What would Jesus eat?

[Kidlicious]

The Gnostics were a pre-Christian sect who incorporated Jesus into their pseudo-Platonic belief system--at least, some of them did. Others incorporated different beliefs. Anyway, the "Christian" Gnostics, like the ones who wrote the Judas gospel, believed that the whole created world is an evil illusion created by a fallen deity to control men's minds. Basically The Matrix, with spirits instead of machines. Very different from conventional Xianity.

I don't think there is that much difference from the conventional christian view. Just exchange Satan with the Gnostic fallen diety and it's not that much different. I think the significant difference is that Christians believe that Jesus was both human and divine, that he had an actual human form, and that he died on the cross to save us. You could throw in some other issues such as he was betrayed (prophesised).

Anywho, this world, and everything in it is temporary, just like our bodies. Nothing good ever ceases to exist.

[Uncle Sparky]

I might add that the "Jesus's Wife" text is a fragment from the Fourth Century, ie roughly contemporary with the first Council of Nicaea.

The first Nicaean Council gave us a 100% accurate true story of Christ that we can all be confident in. - Imran, I'm still batting 0.00 with that, right?

[Kidlicious]

When Jesus talks about being one with the Father in the Gospel according to John He means believing everything the Father believes and doing everything the Father does. In the same context He talks about the church being one. To me He's saying that being one is being like the Father, so not in the literal sense. I think that people like to argue about silly things.

[Jon Miller]

The first Nicaean Council gave us a 100% accurate true story of Christ that we can all be confident in. - Imran, I'm still batting 0.00 with that, right?

What the first Nicaean Council presented as canon was what was held as important and valid by the Christians (who believe similar to us today) of 100 AD.

It is as 100% accurate true story of Christ as you could get at 100 AD (at least, if you agree with the Christians of 100AD who I agree with), the first Nicaean Council just held up what had already been determined as important and valid (for the most part).

It is obvious that the gnostic books are not compatible with the beliefs of Christianity. Whether within 100 years of Christ, 400 years of Christ, or 2000 years of Christ.

You can replace Christianity with Paulian Christianity if you like, we can discuss whether Paulian Christianity is more valid than Gnostic Christianity if you would like. But that is really what is being discussed. This wasn't 'removed by the man'. It was disagreed with by Paulian Christians of 100 AD as well.

JM

[SlowwHand]

I agree with Arius.

[thristydevil]

Only Halal food not beer wine and such type of thing.

[molly bloom]

(I'm certainly no expert on the matter)

Q.F.T. !!!!! TO THE MAX !!!!!!

The Gnostics were a pre-Christian sect

I'd rather say that gnosis was a feature of a variety of Jewish and Christian sects, and certainly that the particular traits of Gnosticism that you're referring to has been popular in varieties Christianity at various times and various places- the Cathar/Albigensian 'heresies' in Provence & southern France, the Bogomils in Bosnia, the Shakers- they all exhibit various qualities associated with a gnostic approach to the deity, divine knowledge and the world.

St Jerome shares a disgust for the body's corruptibility with the perfecti of the Cathars for instance- and many of the early Christian ascetics preached a rejection or disregard of bodily needs that is strikingly similar to later 'heresies'. It's also worthwhile noting that until a late 20th Century discovery of Gnostic scriptures (the Nag Hammadi texts) that most of what people 'knew' about the Gnostics and Gnosticism was down to anti-Gnostic authors and writings- rather like relying on the Romans of Octavian's times for the real gen on Cleopatra or the Parthians.

[Elok]

Hmm. Wiki claims that most scholars now reject the Pre-Christian hypothesis and say it didn't cohere until the Second Century or so. I know they had a fair amount in common with the Cathars and Bogomils and such--all of whom were disdained as heretics. But I wouldn't press the parallels with mainstream Xianity too far. There's a difference between mortification of the flesh as a form of discipline and believing that the flesh, itself, was created as an evil illusion. That would contradict Genesis and call the Incarnation seriously into question--and, while I don't know much about St. Jerome, I don't know that he'd be too eager to do that.

[molly bloom]

Hmm. Wiki claims that most scholars now reject the Pre-Christian hypothesis and say it didn't cohere until the Second Century or so. I know they had a fair amount in common with the Cathars and Bogomils and such--all of whom were disdained as heretics. But I wouldn't press the parallels with mainstream Xianity too far. There's a difference between mortification of the flesh as a form of discipline and believing that the flesh, itself, was created as an evil illusion. That would contradict Genesis and call the Incarnation seriously into question--and, while I don't know much about St. Jerome, I don't know that he'd be too eager to do that.

I'd always wondered about the possibility of an Indian Buddhist influence on the Gnostics, you know- we know that Indian traders called in at ports on the coasts of present day Ethiopia and Somalia and Yemen, and there were certainly Jewish populations in those areas too. Also the Hellenistic era Greeks could have transmitted Buddhistic notions about the illusion of the 'real world' through Gandharan culture to Iran and the Fertile Crescent.

Certainly the various different empires that occupied present day Iran/Pakistan/Afghanistan were exposed to Buddhist religion, culture and thought in the time prior to the appearance of the first Gnostic sects appearing.

[Elok]

Why would a Buddhist influence be called for? I've always understood the anti-materialist elements in Gnosticism to come from Plato and (Neo-)Platonism: the allegory of the cave, forms, and the whole panoply of ideas Plato's followers built up on them. Of course, it's not like there was a shortage of other religious traditions in the ancient Near East; as the juncture of three continents, it took in everything from everywhere.

[Kidlicious]

Q.F.T. !!!!! TO THE MAX !!!!!!




I'd rather say that gnosis was a feature of a variety of Jewish and Christian sects, and certainly that the particular traits of Gnosticism that you're referring to has been popular in varieties Christianity at various times and various places- the Cathar/Albigensian 'heresies' in Provence & southern France, the Bogomils in Bosnia, the Shakers- they all exhibit various qualities associated with a gnostic approach to the deity, divine knowledge and the world.

St Jerome shares a disgust for the body's corruptibility with the perfecti of the Cathars for instance- and many of the early Christian ascetics preached a rejection or disregard of bodily needs that is strikingly similar to later 'heresies'. It's also worthwhile noting that until a late 20th Century discovery of Gnostic scriptures (the Nag Hammadi texts) that most of what people 'knew' about the Gnostics and Gnosticism was down to anti-Gnostic authors and writings- rather like relying on the Romans of Octavian's times for the real gen on Cleopatra or the Parthians.

The defining characteristic of a christian is that he has faith in Jesus Christ, and christians use the word faith in a different way. It doesn't just mean believe, like it does to others. Shakers and others all believe that salvation is gained by the Cross. That's what makes them christian. Gnostics were not christians.

[SlowwHand]

What did Jesus eat?

Few Bible passages actually show Jesus eating.

Comb your memory and you might come up with Luke 24:42, where the post-resurrection Jesus shows his disciples he's not a ghost by eating broiled fish and honeycomb.

Other passages infer that Jesus either ate or would have permitted eating certain foods: bread and wine at the Lord's Supper; wine at the wedding at Cana; bread and fish at the feedings of the multitudes.

But Colbert goes further with his inferences.

Because Jesus was a Jew, Colbert says, he would have followed Old Testament dietary laws -- for instance, laws governing clean and unclean animals and fish. These laws were specific: cattle, sheep and goats were allowed; hogs were not. Fish with fins and scales were allowed; catfish, crustaceans (crabs, lobsters, shrimp), mollusks (clams, mussels) and others were not.

As Colbert says, Jesus would not have eaten an Easter ham.

Colbert also assesses Jesus' culture and decides what he would have eaten based on what was available. Fish was widely available; beef was saved for special occasions, such as the prodigal son's return. So, Colbert says, Jesus probably ate fish on a daily basis but beef not more than once a month.

Other staples in Jesus' diet, according to Colbert's assessment of the culture, would have been bread and other whole grains, vegetables, fruits and olive oil.

And Colbert believes Jesus taught diet by example, so he says we should eat the same foods today.

http://old.post-gazette.com/food/20031113jesusfood1113fnp2.asp

[regexcellent]

Would dinosaur meat have been kosher?

[Uncle Sparky]

Lizards aren't kosher, so dinos would only be used a transportation.

[SlowwHand]

You're thinking of Fred Flintstone.