The proof is in the pudding my good man Even king Saul in the book of kings got stone goofed after he was anointed by the prophets, i forgot the passage but i'll look it up
Don't you have to prove Jesus even existed in order to prove he could ingest mind-altering substance?
Isn't it about evidence, rather than opinion? Don't get me wrong, their is nothing illogical about embracing a philosophy of peace and equality, but could Jesus, like everything else in the bible, have merely been a symbolic conceptualization?
For the most part - yes. Christians make the mistake of taking literal or out of context - something which should never have been - it was merely something written in and for that day and age Take, for example John the revelator's book of Revelation: he was not - as most believe, prophesying for a future date, he was in fact writing about the political crisis in his time to strengthen the beleivers who were otherwise suffering mass persicution for speaking and professing their faith, thus, he had to use symbolism to get his message across. But tell the christians that and you've started a spiritual war
And from what authoritative account do the tenants of what is symbolic and what is literal derive? I only ask because, one of the most controversial aspects of the bible, other than the existence of Jesus, is what should be interpreted literally, and what should be interpreted metaphorically.
supposedly soma was/is a drug of some sort, some say pot, others differ on what type of mushroom. it's mostly agreed by non-christians and some christians that soma was a drug of some sort though... as for jesus...who cares if he did or didnt...there were cultures worshipping salivia and other drugs before jesus even presumably existed.