´óÏó´«Ã½

This is of course of great interest to those who maintain that there wasn't enough time between the death of Jesus the Nazarene and the composition of the gospels for crazy mythology to gather momentum. People are very gullible.

On this basis, even OT could probably accumulate enough woo woo findings to be declared a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Come to think of it, so could I, probably. I could pull a coin out of a French Nun's ear, if that would help...

-H

"I could pull a coin out of a French Nun's ear"

Ah, Helio, but could you produce a second donkey out of thin air?

Happy Beltaine

Why not? Matthew did!

Have a good one (I think they already have a St Peter :-)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

You guys are really hilarious, if by hilarious one means "pathetic".

I see to have to keep clarifying my comments on here at the moment.

Mccamleyc, no offence was intended.

The Comment about Matthew and the donkey/s was in relation to the Historical Jesus thread where Heliopolitan and I were debating the authenticity of the gospels.

His view is that the bible is riddled (I think he would be happy with the word 'riddled') with error and that Christians have been 'conned', my view is that it is reliable and divinely inspired.

His post 1 therefore included a reference to this other conversation, I decided to reply in kind.

I hope this clears things up.

Peter, don't worry - there is no such thing as the right to not be offended. Some folks don't like being forced to think, as we've seen with dear old OT.

Yes, "riddled" is a fairly good word, but I would suggest that these errors are most instructive in helping us see the prejudices, agendas, foibles and personal characteristics of the purely human authors, editors, translators and interpreters of "holy" texts.

Sola scientia, baby ;-)

Few would argue that Pope John Paul was not a holy man.

To make him a saint is a step too far, unless you are totally aligned with Roman Catholic ideology.

The Old Testament does not refer to any saints.

Paul (formerly of Tarsus) was the first person to use the term "saint".

And who was he referring to ?
Just ordinary folk like you or me, who were members of the early Christian church. These early Christians were all sinners, just like you or me, and all in need of the gracious forgiveness of that only Jesus can grant to us.

The whole concept of what "saints" are, was high-jacked by the early Christian church over the first five centuries of its existence.

Today, for clarity, it would be helpful not to add to the "saint list".

Let's just appreciate the good and holy men and women of today, and remember them after their death with continuing affection and respect.

"Holy" is a wholly meaningless word, unless applied to socks or similar.

Why do I get the impression that "investigating" the miracles by the Catholic Church isn't exactly a ... scientific ... process?