PDA

View Full Version : The History of Favism i.e. The Forbidden Fruit



Mr. Metazoan
30th October 2014, 16:07
I've stumbled across something very rare, but it's not something the Jews or Christians want to hear, and because of its religious nature some philosophers are opposed to it; however, this discovery is the point as to where science and spirituality meet.

At 11 pages with over 100 references I'm going to place a link to my Google Docs file. Without the links it's about 7 pages so 20 minutes tops to read it.

Because it discusses religion, I want to make clear 2 pertinent ideas:
A. Historically, and prior to Christianity, the priests of various cults were forbade to eat, mention, or even look at beans, hence its catchy title; The Forbidden Fruit.
B. Favism named after the Fava bean is a genetic deficiency that affects Jews with an allergic-like reaction to eating Fava beans. The reaction is nothing like that of a typical allergy, and instead causes blood cells to break open, and for the kidneys to fail.

Happy reading.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rXJ3gZ-42z8sLnPgRRVQFvnngsexiHgpxnnoZK4SVx4/edit?usp=sharing

Mr. Metazoan
31st October 2014, 17:57
So, a few looked, but no comments? Come on people, I want some feedback!

TargeT
31st October 2014, 18:02
So, a few looked, but no comments? Come on people, I want some feedback!

IMO most religious allegories were stories and customs meant to protect humans (ie not eating shell fish, not eating beans for the jews in your example, preaching sexual practices to stop the spread of disease etc. etc...) Perhaps as they were passed on they grew more and more elaborate as the minds of the consumers expanded and were able to handle more complex topics.

Since the root definition in the older texts of the bible refers to what we call "fruit" as simply "red" perhaps there wasn't fruit at all, there was something else (represented by the color red).

lucidity
31st October 2014, 18:10
I've stumbled across something very rare, but it's not something the Jews or Christians want to hear, and because of its religious nature some philosophers are opposed to it; however, this discovery is the point as to where science and spirituality meet.

At 11 pages with over 100 references I'm going to place a link to my Google Docs file. Without the links it's about 7 pages so 20 minutes tops to read it.

Because it discusses religion, I want to make clear 2 pertinent ideas:
A. Historically, and prior to Christianity, the priests of various cults were forbade to eat, mention, or even look at beans, hence its catchy title; The Forbidden Fruit.
B. Favism named after the Fava bean is a genetic deficiency that affects Jews with an allergic-like reaction to eating Fava beans. The reaction is nothing like that of a typical allergy, and instead causes blood cells to break open, and for the kidneys to fail.

Happy reading.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rXJ3gZ-42z8sLnPgRRVQFvnngsexiHgpxnnoZK4SVx4/edit?usp=sharing


Hi Mr Metazoan,

could you summarise it for us please ? :-)

Mr. Metazoan
1st November 2014, 17:23
I've found that there is a forbidden fruit, and because of the evidence, I believe that the fruit is Fava beans. The effects of Favism are poetically expressed in the Bible, Iliad, and Odyssey, but it's possible that it is in others. I've also found references to it in Egyptian and Japanese mythology, and I've begun to compile the notes into a philosophical narrative. For two thousand years, and ending in the 4th century, 15,000 people would volunteer annually to embark on a metaphysical ritual caused by the ingestion of some unknown substance, and the reactions listed are those of Favism. This was in the Eleusinian mysteries, but there were other mystery cults during this time like the Dionysian mysteries.

There is a kicker to this, which is the fact that the knowledge of Favism and its effects were well known during the Greek-Roman era, but that it was lost to us probably in 381 during the Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius. But, in 1894 it was again recognized in western medicine. I don't want this to turn into a conspiracy theory, but it does have the potential.

Mr. Metazoan
1st November 2014, 17:31
That's an interesting point, and although I see your point, there is nothing wrong with eating shellfish except that some do have allergies, or that it can spoil and cause horrible intestinal issues. In earlier mythologies and groups like the Pythagoreans there was a ban on beans, but the bible didn't have this same view, and even goes as far as to say that beans should be eaten as part of the diet. Claiming that is taking it out of context, as there is a story that goes along with it, but nevertheless, it does not say that we shouldn't eat beans. The 'red' fruit idea is not one that I've heard, so if you could provide a reference to support it, that'd be great. I do know that the word vegetable originated in the 1600's, so prior to that, anything that grew from the ground was known as a fruit.

chocolate
1st November 2014, 19:04
Comments then: I don't agree (fully) with the notion that the fava bean is the forbidden fruit. The meaning is allegorical, and refers to something else entirely. But if it sounds more mysterious then why not, probably some people are indeed allergic to fava beans. We all are experiencing a reaction to eating wheat/gluten as of some years back, and that is in part related to the real message of the thread.

:)

lucidity
1st November 2014, 20:17
beans are not a fruit.
beans are seeds and so they're most similar to nuts.

Mr. Metazoan
1st November 2014, 21:26
The truth is that beans were forbidden, right? In addition, there is a genetic deficiency, not an allergy related to them.

It would be illogical to think that those are not truths, therefore it is true that beans were a forbidden fruit.

If my logic is off base, please explain why those things are not true.

=[Post Update]=


beans are not a fruit.
beans are seeds and so they're most similar to nuts.

That's not what multiple sites state.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-blog/fruit-vegetable-difference/bgp-20056141

lucidity
1st November 2014, 23:14
please... don't interpret, what i haven't written.
All i said was:

"beans are not a fruit.
beans are seeds and so they're most similar to nuts."

You're citing the mayoclinic ?
On the difference between fruit and beans ?
Seriously?

I'm surprised you're consulting references.
I'm shocked that you actually found one to
support this nonsense that "beans are fruit".

Try consulting any dictionary... or howabout wikipedia ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean

I'm not contradicting your theory.. i don't know the details
of your theory ... not even in summary... i'm just pointing
out that beans are not fruits. So that would seem to undermine
this idea that forbidden fruits refers to fava beans.

However, maybe there are 'translation' issues converting the ancient original
meaning 'forbidden food' into the more modern 'forbidden fruits'... maybe.

Why do you think that fava beans might have been the original forbidden fruit ?

best wishes

lucidity :-)

KaiLee
1st November 2014, 23:59
I scanned your document. Then I did a quick Wikipedia read. There's certainly many traditions and rituals around the bean. My immediate thought was Jack and the Bean Stalk.
I'm not really sure where you want this conversation to go. All I can say is that a conclusion at the end of your document would have been useful.

Mr. Metazoan
2nd November 2014, 00:34
Lucidity, I would agree that you have a valid point except the bean itself is the fruit of the plant. In addition, we're talking about the term used 1,700+ years ago, and we're also talking about legumes rather than just beans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabaceae
The Fabaceae or Leguminosae,[6] commonly known as the legume, pea, or bean family, are a large and economically important family of flowering plants. It includes trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants perennials or annuals, which are easily recognized by their fruit (legume) and their compound, stipulated leaves.

Mr. Metazoan
2nd November 2014, 00:45
Jack and the Bean Stalk.
I'm not really sure where you want this conversation to go. All I can say is that a conclusion at the end of your document would have been useful.

Fava bean stalks are strong enough to climb, and I have tried to formulate a conclusion but continue to find more information that I want to add e.g. Phallic processions (penis parades), works by Plato including his elaboration in The Republic in regards to coming out of the cave, etc.

Once it's written well, I'd like to submit it to science as a discovery, and in the long run would love to have the ability to go be initiated (again). I say again because I stumbled across this by accident, after drinking two cups of the juice of the top of a ham hock and great northern beans dish.

KaiLee
2nd November 2014, 02:23
Jack and the Bean Stalk could be an allegory.
Exchange cow for bull and religion. Milk for spiritual sustanance.
Bean stalk for accessing higher realms.
Giant for god.
Golden goose for knowledge of higher self.

Wikipedia has a suggestion about the story coming from the old testament. (look up story name)

But all this goes toward mythology, which isnt really where you're looking for that paper. Interesting though.

lucidity
2nd November 2014, 11:07
Lucidity, I would agree that you have a valid point except the bean itself is the fruit of the plant. In addition, we're talking about the term used 1,700+ years ago, and we're also talking about legumes rather than just beans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabaceae
The Fabaceae or Leguminosae,[6] commonly known as the legume, pea, or bean family, are a large and economically important family of flowering plants. It includes trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants perennials or annuals, which are easily recognized by their fruit (legume) and their compound, stipulated leaves.

In the passage above "fruit" is being used in a different sense.
There, "fruit" .. is used in the sense of "something harvested".
It's not offering us a botanical sense of 'fruit'

If you read that Aaron was the fruit is his parents love.
Would you then decide that Aaron is a fruit ?


There are (at least) two broad strategies that plants take regarding their seeds.

A. Invite animals to consume the seeds via a nutritous bribe of fruit.
B. Discourage animals from consuming the seeds via tough shells
and/or toxic poisons.

Plants in the first category are things like bananas, apples, berries.
Typically the seeds are small and surrounded by fruit. The expectation
is that some animal will eat the fruit and discard the seed (possibly in
the animal's manure) some distance from the parent plant.

Plants in the second category are all nuts, all beans and all cereals.
Nuts typically have hard shells or spiney shells. Typically you need
tools to break your way past the shells to get to the nuts.
Beans and cereals both deter animals from eating the seeds with toxins.
This is why you can not eat beans raw, you must cook them to safely eat them.
The cooking destroys the toxins (as well as much of the nutritional value)
Surprisingly few people realise that you should not
eat wheat, barley, rice, millet etc raw... in their raw state they contain
poisons... you need to cook (or bake) the cereal seeds in order to
neutralise the poisons.

Beans, nuts and cereals provide no 'nutrious bribe' to animals
to consume the seeds... they do just the opposite, they provide
toxins to discourage the consumption of the seeds.
This is the essential difference between fruits and non-fruits.
Beans, nuts and cereals are not fruits.

be happy

lucidity :-)

chocolate
2nd November 2014, 14:48
The whole 'genetic' notion here is so outdated.
But I guess it will take time.
:)

Mr. Metazoan
8th November 2014, 17:50
Again...the word fruit dates back much further than biology.

Chocolate...what do you mean?