Luke 24 yes. Why would you want to believe it’s something else? Try reading the story…

Two disciples (remember, 12 apostles but many disciples, in the gospels already) are walking, and meet some random stranger. They don’t recognise him. He is a stranger travelling on a dangerous road, to walk further at night was not at all safe. Thus, they’re not inviting Jesus, they’re inviting a stranger.

When they’re sitting down for dinner, and the stranger breaks the bread, the stranger becomes the risen Jesus, or they recognise the stranger as the risen Jesus.

Is it that much of a stretch to think that Luke didn’t write the story of the people in Emmaus as [just?] a proof text for the resurrection, but also as a story that calls us “to share God’s food with the stranger”. It would fit with the motives of Luke’s gospel, it was after all what he was busy with the whole time, to show how Jesus focused on the outcasts. Now come tell the story that the risen Jesus becomes visible when doors are opened for strangers.

Interesting then, as Crossan also says, that this meaning isn’t necessarily dependent upon where you find yourself on the so-called “conservative-liberal line”.

I shall play skeptic no more (on this issue anyway), and fall asleep with a smile on my face (or in my mind, anyway), liking this Crossan clip and appreciating the important nuances introduced by understanding the context around the text.

And start thinking about putting together a nice list of people I can spam when I have questions like these… And Linda, irrespective of how well you know the Bible, I’ll listen when you’re talking.

30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them.

It still might be the case, but I’m asking around a bit. Will drop another comment if I find something, or if I find no other potential passage.

Thanks Linda. I think I get it. I’m just surprised that Crossan would take such a “fundamental” example – thought he was talking about some minor bible story, rather than daring to take a bite out of something that cuts to the very sensitive heart of the issue: the resurrection. I’m impressed at the daring, actually, but the point still stands: as a “way to follow”, the *way* doesn’t differ in the slightest on the grounds of metaphorical vs factual – as a “way” it stands strong. (And the fighting is really just about the “beliefs”, killing one another based on something that makes no real difference? Silly, eh?)

Ok, that’s just one way of seeing the situation, of course.

They invite the stranger who had joined their walk to stay with them when they get to the village. They share their food with him, who they still have not recognized as Jesus. I’m thinking that’s what Crossan means by “giving food to a stranger.” In the story, only when the stranger breaks the bread do they recognize him as Jesus and realize the significance of all that was told to them during the walk.

Regarding your p.s. question, here ya go!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmaus

And FYI, there is a Christian retreat/leadership/discipleship training program by that name which is well known to Christians in my circle:

http://www.upperroom.org/emmaus/whatis/

It does not appeal to me in the least, but it is a well organized group.

In case the HTML breaks again:

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E

A Conservative For Obama [Broken HTML Fixed by Hugo]

fiscally lines up with Republican ideas

He probably lines up with Republican propaganda, not actual Republican ideas. With 8 years of Reagan and 12 years of Bushes writing budgets, the actual ideas that Republicans use to guide their fiscal policy is to bankrupt the country. You don’t get from almost no debt to $10 trillion debt ($30,000 + per citizen, or ~$130,000 for my family of four) by accident.

So he’d be happy if McCain won.

I’ve heard commentators say this election is a referendum on Roe v. Wade, but I don’t agree. It’s a referendum on Habeas Corpus. The Supreme Court recently upheld Habeas Corpus by a 5-4 vote, a vote that McCain called the ‘worst decision’ in (Supreme Court history? something like that.) If McCain wins, and any of the SCOTUS justices have to be replaced in his term, U.S. civil rights are gone.

In other off-topic news, I recently (very) spoke to an atheistic libertarian who would be horrified (wrong word) if Obama wins. He’s not voting, not really wanting to vote Republican, but fiscally lines up with Republican ideas. So he’d be happy if McCain won. And he’s not at all concerned about Palin as head honcho should the hypothetical “McCain as president gets heart attack in two years” be accepted… Palin has more experience than Obama, in his books, pointing out he’s only been in the senate four times as long as I’ve been at my new company.

It was mostly a philosophical discussion, not a political one, so it was really cool. The small-government ideas and arguments are still spilling around in my head, as are the differences between demand-side versus supply-side thinking. I’ll probably still lean left when the dust settles, but I’ve picked up some more appreciation for free market and small government ideas with which to inform future discussions/thinking.

Pity I didn’t have some nice pro-Obama/Biden political arguments in my arsenal, I would have loved to see what direction they might take the arguments in. (Including heavy anti-Palin arguments. Maybe in a future discussion…)

OK, now back to on-topic! (Yea, right…)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/152109/youtube_xkcd.html?tk=rss_news

The influence of the Web comic xkcd apparently knows no bounds: It has now spawned a new and potentially game-changing feature on YouTube.

In this recent xkcd strip, comic creator Randall Monroe suggests that YouTube users would leave better comments — or, more precisely, avoid leaving stupid ones — if they first heard their words read back to them out loud.

Recognizing a good idea when one is offered up for free, YouTube developers went ahead and built the feature. I just tried it: Wrote on one video, “Man, this is lame,” pressed the “audio preview” button, heard a reasonably audible rendition of the phrase read back to me, thought better of my contribution, and hit delete…

But how many of his readers are careful observers?

In the scheme of things, I think the leaders of the “new atheist” movement (Dawkins, PZ, etc) are actually quite moderate and reasonable. Many religious people find them to be offensive and extreme, but that’s because they’ve misread or misunderstood. However, many atheists seem to misread it the same way, and agree with the extreme version!