proof that he did, so I think its silly to just disregard the complete article because of that 1 line that doesnt fit in with you, and also because the subject hurts the image of Jesus.