Yellum Notnef

Another overlooked point is what type of cannabis could Jesus have gotten his hands on?
There are two main strains of pot (Indica & Sativa) and both have very different effects. Just go to a place where it`s legal and info is out in the open like Amsterdam. The shop owners will ask you very specifically if you want to get "high" or "stoned".

Indica gets you Stoned and feeling rather laid back and lazy. Sativa on the other hand causes energetic soaring mind highs with visuals somewhat similar to LSD.
There was no cross breeding going on during the time of Jesus so unless the Magi brought the baby Jesus Sativa seeds from a far away land,I doubt he was smoking it.

I could be totally wrong about this and it depends on the climate of Judea. Sativa does well in places like Mexico where theres a long growing season with VERY bright sun and warn temperatures.
I suck at geography but I`ve heard many times that the region has cold winters. If this is true the chance of Sativa growing there is already getting slim.

Jan Haugland

This surely makes for great headlines and good jokes, but I simply don't buy it.

Even if the plant described in the OT was cannabis, there are too many ifs here:

* How potent on HTC content is wild cannabis plants? Hemp plants even today are rarely very strong; in fact most are not very well suited to drug production. The plants used for cannabis production today has been subject to artificial selection to boost HTC potency.

* Would oil made from the seeds be very potent? It is the leaves and top of the plant that has the highest HTC content, IIRC.

* Even if the HTC content was hight, would the skin absorb it and get you "high"? Of all ways to use cannabis, I have frankly never heard about this, and human ingenuity when it comes to 'highs' is boundless; if this worked very well I'd expect it to be popular.

* What makes us believe that of all potential anointing oils, the pious early Christians used one that was expressely forbidden in the Law of Moses?

Also, the idea that the apocalyptic books were written under influence from cannabis, while amusing, betrays lack of understanding of the complex religious imagery there and its religious background.


- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

Yellum Notnef

Agreed. Not to mention that this Jesus character might not of even existed.

First of all I don`t know what HTC is and assume you mean THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).
There would have been plants back then that would have knocked you on your ass. The question is if those plants were indigenous to the region.


Forget all about the seeds. There is no THC to be had there and the compounds that are found in the seeds are a one way ticket to a nausea and a throbbing headache.

The skin might absorb it if you had enough on you,but once again,if it`s oil from seeds you don`t want anything to do with it.
Oil made from the resin covered flower buds is a whole different story and can get you VERY high if eaten although it takes a LOT more this way than if it were smoked.
I have no idea what would happen if you rubbed this oil on your body since it would be very expensive to get enough pot to produce the oil.
The only people I know who have ever been able to produce even the smallest amount of oil were those who grew lagre amounts of pot. The oil was mixed with butter which was then used for a batch brownies.

Agreed.

Jan Haugland

Thanks for comments, fenton. Sorry about consistent typo. Must have been too long since I smoked that stuff

I had on reasonably good authority that there were no THC in seeds, but expressed myself a bit cautious. Thanks for confirming.

I agree it is a good possibility that Jesus did not even exist, making such speculations even more moot. I am about 50/50 on the issue.

Uh yeah, I know that from personal experience. Place: Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen. No idea how much they put in those cookies, but it sure worked as advertised.



- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

Peter Kirby

I agree that the presentation of entheogenic theories of religion can be mere sensationalism, particularly the way that the article by Chris Bennett used the claims to suggest that being anti-marijuana is being "anti-Christ." Like I said before, my interest is academic; I do not want or need to use such a theory to justify any political, ethical, or religious beliefs. I do not make the claim that "Jesus used pot," which although possible is not proven. I am less interested in the question of the historical Jesus than in that of the nascent church, which we know to have existed and to attached significance to the holy oil, used in annointing during baptism and for the sick among other occasions. I do not claim that the active ingredient was any variety of cannabis, which is perhaps too quickly chosen upon because it is well-known. I do call for the serious investigation of the question of the composition of the holy chrism whose virtues were extolled by the church fathers and which may reasonably have had hallucinogenic or psychoactive properties. Perhaps the next thing to do is to investigate the use of oils in other social contexts in antiquity, such as the gymnasium, as it would surprise me if the Christians were the only ones. As for whether apocalyptic literature would be reduced to simplicity under an entheogenic theory, I disagree. "The guy was high" is not a complete explanation for the origins of the imagery, but it may be a component of such an explanation. Many artists and writers throughout history have used drugs of some kind to enhance their creativity.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

With Peter's comments in mind, the properties of the other constiuents of the oil should probably be explored. For example, the formula contains cinnamon oil, which is known as a stimulant in herbal lore. Most spices and flavorings are toxins, which is why we use them.* In large quantities, probably anything used in the mixture might have significant psychological effects, especially in a public service where effects were expected, encouraged and sought. In the annointing process, if the oil was slopped on, the annointee probably accidently-on-purpose ingested at least some.

Additionally, if the "cane" oil in the original post is sugar cane, consider also that sweeteners were rare in ancient diets. Sugar will cause a buzz if not normally present in the diet.

Vorkosigan

*Toxin signals force animals to have varied diets, because eating too much of one thing will cause toxin build-up (all plants contain things toxic to animals). So animals vary their diets in response to this, using the stimulus of the toxin as a guide. Humans add toxins (spices) to simulate this effect.

krazytamak

I'm glad that people on this thread are finally debating this and bringing up intelligent criticisms.

Fenton made a good point that we need to consider the type of cannabis we're talking about. And he is correct that for hallucination effects, you need sativa, and he is also correct that sativa is not indigineous to Judea or the surrounding region. And he is also correct that unless the Jews and early Christians got their cannabis from a far away land, all they could have had was indica and no hallucinations. However, the Bible actually says that the kanehbosm was not native and that they got it from a distant land.

Jeremiah 6:20 "What do I care about incense from Sheba or "kaneh-bosm" from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable; your sacrifices do not please me."-- I inserted "kaneh-bosm" because that is the original Hebrew, but your Bible will either say fragrant cane, sweet cane, or sweet calamus and some Bibles (NIV for example) also have a footnote linking you back to Exodux 30:23 to let you know that it is referring to an ingredient from the holy oil.

This brings up another point. If someone wants to put up an alternate theory for what "kaneh-bosm" refers to, s/he needs to show that it was not native to the region and had to be traded for with distant lands.

I have a question for the group: Why aren't people buying the etymological argument? Could this argument be any stronger in your opinion? In Hebrew, a final 'm' is used to make a noun plural- I had read this in Bennett's article but I asked a Jewish friend who verified it for me. So while kaneh-bosm may sound similar to cannabis but noticeably different, the singular form, kaneh-bos sounds almost phonetically identical. Now I know that two similar souding words from unrelated languages can have different meanings, but that is much less likely if the languages are related if not by origin then by geography at least. According to Sula Benet's paper (referenced in my paper) cannabis in Greek is "kannabis," and I would think it is fair to say that since Jews were surrounded by people speaking Greek or Greek-variant languages, that the singular Hebrew "kaneh-bos" would probably have the same meaning as the Greek "kannabis."

Here is an example that may change your mind: Hinduism is also a religion with very complex religious imagery and background. Hindu texts refer to a very sacred plant called "Soma." There is still debate among scholars as to what Soma is, but based on the Hindu texts, all scholars (as far as I've read) agree that Soma was very hallucinogenic. Early Hinduism revered this plant because it was supposed to provide access to the divine.

Now I don't think that a bunch of Hindu monks hallucinated the entire HIndu religion, just as I don't think that Judaic or Christian beliefs and imagery were entirely hallucinated from the holy oil. I think most of the religious beliefs are derived from the fashionable, often secular, philosophies of the time and the popular fantasies inspired by the current events of the time. For early Christianity, it would be the Middle Platonic philosphies and the imminent coming of a messiah to fulfill the Jewish fantasy of getting to the promised land.

However, I do think that the hallucinogenic substance played an extremely important role in convincing the charismatic leaders of the religion that they were in fact able to perceive the divine. I bet Jesus and his disciples were absolutely convinced that they were in contact with God. And I bet that many of the early Christians who were willing to martyr their lives did it because they were absolutely convinced that the hallucinogenic effect that they felt during baptism by holy oil was God communicating with them, for how else could you explain such a strange thing like a hallucination. In the ancient times, if you couldn't explain it, then it happened because of God. Illness happened because of sin. And if a plant or oil is able to make you hallucinate, it is because God is letting you into His world through that plant. Chemical interactions and messed up neurotransmitters... what's that?

Jan, do you know where in the Bible it talks about how or why the holy oil is banned? I have been trying to find this because I think it would be very interesting to find out why it went from being this sacred thing to becoming forbidden.

As for your question, you seem to be implying that because the Jewish laws forbid the holy oil, Jesus would stay away from it. However, it is well known that Jesus broke many of the Jewish laws, so I don't see how the Jewish prohibition of holy oil would have given Jesus moral qualms. In fact, since the Bible portrays him as being part of the alternative culture, his bias if anything would have been to reject the Jewish ban.

As for direct evidence linking Jesus' oil to the OT holy oil, see my long paper (posted by Toto) under Point#2. In addition, notice that although the Bible refers to a variety of oils and ointments, the term "holy oil" is only used when referring to the holiest of the oils, the one described in Exodus. Then check out the quotations in Points#7 and 8 in my paper and see that the references usually refer to "holy oil," and if not that then "chrism," which albeit ambiguous, is not "oil" or "ointment" which would most probably signify that it is not the holy oil for else they would have said holy oil.

As for skin-absorption, there are 3 studies that I am aware of that suggest that cannabis can be absorbed through the skin for therapeutic uses. I am not aware of any study that describes the nature of the psychoactive effect of skin-absorbed cannabis, but I think it's ability to absorb through the skin has been documented. Here are the three studies:

1. In my long thesis, Point 10B Evidence #1 "Local application of cannabis indica was experienced in 18 patients suffering from chronic otitis media, and in 4 patients after mastoidectomy. A significant improvement was noticed in 13 cases of chronic otitis."

2. SYRENIUS, SZ. 1613 "Zielnik [Medicinal plants]," in Typographia Basilii Skalski. Krakowin Polish) [Syrenius wrote that ointment made from hemp resin is the most effective remedy for burns]

3. TSCHIRCH, A. 1912 Handbuch der Pharmakognosie [Pharmaceutical handbook]. II. Leipzig: Verlag von chr. Herm. Tauchnitz. [Oil from crushed hemp seeds is used as a treatment for jaundice and rheumatism in Russia].

--- Citations #2 and #3 are from http://home.gci.net/~sncwarmgun/sm410.html which contains EARLY DIFFUSION AND FOLK USES OF HEMP from "Cannabis and Culture," Rubin, Vera & Comitas, Lambros, (eds.) 1975 39-49

Toto

Peyote on the Brain

This article is not about cannabis, but it is about the use of drugs in worship.

The author feels that the peyote used in these ceremonies is not very strong (pharmacologically), and that the major effect of the drug is to enhance the experiences created by the ritual ceremony and social situation.

Old Man

I though oil & water did not mix. So if "holy oil" was applied to wet skin, it would not have been absorbed?

In any case, there is no mention of the use of oil during baptism (only for the sick).

krazytamak

interesting.

1. i'm not sure if the chemical repulsion of oil and water can actually prevent the oil from soaking into the skin. in order for that to be true, the ENTIRE head and body must be surrounded by water particles at EVERY point at the molecular level- i think, but i'm not sure, and it's a more complicated chemistry question that i'm not going to pretend i understand especially because of

2. the many diverse early Christian churches have recorded several different ways of using water and/or oil in baptism, some sects say you are supposed to use oil then water (in which case the oil would have absorbed before the water hits the skin), others used water then oil, others used only oil, and there were other variations. The source for this is p. 260 of The Early Church by Henry Chadwick.


This is definitely not true. While it is less definite what was in the holy oil, it is actually pretty much definite that in early Christianity oil was an important part of baptism.

About the 20th post on the 1st page is a long post by Toto that begins "This is krazytamac's paper." There are three sources there (see Point#7) that show baptism occured by oil in early Christianity. I have copied and pasted it below for easy reference although I would recommend reading that post if you want to see all the arguments outlined.

Right after that post, is another loong post, which is by Peter Kirby, and that post is extremely relevant because there must be almost a dozen citations to different sources that show that baptism happened by oil in early Christianity. I have not copied those so you'll have to go back and see those for yourself, but I think the number of citations in Peter's post really bolsters this part of the argument to the point where you can pretty much say that beyond a shadow of a doubt, holy oil (whatever was in it) played a very important role in early baptism.


RELEVANT EXCERPT FROM TOTO'S LONG POST ON MY BEHALF:

1.
“CONCERNING THE SACRED INITIATION OF HOLY BAPTISM XVI. Thou therefore, O bishop, according to that type, shalt anoint the head of those that are to be baptized, whether they be men or women, with the holy oil, for a type of the spiritual baptism. After that, either thou, O bishop, or a presbyter that is under thee, shall in the solemn form name over them the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, and shall dip them in the water; and let a deacon receive the man, and a deaconess the woman, that so the conferring of this inviolable seal may take place with a becoming decency. And after that, let the bishop anoint those that are baptized with ointment” – Book 3:16 of Apostolic Constitutions The first six books are from the Didascalia Apostolorum, Church Order, written in Syria about AD 250. http://www.piney.com/DocAposConstitu.html [Shows that the holy oil is used in baptism, as is water and an ointment.]

2.
“Through the Holy Spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we are begotten through Christ in the two. We are anointed through the Spirit. When we were begotten, we were united. None can see himself either in water or in a mirror without light. Nor again can you see in light without mirror or water. For this reason, it is fitting to baptize in the two, in the light and the water. Now the light is the chrism.”- Gospel of Philip http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html [Shows that baptism required holy oil (chrism) and water according to Gnostic scriptures.]

3.
In North Africa in 200AD, during baptism, the person is dipped in water and after coming up is anointed with oil, according to Tertullian. In Rome, the anointing was also given after water. In Syria, the church order Didascalia Apostolorum, Church Order states that anointing comes before being dipped in water. Hippolytus says that the anointing happens three times. There were lots of variation regarding the order, but holy oil was an integral part of baptism in a number of churches in the 3rd Century. – This is paraphrased from p. 260 of The Early Church, by Henry Chadwick (author is a Regius Professor at Oxford and Cambridge, Head of Christ Church, Oxford, knighted by British Government.)