Even though..Jesus' last supper..is one of the most frequently portrayed religious events[in history],..no one..is absolutely sure..what was eaten at that meal.. Although it is impossible to know precisely..what dishes were served,..both the New Testament and historical records..give us many clues.

According to the New/Testament..(Matthew 26 and Mark 14),..the meal was..intended to..celebrate Passover,..and both accounts agree that two of Jesus' disciples..had come to Jerusalem in order to find a home..in which Jesus could enjoy the Seder...

There is no reason to believe..that the meal upon which Jesus dined would have been different..than that enjoyed by other Judean's at the onset of this first millennium...

Thus,..matzot..(unleavened bread),..a pitcher of wine,..salted water and a small bowl of marror..(bitter herbs)..would have been on the table...Because in Jesus' time..the holiday also marked the time of the early spring harvest,..the table may have been decorated with fresh fruit,..green almonds and walnuts..as well as sprigs of freshly picked herbs such as thyme,..rosemary..hemp and coriander.

Between the 1st and 3rd centuries,..it was traditional in all homes to start with a simple vegetable soup...The contents of the second course,..however, were determined largely by the economic status of the host...Because Jesus was an honored guest,the owner of the home in which this particular meal was served..would have been sure to have prepared roast lamb,..the most highly-valued of dishes.

It was not traditional to serve a dessert course,..but celebratory meals such as this came to an end..after the guests ate the fresh fruit and nuts..that had been put on the table for decorations....the complete meal rituals wopuld have taken arround 4 hours

Deut 8:8,..here is a list of the agricultural products that they grew...You also find another list of foods in Genesis 43:11...Ezekiel 16:13 has an example of the kinds of food the nobility ate.

From the Manual of discipline..found in a cave by the Dead Sea..we learn they rose early,..about 4 o'clock[am]..and went to sleep early.

Many families ate together sort of communal meals...Families lived close to one another..and meals were prepared communally,..so there was a fixed time..for everybody to eat..which was early in the evening

Right. So now the absolute lack of evidence of god is evidence of god.

Tell us, Socratease, exactly what have you seen or experienced which suggests a god?

I'm sure Ashkenazi jews would be very interested to hear your conjecture on why their narrow genetic grouping is susceptible to Tay-Sachs disease.

Sancho,speculates were all decended from a warm blood fish,darwind speculates mammels..[some unnamed cow creature]..returned to the waters...and fails to see how these amasing incidents prove a god...he asks..<<So now the absolute lack of evidence of god is evidence of god.>>

he askes<<..Tell us,Socratease,exactly what have you seen or experienced which suggests a god?>>.because he dont want to admit he got no evidence..[nor science]..to how it all went down...thus speculates with endless questions..[in lue of pressenting his science fact based faith...lol...anyhow he continues

<<I'm sure Ashkenazi jews would be very interested to hear your conjecture on why their narrow genetic grouping is susceptible to Tay-Sachs disease.>>clearly he lacks the science nounce to distinguish a negative ressesive..from this preceedance usage of species and genus...clearly concepts the evolutioaryu faithfull never comprehended[along with simple mendalic inheritors]

these science faithfull...never really attempt to study their science...i think they just take the easiest to believe[no reading faith going...and put their faith in white dresses[in lue of black ones ...just as they ignore..the bountyfull proofs god has left for those seeking to know him...

they simply..ignore any one giving them the lengthy detail to their 'lol'...killer questions...oh ye of the simple faithlessness..it is as it is..[but thats not all that it is]

"research has found weakneses in the genome of the negro[specific to blackies]...and are installing these other genes into our food/medicine..to cause death to those these dorkins/darwinian god heads deem selected[naturally]because of their melinine pigment"

No doubt some wicked plot by Obama-funded scientists to turn us all into soul brothers.

I can sense a truly hilarious retro-70s Blaxploitation movie lurking in there, somewhere. Daman Wyans take not.

Sancho
do you really believe that in a chat room there is ample time and space to explain what would take volumes of work which you may not be equipped to cope with nor have i the strength and knowledge to fully express. Honestly, pal, do we know everything about quantam mechanics and biology and the inter-related disciplines? With all modesty we have to answer inthe negative.


Science cannot answer the dead-ends it runs across.There are vast areas that scientists leave to abstract probability about what they call "singularities". There is no proof for any of these opinions,or interpretations because that's all they are. If we accede this privilege, and rightly so we should, then why should the theologian be regarded with suspicion and some degree of contempt for believing in what he cant prove but needs to have faith in the probability that points him to his truths? Let's be quite fairabout it.

The scientist has his way of approaching what he conceives as his Truths andthe philosopher/theologian has another route. It is interesting that in recent years the two different routes are approaching a confluence.

I'll end witha quote from Hans Kung's "The Beginnings Of All Things":

" Yet ofcourse,as an informed theologian, I too regard the standard model as well foundedand at the same time hopethat informed scientists ( and you too, friend Sancho!) will not understand the ' beginning' of all things as a random beginning: the Big Bang is no random beginning. After all what we have here is not just an individual first moment, the first 100th of a second withina series of many comparable moments of the beginning of a history of the world. What we have here is what makes a history oof the world possible at all: not justy a temporal beginning but the beginning of time. That means that it is not a relative but an absolute first beginning, which cannot be a beginning in world-time or time-world. Indeed,without it world-time or time-world cannot be explained at all." The singularity of the "beginning" is something fundamentally different."

socratease

To all my scientist friends,
there are many approaches to the same subject.

Consider this:

The police have a dossier on a subject "X". They know his date of birth,height, weight, color of his eyes, his birth mark, color of his hair and his hair style.They know where all the moles on his body are. The Forensic scientist has given them a detailed report of his inner structures and workings, his blood group etc et al. They "know" all about "X" from the elaborate sense real data in their dossier.

"X"'s mother on the other hand knows only one or two of the above details but she claims that she really knows her son in a way no amount of physical details will ever contain. She comes about this intelligence through a unique existential way of "knowing". Who can say she doesnt know him?

There are more ways to understanding what we are observing and each way has a certain validity. Use whatever detail you must but dont claim 100% superior knowledge about the subject,please.

socratease