Jesus 'healed using cannabis'

[Nija]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,869273,00.html


Jesus was almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.
The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract, suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.

"There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University said.

Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism... would inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures."

Mr Bennett suggests those anointed with the oils used by Jesus were "literally drenched in this potent mixture... Although most modern people choose to smoke or eat pot, when its active ingredients are transferred into an oil-based carrier, it can also be absorbed through the skin".

Quoting the New Testament, Mr Bennett argues that Jesus anointed his disciples with the oil and encouraged them to do the same with other followers. This could have been responsible for healing eye and skin diseases referred to in the Gospels.

"If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil... and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.


well then...:|

[Cantacuzene]

Conclusions? Lets jump to them!

[mojo]

"If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil... and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.this is almost bordering on being a non sequitur. i can see the relationship, and i appreciate the effort. but it would hardly be a foundation for any sort of movement.

i do find it very interesting tho :)

[nickel]

yep, i've thought this all along. Tommy Chong is Jesus. :P

[johnnymk]

So how old was the child who wrote this adorable little essay for his school's Story Telling contest?

[sizemic1]

I get so tired of hearing these stupid arguments towards the legalization of marijuana. Personally..i don't smoke it..i hold no ill will towards those who do..and i actually think it SHOULD be legal being as it's not anymore harmful to society than alcohol is. But for the most part, the advocate's rationale for the legalization of marijuana is so incredibly stupid that i actually think they do more harm than good in promoting their cause.

[zenbooty]

I'm waiting to see the photos of the Chronic Bud of Turin :bandit:

[Jeffbx]

I guess these guys already knew that....

http://tory.klyce.com/images/smoking_for_jesus-sm.jpg

[Blu]

Holy jeez, this is the best thread ever. All the zealots are going to come in and say "Jesus didn't smoke dope, he's the son of God, and did no wrong." BUT! Who says weed is wrong? God? I think not! The government says pot is bad and will make your arms fall off. Soooo, before you spout off about how horrible it is that someone would assume that Jeezy Creezy was on the cronic, think about why you think what you do. I think that makes sense, but if not, I'm sure you get the jist of it.

[johnnymk]

Well, the Bible doesn't say anything about standing in the middle of the L.A. Freeway during rush hour or sticking your head under boiling water, either. GOT/COMMONSENSE?

[attgig]

Originally posted by Blu
Holy jeez, this is the best thread ever. All the zealots are going to come in and say "Jesus didn't smoke dope, he's the son of God, and did no wrong." BUT! Who says weed is wrong? God? I think not! The government says pot is bad and will make your arms fall off. Soooo, before you spout off about how horrible it is that someone would assume that Jeezy Creezy was on the cronic, think about why you think what you do. I think that makes sense, but if not, I'm sure you get the jist of it.


awww man...Jesus didn't smoke dope, he's the son of God, and did no wrong!

Woah...wait a minute....Blu, you know us sooo well!!! :rolleyes:

[Blu]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Well, the Bible doesn't say anything about standing in the middle of the L.A. Freeway during rush hour or sticking your head under boiling water, either. GOT/COMMONSENSE?

Common sense has nothing to do with it. You can't prove that Jesus was a weedy, and you can only assume that he wasn't. What would be bad about the big JC chillin' with a J? I'm not saying that people should use Jesus as an excuse to smoke up, but it's narrow-minded to rule out the possibility that he did.

[zenbooty]

Blu, do you have a point to make, or are you just trying to stir people up? How would you define a "zealot," and who on this board would you consider to be one?

I mean, who really cares whether the guy smoked up or not? To be on either side of this argument requires some pretty egregious logical leaps. Like Joshua stated so eloquently long ago, "The only way to win is not to play."

Gonna have to start nicknaming you "The Spoon" if this keeps up...

[Cantacuzene]

ANother news flash for the pot smokers: cannabis wasnt smoked as a drug in the ancient world. I'm sure a great many people used hemp for a great many things, but processing it into marijuana and smoking it wasn't one of them. Prove me wrong.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
ANother news flash for the pot smokers: cannabis wasnt smoked as a drug in the ancient world. I'm sure a great many people used hemp for a great many things, but processing it into marijuana and smoking it wasn't one of them. Prove me wrong.

1. the article says anointed, not smoked. (not defending the article or anyones post, just pointing that out. i don't know if you are even referring to the article or not.)
2. define ancient.
3. i don't know if i can prove your statement wrong, but i am interested in seeing whether or not it's true. can't do the research at work, it'll have to wait till i get home.

[Cantacuzene]

I know it says anointed, but the point is these people are using it as a way to justify smoking marijuana.

If you wanna go out and anoint yourself with hemp oil be my guest. Its probably legal to do, being that you can get high from something with no THC in it.

Instead of 'ancient world' I should have said 'ancient mediterranian world' because I'm sure some tribal types in the americas prolly smoked some kind of peyote or marijuana type thing.

[Blu]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Blu, do you have a point to make, or are you just trying to stir people up? How would you define a "zealot," and who on this board would you consider to be one?

I mean, who really cares whether the guy smoked up or not? To be on either side of this argument requires some pretty egregious logical leaps. Like Joshua stated so eloquently long ago, "The only way to win is not to play."

Gonna have to start nicknaming you "The Spoon" if this keeps up...

I'm not trying to stir people up, the original post was meant for that. I'm using zealot like this:
"One who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan."
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes that their religion is the 'one and true' religion is a zealot. I think there are a few on the board. As far as whether or not the argument is easy to make either way, I said earlier that it was shady as hell. I suppose I'm really just trying to make a point that sometimes it's a good idea to step out of your bubble and consider other possibilities.

[Grimm]

All government propaganda aside (drugs are bad, mmmkay?), this does have some serious repercusions. Some native american tribes can use peote<sp> legaly because it is used in their religion. If a recognized christian church wanted to start including anointing with a hemp based oil, containing THC, the precedent has been set. It would be difficult to stop them. Just think how many converts that church would get.

The US government has been preventing legitimate research in the curative properties of hemp for many years. No, I am not talking about smoking Js. I'm talking about potential for medicines that could be cheaply manufactured from a plant that grows quickly with no negative envirornmental impact. Medicines that anyone could make without paying the pharmaciutical<sp> an arm and a leg like we do now. How many diseases have inadequate treatment now because of an unreasonable policy to prevent research on something as normal as hemp. Hemp was totaly legal until the chemical companies realized they could develop synthetic fibers, like nylon. Fibers that would have a very limited market with cheaper hemp products available. Other illegal drugs are experimented with. Cocaine and LSD had extensive government trials. Whole lines of opiates were researched. Why not research a plant with historical healing properties?

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
ANother news flash for the pot smokers: cannabis wasnt smoked as a drug in the ancient world. I'm sure a great many people used hemp for a great many things, but processing it into marijuana and smoking it wasn't one of them. Prove me wrong.


What??? Didn't you ever see History of the World: Part 1 with Mel Brooks? That proves they used pot!

[whitak24]

um, maybe i'm just stupid/not very knowledgeable about my bible, but where did jesus annoint people with oil or use incense in rituals? :confused:

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Blu


I'm not trying to stir people up, the original post was meant for that. I'm using zealot like this:
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes that their religion is the 'one and true' religion is a zealot. I think there are a few on the board.

i would have to disagree with your description of a zealot. if you believe one thing (an idea, fact, religious belief, etc.) to be true, you logically have to believe that everything contrary to it is untrue. if you believe that the earth is round, you can't also believe that it is flat. it is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. i am a christian so i believe that christianity is the 'one and true' religion. however, i respect your right to believe otherwise. i may think you are incorrect in your beliefs, but i support your right to have your own opinions and beliefs.

my description of a zealot is one who does not tolerate other people believing contrary to him/her. feel free to disagree with my definition. i'll think you're wrong, but will support your right to your opinion. :P

[Grimm]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd


i would have to disagree with your description of a zealot. if you believe one thing (an idea, fact, religious belief, etc.) to be true, you logically have to believe that everything contrary to it is untrue. if you believe that the earth is round, you can't also believe that it is flat. it is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. i am a christian so i believe that christianity is the 'one and true' religion. however, i respect your right to believe otherwise. i may think you are incorrect in your beliefs, but i support your right to have your own opinions and beliefs.

my description of a zealot is one who does not tolerate other people believing contrary to him/her. feel free to disagree with my definition. i'll think you're wrong, but will support your right to your opinion. :P Well, if you take what he said out of context, and you did, then you have a point.
you omitted the preface in his quote, which softens his stance quite a bit. Shorting posts in a quote is all fine and good, so long as it does not remove a statement from the context in which it was meant. What seperates a zelot from a rightous man is that a rightous man will listen and consider an opposing point of view.

[latingirl]

You can call me a zealot if you want to, although I certainly don't have any problem with other people choosing to believe other things. I may have an opinion about those other things, but it is certainly anyones right to believe in whatever they want.

As far as the "weed" argument. Its dumb and not worth debating. That just IMHO.



BTW, I said the argument was dumb, I didn't say any individual person was dumb. ;)

[cheapie]

it might be dumb, but that doesn't preclude it from debate. we have debated FAR dumber things before! :heh:

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
it might be dumb, but that doesn't preclude it from debate. we have debated FAR dumber things before! :heh:

DUMB AND DUMBER? :bigmouth:

[Grimm]

Say what you want, but I have yet to see anyone post a legitimate, logical argument against hemp. They just spout back the propaganda that their government drilled into their heads.

Have faith in God, not your government.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Grimm
Say what you want, but I have yet to see anyone post a legitimate, logical argument against hemp. They just spout back the propaganda that their government drilled into their heads.

Have faith in God, not your government.
first of all, any argument taking place had to do with using marijuana as a stimulant, not about using hemp. they are two very different topics.

second, the discussion quickly devolved into a debate about how people hold religious beliefs and whether that makes them zealots.

third, i'm still waiting for any information about jesus anointing people and performing rituals with incense.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by whitak24

first of all, any argument taking place had to do with using marijuana as a stimulant, not about using hemp. they are two very different topics.

second, the discussion quickly devolved into a debate about how people hold religious beliefs and whether that makes them zealots.

third, i'm still waiting for any information about jesus anointing people and performing rituals with incense.

first of all, the argument i'm speaking of that is dumb is justifying smoking weed or saying that "persecuting people who smoke weed is anti-christ" by implying that Jesus used the drug to heal. At least that's where i'm coming from, i don't know about anyone else.

second, so what's new?? :P

third, offhand, i know that jesus made a mixture of spit and mud to heal a blind man. i know that using incense and anointing oil was certainly an old testament custom. i'll go to blueletterbible.com and do a search in the new test for oil or incense and see what comes up.

[latingirl]

New testament

Jam 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Although, that's not Jesus himself anointing, but anointing in his name.

[latingirl]

In the gospels (the first 4 books of the new test that tells of Jesus' life).

Mark 6:13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed [them]. - Speaking of Jesus and the apostles.

Luke 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. - Speaking of the woman who anointed Jesus' feet with perfumed oil.

That's all I found. Although, It doesn't say anybody smoked bud or any bud like substance.

[InfiniteNothing]

Okay so it doesn't say anything specific about smoking weed. Is it okay to anoint people with weed? Even if no one smoked it it does say that weed can heal. I don't know why the specifics of HOW it was used are important. For all we know God wants us to take in weed any way we can.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Okay so it doesn't say anything specific about smoking weed. Is it okay to anoint people with weed? Even if no one smoked it it does say that weed can heal. I don't know why the specifics of HOW it was used are important. For all we know God wants us to take in weed any way we can.

Don't you think you overanalyze stuff just a bit.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by latingirl
first of all, the argument i'm speaking of that is dumb is justifying smoking weed or saying that "persecuting people who smoke weed is anti-christ" by implying that Jesus used the drug to heal. At least that's where i'm coming from, i don't know about anyone else.
actually, i was talking to grimm, not you ;)

Originally posted by latingirl
second, so what's new?? :P
good point :hihi:

thanks for the research you did. i was too lazy to do any myself :D

my point all along has been that there is not hard evidence (that i know of) that even supports the premises of this so-called "research" (obviously, "high times" isn't the most unbiased source from which to get such information) -- the premises being that a.) jesus went around annointing people with oil and b.) that he did rituals with incense.

and even if there was evidence that jesus did do these things, there is no evidence that he used oil made with marijuana or that his incense was actually the happy herb.

so i concur with latingirl that even discussing the "research" is a waste of time, because it really has no validity whatsoever. if people want to joke about it, then fine -- to each his own. but i think high times was trying to advance their agenda here, but did so with completely asinine research (which is why i find it necessary to point out the flaws)

[InfiniteNothing]

How do you know this was researched by "High Times", not that I don't belive you, just wondering. I clicked the link and it seemed to be a pretty good source and they seem pretty sure there was evidence. I wouln't be so quick to discount "High Times" anyways. I don't think anyone else would be daring enough to do the research.
Do you really think you are a better source of information than them? I wouldn't be so quick to say "I know my christianity better than you."
As for me, I'm keeping an open mind. If anyone can disprove this guy, I'd love to hear it.

[Cantacuzene]

If anyone can disprove this guy, I'd love to hear it.

Having you ever heard of the term 'proving the negative?' It isnt mine, or anyone elses job to disprove a scientists/historians/economists/sociologists research. The burden of proof is on the said academic. He has to prove TO US that his reserach is valid, not the other way around.

[johnnymk]

Haven't you ever heard the phrase: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"? Most scientists, historians,economists and sociologists have an agenda, and it's usually biased one way or another. And it is a thinking man's duty to question everything and everyone, including those with so-called degrees and uppity titles.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Haven't you ever heard the phrase: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"? Most scientists, historians,economists and sociologists have an agenda, and it's usually biased one way or another. And it is a thinking man's duty to question everything and everyone, including those with so-called degrees and uppity titles.
I agree. that's why I do not immediately discount the possibility that canibis might have some value as a medicine.

For the record I have never smoked pot or any other illegal drug. I just want to know why we don't research a drug that appears to have some significant potential.

As to their being "no evidence" about using canibis in biblical times, think again. Back then hemp was used for many products. Clothing, food, paper, and probably as a base for incense and oils. It was easily available as it was a common crop and is a very versatile plant.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by whitak24

actually, i was talking to grimm, not you ;)

I know. I just thought id put in my "2 sense". :D


Originally posted by whitak24
thanks for the research you did. i was too lazy to do any myself :D


I figured. :P

[blueindian]

Originally posted by Grimm
I just want to know why we don't research a drug that appears to have some significant potential.

lots of research has been done. if i remember, when i get home tonight i'll post up some links. can't do the search at work...the man is watching. remember the whole medicle marijuana thing out in california?

as to why the government continues to be opposed to hemp as a commerical crop and the legalization of marijuana, there lots of reaons. not the least of which is the beer and liquor companies in america. they have a monopoly on the legal buzz, and spend tons of money lobbying against marijuana legalization.

the dea is even now trying to stop companies from using "edible hemp" in products. these are ususally hemp seeds, with no THC, and are used in everything from brownies to beer. (I had hemp bread for breakfast)

and to the jesus part of the question, i'd say there is good chance he used hemp and/or marijuana. i've read in a few places that sandals back then were made of hemp. lots of things used to be made of hemp, and it used to be more widely used. so it would make sense.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by blueindian
as to why the government continues to be opposed to hemp as a commerical crop and the legalization of marijuana, there lots of reaons. not the least of which is the beer and liquor companies in america. they have a monopoly on the legal buzz, and spend tons of money lobbying against marijuana legalization.
Actually, it was primarily the paper lobby that got the drug outlawed in the first place. Hemp paper is cheaper to make, and is better quality than paper made from wood pulp. So paper companies lobbied the govt., and had their close friends and business associates in the newspaper industry start putting out the big scare on that "devil weed."

[blueindian]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Hemp paper is cheaper to make, and is better quality than paper made from wood pulp.

in college i did a report on marijuana legalization. one of the things i talked about was that the constituion and the decleration of independence were probably written on hemp paper. i've never found anything to the contrary, so i guess it's true.

on a side note, who among us has the Reefer Madness video?

[nickel]

http://www.texomapeanut.com/inn/Inshell%20peanut.jpg

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by Yossarian
i like peanuts, i bet jeebus invented peanuts

Not only did Jesus invent(create) the peanut, he created the ground from which the plant grows, the planet which the ground is on, and the Sun which helps it grow. He also created the farmer which brings the peanut to the marketplace.

" For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." Collosians 1, 16

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
For all we know God wants us to take in weed any way we can. God made "weed". It has a purpose in His plan. Whether that is to make sandals for the Son of God, or to make anointing oil, or to help glaucoma sufferers, or to feed some little forest creature we don't know for sure. But we do know this for sure:

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." Hebrews 13:17

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." Romans 13:1-2

At this time, in this country, marijuana is illegal. So at this time and in this country, God does not want us to use it.


Originally posted by Yossarian
i like peanuts, i bet jeebus invented peanutsYes, Jesus invented peanuts, too:

"Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:3

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." Hebrews 13:17

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." Romans 13:1-2

Its quotations like the above that make me believe the bible was thought up and written by men, and not handed down by a higher power.

[Cantacuzene]

I guess you missed my point Johnny. I was saying that we don't have to prove him wrong. Scientists are wrong by default and only through their work they are proven right. Thus, this guy is wrong until he proves his theory to everyone.

Thats the main reason why religion and science don't often agree. Science is wrong until proven right, while religion is right until proven wrong. Its a fallacy and its the reason why "creation science" isn't really science.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Its quotations like the above that make me believe the bible was thought up and written by men, and not handed down by a higher power. Then we can all just make up whatever we want about God.

Oh wait, we do that anyway... :P

How about this quote:

"God created man in His image, then man returned the favor..."

[whitak24]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
How do you know this was researched by "High Times", not that I don't belive you, just wondering.
according to the article quoted by nija, the research was originally published in "High Times".

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I wouln't be so quick to discount "High Times" anyways. I don't think anyone else would be daring enough to do the research.
Do you really think you are a better source of information than them?
what do you mean, "daring"? high times is a publication with an obvious, blatent agenda. they want pot legalized. do you think that they are in any way going to be a source of unbiased, balanced information? of course not! they're going to publish things that agree with their viewpoint, and ditch anything else.

if i want some sort of objective information about marijuana, i'm not going to go to high times. just like if i want accurate analysis of President Bush's economic stimulus package, i'm not going to go to the republican national committee homepage.

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I wouldn't be so quick to say "I know my christianity better than you." as for me, I'm keeping an open mind. If anyone can disprove this guy, I'd love to hear it.
i never said "i know my christianity better than you". i never claimed to know anything more than anybody else.

(if you want to get technical, this really isn't an issue of "knowing christianity" -- a belief system -- anyway. it's a question of historical facts and suppositions.)

however, if you look at this guy's argument, he basically says "if jesus used oil and incense, and if this incense was made out of canibus, then jesus used canibus. therefore, we should not 'persecute' users of canibus."

there are several flaws in this argument, which is why i dismissed it.

first, it is close to being circular. basically, if jesus used canibus, then he used canibus. wow, what a brilliant observation.

second, i think there is very little biblical support for the idea that jesus was rubbing oil on people's eyes to heal them or performing rituals with incense. any mentions of annointing with oil are rather brief and do not take center stage. in the healings that are described, it is a spoken word or a simple touch that leads to healing.

third, there is no proof that even if jesus was using oil all the time that it actually was made from canibus. it may be a possibility, based on other evidence of what was in use during his time (although i would guess that many of the people who are pushing such research have an agenda as well). however, even with such surrounding evidence, we can do no more than make educated guesses.

fourth, the author seems to be making a public policy argument based on his "findings". last time i checked, marijuana isn't illegal because jesus said "don't toke". it's illegal for a variety of other reasons (obviously, those reasons are subject to debate, but i don't think anyone will stand up and say that "pot is illegal because jesus doesn't want us to use it."). i don't think public policy should be based on what one group believes some religious figure or another did 2000 years ago.

as a result of these objections to this "research", i think it is not particularly illogical to dismiss it as not particularly worthy of my time or attention.

on another note, there continues to be a mixed discussion between using canibus (which i would define as smoking thc-containing marijuana for the purpose of influencing bodily functions -- whether for pleasure, medical purposes, or whatever) and using hemp-based products (as rope, paper, cloth, fuel, etc).

i think those are two completely different arguments that are unfortunately confused frequently. as i have said in past discussions on this board, i am completely in support of the legalization of industrial hemp, a product that has many positive economic and environmental benefits.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by blueindian
lots of research has been done. if i remember, when i get home tonight i'll post up some links. can't do the search at work...the man is watching. remember the whole medicle marijuana thing out in california?
You mean the research axed by the Federal Government? They stop all hemp research, medical or otherwise.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by whitak24
(if you want to get technical, this really isn't an issue of "knowing christianity" -- a belief system -- anyway. it's a question of historical facts and suppositions.)

Uh, well, technically speaking...Christianity IS full of historical facts and suppositions. Maybe not about the chronic, but they're there nonetheless. Just thought I'd point that out. :duck:


Originally posted by whitak24


fourth, the author seems to be making a public policy argument based on his "findings". last time i checked, marijuana isn't illegal because jesus said "don't toke". it's illegal for a variety of other reasons (obviously, those reasons are subject to debate, but i don't think anyone will stand up and say that "pot is illegal because jesus doesn't want us to use it."). i don't think public policy should be based on what one group believes some religious figure or another did 2000 years ago.

Good point!