Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, thousands of saints have come and gone. Many of them become patron saints because of the experiences in their own lives. These experiences are often bizarre and frequently gruesome. This list looks at ten of the more unusual cases.
St Dymphna’s story is truly sad, but one that parallels many popular folk legends. Dymphna was a virgin daughter of a pagan king. She secretly baptized into Christianity. After her mother died, her father became insane with grief, and declared that he would only marry another woman as beautiful as his wife. Eventually he noticed that Dymphna his own daughter, shared his wife’s beauty. He determined to marry her, but the girl fled from him in horror, accompanied by a trusted priest. They sought sanctuary elsewhere but were found by her father’s men. The priest was promptly killed, and her father once again proposed to her. She refused to marry him, and he himself struck off her head. Dymphna is depicted as a beautiful, virginal, young girl. She is often holding a holy bible and white flowers. She is the patroness of incest victims and the mentally disturbed.
Simon Zelotes (or Simon the Zealot) was one of the twelve disciples. He had previously been a violent man but was converted by Jesus. Not much is known of his life after Jesus’ death, but he is believed to have travelled widely preaching the gospel. Legend has it that he was martyred in Mesopotamia by being hung upside down and sawed to death – longitudinally. He is often depicted holding the saw that was the instrument of his martyrdom.
St Apollonia was an old deaconess who fell victim to the persecutions of Christians in Alexandria. As Christians fled the city, Apollonia was seized by a mob. They beat her and knocked all her teeth out. They then lit a huge fire to burn her if she did not renounce Christianity. Begging for time as though she would comply with their demands, instead she jumped into the flames herself and died without renouncing her faith. She is the patroness of dentists, and is depicted holding pincers containing her tooth or with a gold tooth on a necklace.
St Margaret of Antioch was a popular saint in the middle ages. Legend states that she was the daughter of a pagan priest, but decided to convert to Christianity. This angered her father as well as a suitor whose advances she rejected. They had her reported to the authorities as a Christian, and she was jailed. In jail she met the devil in the form of a dragon, who proceeded to swallow her whole. The cross she carried however, irritated the dragon’s belly and she was able to tear her way out using the cross and emerge whole from the dragon. Several attempts were then made to execute her by drowning and fire, all of which failed, leading many who witnessed her tortures to be converted. She was finally beheaded. She is often depicted emerging from the dragon’s belly, cross in hand. Appropriately, she is the patroness of childbirth.
Saint Bartholomew is one of the Apostles of Christ. After Christ’s death he travelled the world as far as India, evangelizing and preaching the gospel. He fell afoul with the pagans in Armenia where he was martyred. Legend states that he was flayed alive (removing the skin from the body while keeping it as intact as possible), and then crucified upside down on a cross. He is the saint invoked by those who deal with skins and leather. He is depicted in art as a man holding his flayed skin.
St Christopher belonged to a tribe in North Africa known as the Marmaritae. That area of the world was then largely unknown and considered inhabited by all sorts of strange creatures, including dog-headed men. Some conflicting legends surround Christopher. In one he is a dog-head captured by the Romans and forced to serve them. He becomes a Christian convert and thus a unique figure amongst his kind. Another legend has St Christopher carrying an infant across a river, only to find him growing unbelievably heavy as they progress. The child then reveals himself to be the Christ child and his heaviness due to the weight of the world on his shoulders. Still other legends exist about St Christopher actually being granted the face of a dog by God, to ward off unwanted female attention. He is often depicted as a richly robed dog-headed man – a cynocephalus.
St Roch was born of nobility but soon renounced his life of wealth and privilege to work amongst plague victims. He travelled the country effecting many healings of plague victims. When he too contracted the plague, he retreated to a secret hut in the woods. He was there befriended by a dog, who brought him sustenance and licked the sores on his leg until he was healed. When he eventually returned to civilization, many who had previously known him were dead. He was imprisoned, and with his dog continued to minister to suffering prisoners until his death. He is the patron saint of dogs and is invoked against diseased body parts. He is depicted lifting one hem of his robe to reveal his leg sores, while his faithful dog licks them.
As a beautiful woman St Agatha attracted the attentions of a powerful judge named Quintianus. When she refused his advances he had her sent to a brothel. She prayed and after 30 days remained still untouched. Quintianus then ordered that she be chained, whipped, stretched on a rack and burnt. During these tortures her breasts were cut off. Legend states that St Peter miraculously healed her wound that night. The enraged Quintianus then had her rolled on hot coals and glass until she finally expired. She is the patron saint of breast cancer sufferers. She is depicted carrying her breasts on a plate. On her saint day ( 5 February) in Sicily, little marzipan confections resembling breasts are still eaten today.
St Denis had an exceptional youth, testifying and converting pagans to Christianity. He eventually became bishop of Paris. His many conversions however, ultimately enraged the pagan priests, who decided to execute him by beheading. Legend states that after his head was chopped off, he picked it up and walked several miles with it tucked under his arm, preaching all the way. He is represented as a headless body holding its decapitated head in its hands.
St Lucy as a young girl decided to devote her life to Christ and refused to marry the groom selected by her mother. Though her mother eventually accepted her decision, her jilted suitor was not so generous, and reported her as a Christian to the authorities. Trying unsuccessfully to force her into prostitution, the soldiers found her body strangely heavy and immovable. Thus as punishment, she was tortured by having her eyes gouged out, and then killed. Legend states that God restored her sight before she died. She is represented in iconography as a young martyr holding her eyes on a plate, and is the patron saint of eye problems and blindness.
Sad stories
Meh… the problem with Catholic Canonization (and infant baptism, among other rituals) it’s done without the consent of the one being beatified, canonized, or what not :p
JFrater: The true teaching of the Catholic Church is: Any person who does not have access to the Church can be saved by their desire
This is my issue with Christianity & Islam. Why is it that they claim 100% rights to GOD? Why can’t there be other paths to God apart from the holy church & the equally holy mosque. I don’t find this “THIS PATH ONLY” clause in eastern religion – Hinduism or Buddhism.
A question on the criteria for saints. Is it true that all saints have to be MARTYRS? If so, how can the blessed mother Teresa (i have deep admiration for her) and Pope John Paul II be called martyrs? They lived in a society that respected or even worshiped them. A meaningless minority calling them out isn’t good to declare them as MARTYRS.
View from outside Christianity: I did mention Baptism of Desire above – that is what you are referring to. However, they are not “saved” by that desire – they are “baptised” by it – and in turn are able to be saved. The Church does not say people are “saved” – only God knows that after the person is dead
Jfrater: Dont you find it rather funny how this whole Christianity and religious talk always leads to arguments?
I personally also find it… disturbing that we ask….nay….demand logical reasoning for everything in life, except religion. What makes “faith” such a magical word that we cant question it? Religion’s ‘faith’ only claim to superiority is the age of their teachings. If I claimed magic, unicorns, and wizards were my religion, Id be ridiculed, even is it has no less proof than God.
About mother teresa, I read an article on Yahoo news about how she had a journal she kept and asked to have it burned on her death bed, to a trusted bishop. The bishop however thought it was her being humble, and decided to read it, and show the world how she viewed things in her own words. He feared that if she became a saint, we would have lost a valuable religious relic. He kept what he read secret, even from the pope himself until there was talk about her sainthood.
According to the article the bishop was astounded to find that Teresa had stopped believing in God in the last 7 yrs of her life, although still preaching it. That she realized how more practical it would be to distribute medicine, and condoms, but didnt want people to catch on to her newfound atheism. She said she had seen way too much cruelty in the world to believe an all holy God could allow all of this.
Again this is an article I read about a yr ago, and I am just regurgitating out of memory, and I am NOT saying this is absolutely true, however it was published by yahoo which is decently respected. Just a thought.
Also, please dont try to argue religion with me. I find it fascinating from a historical standpoint and have read quite a few of the good books (bible, quran, book of mormon, and so on). However I have learned from experience not to argue religion, since it is utterly pointless.
More generally, I dont like arguing with ANYONE whose standpoint on anything is non-negotiable, regardless of any evidence put before them. Why even have “proof” and “evidence” and quote this and quote that, and point out history if there is no way you would ever change your mind?
This makes a “debate” extremely annoying if you cant even open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong or in reality, you aren’t having a conversation, you are having 2 monologues.
We just had a bit of downtime – sorry about that. All should be fine now.
Very nice list… I’ve always found strange how catholics, as Christians, are supposed to be monotheistic but still sometimes get so involved in the worship of the Saints that they seem to be polytheistic instead. In spite of having left my religious days behind me, these stories belong in folklore and are much too interesting to be forgotten, Saint Lucy’s being my steady favourite; after all, dear Saint Lucy brings me nice presents every year!
I don’t know why, but the stories of the saints have always fascinated me, despite the fact that I am not Catholic… perhaps it’s their boundless faith and devotion, as well as their courage and nobility in the face of suffering. It’s just always amazed me that people could go through these sometimes horrific tortures (though not all saints died ugly deaths, unless I’m mistaken) and keep faith with their beliefs until the end.
Of course, these stories also illustrate how unimaginably cruel and vicious human beings can be towards one another. There’s something almost luridly fascinating about these stories of burnings, beheadings, flayed skin and so on… as though the tortures needed to be bigger and more outrageous in order to keep the attention of the faithful.
I’ve also always loved the iconic, kitschy-but-strangely-beautiful style of illustration one sees in most pictures of the saints that are used on cards and such… jfrater, do you know what this style is called, or if it even has a name?
St Lucia is the only saint we celebrate in sweden.. we have lucia pageants and all the kids dress up and make a lucia train and sings for the sick and elderly… or we just get very drunk and stay up all night..
This is a great list and I am intrigued by some of the details mentioned of these 10 saints lives. it is only sad to think that people back then and still uo to present day are being killed for religious and ethnic or cultural backgrounds. It is through the course of history that mankind
is its own enemy and we seem to never be able to overcome it.
for those that were asking about “the bushman in africa”…the christian perspective states that all men are given the ability to see the works of God in the created order. by the presence of the handiwork of God, they are now without excuse with reference to knowing that there is something greater out there.
“19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:19-20
so, from the Biblical perspective, there are no “kind, loving people with open hearts”.
“”There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.” Romans 3:11-12
this is the whole point of Christ. left to ourselves, we are incapable of truly loving each other and loving God at all. but through Christ, grace is granted and peace with God is attained.
“1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, wehave peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.” Romans 5:1-2
Dischuker – Well said!
Thank you, DiscHuker. While others may end up ridiculing you for posting that, I for one, am glad you did! Well done (and with applicable references even).
I dont feel like reading all of that above me…but would any atheist here actually die for their belief in no God? If someone put a gun to your head and say “Believe in God or die”…if so, props, never met an atheist who cared that much.
“Bushmen in Africa”…the priests I have spokne with explain it as such: that people who cannot obtain the ability to know God, will be judged far less than those who know. Therefore the priest, archbishop, patriarch will be judged far greater than those who never had the chance to here the word of God.
135. stangarang, it’s all been covered, in the stuff you don’t feel like reading, above you.
stangarang: lo beat me to it, but I just wanted to say it was very well covered in the comments above. I think you should read the conversations between lo and heyyoo for yourself for the answer as any paraphrasing would not do it justice.
135. stangarang
At least read the exchange between lo and heyyooo. lo did a wonderful job saying her piece. That directly discusses what you ask about. And as far as atheists…there is no emphasis of god or no god to the day-to-day life of real atheists so your situation wouldn’t be applicable. That belief you place in god, I’ve focused on other things, so yes, I suppose if there were a situation where my beliefs were on the line, I may sacrifice my life for it. While I haven’t read much yet of ‘death for anti-god beliefs’, there is a strong movement to define atheist persecution as a hate crime (just as religious motives can be filed under hate crimes). The religious are persecuted, the unreligious are persecuted…all for the same cause: bigotry.
So glad I’m a Christian now and not a Christian then. Those people were so strong and courageous.
The things people thought to do to other people back then…Stomach churning.
hmmmm i shall get over my laziness i guess.hah
View from outside Christianity:
You said: “This is my issue with Christianity & Islam. Why is it that they claim 100% rights to GOD? Why can’t there be other paths to God apart from the holy church & the equally holy mosque. I don’t find this “THIS PATH ONLY” clause in eastern religion – Hinduism or Buddhism.”
Isn’t this a relativistic viewpoint? If you start equating all religions, then you take away what makes them unique. Why would anyone follow a certain religion if they did not believe it was the “correct” and only way? I believe Unitarian Universilists believe that the majority of religions are a path to God, but given the extreme differences and claims of uniqueness, this is in and of itself an illogical position.
Maybe you should add to St Lucy that she is actually one of the few saints that the Scandinavians (religious or not) still celebrate. Every 13th of December, all over the country there are people who is elected Lucia (her name in Swedish). Then they walk around with a crown of lit candles and a white gowns and sing songs. Lucia is accompanied by many other girls in white gowns but they do not have crown. Only a lit candle in their hands. The boys dress up as ginger bread men, gnomes and the saint of Stephen (another one of those few saints).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen
On the top of my mind, these are the only saints we celebrate actually.
I know, I know, it’s been said, but I can’t help it!
For all you boneheads who still think that Catholics “worship” Saints: Please, for the love of God, try understanding what worship is and what praying really means. Do some homework!
This argument from our Protestant brothers and sisters has become so-o-o-o old!(and still untrue!)
#9: Christ you know I love you; Did you see I waved?
Another reason to not be Catholic! The Catholic church is the biggest company in the world. Maybe they should spend more money on helping the poor instead of building huge churches and the Vatican. There is only one God, so worship Him. Praying to anyone else is useless. The pope is just like you and me, a SINNER and does not have the final say in anything. Let the priest marry so that they hopefully stop molesting little children. Study the Bible and follow it, not the Pope who is playing God. I can go on and on but I won’t.
jr!!
Did you know that more cases of molestation are performed by TEACHERS and parents than priests! CASTRATE them all!! AND guess what?! MORE service is given to the poor from the church than ANY government!! OOOOH!! and GUESS WHAT!! NOBODY worships th POPE or any saint, we have one GOD and ONE mediator, JESUS CHRIST!! OMG!! I’m CATHOLIC, the 1st and TRUE chrch that Christ himself established!! HOLY HANNAH, Get it straight you doorknob!!
ooooh!!! i forgot!!WHO assembled your BIBLE BEFORE it was misinterpreted by Martin Luther??!! Oh yeah!!! and where in the Bible does it say Sola Scriptura?!
OH WAIT!!! What did the Christians do Before the BIBLE?!? Holy Hannah again!! They relied on the TRADITION of the CHURCH!!! ugh
Cubone…molestation is still wrong no matter who does it. It is just as evil if a priest does it, just as bad a parent as they both know better. It is true that churches give more to the poor. Having said that, when I pass one of the churches here in Arizona, I stop and wonder why they spent the money on such a display. For the record, I don’t believe in god. Lots of reasons why I don’t but that is not the case here.
I did attend church when I was young. The building had a roof and 1 wall. It was completely open to the elements. The pews were made of stone and it was located was in Indiana. Wonderful place. This church really took care of its people and didn’t care for material things like the modern churches and the Vatican. The priest was the coolest actually. He ate at his church goers homes for his meals. He slept in a barn on my neighbors land. All money he got went to those in need.
It’s really sad how now, churches are spending so much money on themselves.
oouchan . . .
thank you for being a little more reasonable than some others.
You are absolutely correct. Molestation is among the most heinous (sp?) acts imaginable by ANYONE . . . preying on someone vulnerable is beyond sick. Having said that, I get tired of priest molestation statements simply because of that very point; we are ALL human, we ALL sin.
The idea of churches (Cathedrals, Bascilica’s) being so ornately designed (right or wrong) is that what we believe to be precious (gold, silver, fine cloth) means nothing to us without God, so as an outward sign of NOT being attached to materials is to use them in an expression of devotion as oppossed to keeping them for ourselves. (again right or wrong).
150. Cubone…I am glad you clarified that. I agree with you 100% that it is the most heinous of crimes. I also am sick of people just pointing out priests when parents who do that are even worse. I have a daughter and I am doing everything I can think of to protect her. I also warned her to look out for signs of this in her friends as well. As long as we educate our children and others, then we can hopefully save them from this fate.
IMO…pedophiles should be flayed alive among other nasty things I can think of but I won’t name.
here,here oouchan . . .
I’m father of 4.
I’ll round ‘em up, you flay ‘em!
cubone: sola scriptura isn’t in the bible? i won’t even get into the whole argument but if you wanna talk about things not in the bible that catholics believe…
pergatory
age of accountability
veneration of saints
venial sins
baptismal regeneration
deification of mary and on and on and on
DiscHuker
Thanks.
You made my point. NOT everything a Christian believes is in the Bible. For example: no where is the TRINITY mentioned, but is understood by all Christians that that’s what God is.
Also Mary is NOT a diety. NO Christian would claim that.
Again, you made my point. If someone is so misinformed on Catholic teaching, maybe comments should be kept to themselves.
As far as PURGATORY:http://www.mark-shea.com/purgatory.html
that’s a good one.
. . . and on and on and on . . .
(Excellent discussion by the way!)
what is “sola scriptura”?
“SCRIPTURE ALONE”
Fun art history fact: Michelangelo depicted St. Bartholomew in his huge fresco finishing off the Sistine Chapel, a depiction of the Last Judgment. Art historians very recently discovered that the flayed skin he holds is actually Michelangelo himself – the faces are eerily similar. Michelangelo was tortured in his faith all his long life.
lo: it was one of the key principles of the reformation, obviously not liked by cubone.
there were 5 solas; sola scriptura, sola fide(faith alone), sola gratia(grace alone), solus christus(Christ alone) and soli deo gloria(to God alone be the glory)
the idea behind sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the ONLY source of authority for the follower of Christ. tradition only holds influence, not authority. this would also exclude other texts, persons of importance and “new revelations”.
cubone: so then you support sola scriptura? i’m confused by your seemingly opposite posts.
Why do we have Saints?
Is it because God is too busy to listen to all those prayers?
I was raised a Christian but have always struggled with the apparent hypocrisy of the Christian Churches.
Surely if you believe in One Supreme Being, then that One God is the be all and end all, and every prayer should be directed to God and God alone.
He doesn’t need deputies, or indeed spokespersons and fundraisers.
This list reminds me of how similar saints are to Greek gods.
Steelman: Can’t disagree more with your point of view.
Each religion is unique – their faith, their practices, their customs are all unique. You are born into a family practicing a religion. You either choose to go ahead with it or chose an alternative (like Bobby Jindal) that you believe is the path that leads you to GOD.
More importantly, it is required to understand that just because you chose a path, that isn’t the best path for everyone else or the “ONLY” path available. At best, one might believe that the path he takes, is the only path for him.
view: but many of the religions that the world says “should just get along” are exclusive. by the doctrines that make them distinctive, they cannot agree.
islam says Jesus was a good teacher, but not more.
christianity says Jesus was God and not less.
at least one of these is WRONG, no matter what faith you grew up with.
and just to look at the way you phrased your next to last sentence, “it is required”? by whom? what gives that person to set their standards on the other religions and to tell them what is required and what isn’t?
I’ll start right off the bat by saying I only read about the first 2/3′s of the comments (I usually read them all before commenting but I’m anxious to start a book, sorry).
I recently read two books of he new testament (John and Matthew) – I’ll also admit here that I’ve lied in previous posts about reading the bible, I hadn’t besides Genesis and Joshua and a few other books in the old testament.
So, first of all, Richard Dawkins brought to my attention before I’d read them (Matthew and John) that Jesus was talking to and about Jews and certainly not any “Gentiles.” It seemed to be completely true while I read, and in agreement with the old testament books I read. He considered himself a messiah to Jewish people only- gentiles weren’t even on Jesus’ radar. They weren’t “God’s people” kind of like blacks used to just be property in the U.S. – weren’t even considered “men” to begin with.
And lastly- I probably should have said this first because its more opinion- I had an unexpected reaction to Jesus’ teachings. Being an atheist who’d only read parts of the old testament, I imagined I would just roll my eyes at how immoral it was. Instead I was disgusted with modern Christians and their hypocrisy because Jesus’ teachings were SO righteous (giving exception to the fact that he meant it to apply only to Jews). I’m in no way religious, in fact I doubt that anything about “Jesus” is true except perhaps the essence of his ideas and his actual execution.
In Matthew and John, Jesus is f*ing Gandhi and Buddha twisted into superhuman moral perfection and he expects his followers to try their best to be like him. I don’t see, in ANY way, how Christians can even claim to approach Jesus’ ideals. To me they seem equally as deficient in Jesus’ expectations as any person or group of people with the one exception that they believe he is god or the son of god or both or whatever. I always hear that he is an example and you just “try.” It’s a crock. Jesus says not to worry about cloths or money (its as easy for a rich person to get into heaven as it is to fit a donkey through the head of the needle) or your home or ANYTHING. Bare necessities, God and Godliness. If someone hits you just turn your other cheek to them and take it. The vast majority of people aren’t even CLOSE to his expectations. Their effort, “trying to be more Jesusly,” is so minimal its reduced to simply trying to be a decent person. Like EVERYONE! Well most people want to be decent. How can Christians possibly claim to follow the words of Jesus when they fall so utterly, ABYSMALLY short of his advice. Few in the world can claim they really “try” to follow his teachings.
I’m sorry about the rant. I got carried away and off topic – just haven’t posted in a while.
And I really wanted to see what people have to say about my realization that Jesus was SO, for lack of a better word, good. Better than Christianity.
Sorry again about the longwinded.. ness
Kaz: Generally I agree with you – your point is most true for those Christians who beat you ’bout the face and neck with their faith. Those that proclaim the loudest eh? I have though, met people who have honestly tried their best to actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Not everyone is just paying lip service. btw – not my RC priest Uncle. hahaha
Oh and personally I don’t believe in Religion. Rationally not in God either. But I have my moments.
DiscHuker: People have the freedom to believe. Muslims & Christians differing in their belief on the “Godliness” of Jesus doesn’t mean one of them has to be wrong.
For eg: In India – there is a person by the name PUTAPARTHI SAI BABA. A lot of people believe he is an incarnation of God. Quite a lot believe he is a prophet. And some believe that he is no more than a social worker (someone like Mother Teresa). So, it is a matter of belief of individuals as to consider him as God-incarnate, prophet of social worker.
The beauty of civilization lies in the fact that people accept the fact that other’s beliefs need not match with theirs. So, for christians – how does it matter if Muslims consider Jesus as prophet, it only matters that they believe that Jesus is the son of God.
Bottomline – people should only worry about their beliefs & practicing their religion rather than imposing it on others.
HEY. How come nobody answered my question about the style of art in the kitschy pictures of saints (such as in #4, #7, and #10)? Probably Jamie didn’t see it–but apparently no one else did.
I was wondering if anyone knows if that particular style of religious illustration has a NAME. I’m talking about these images of the saints (and Christ) that one sees on cards in Catholic Shops and such… the cards given away at funerals, for example… I have a friend who collects these kinds of iconography, and she and I both want to know if there’s a NAME for it.
Cripes. You people force me to go off and do research.
kazorek:
I just wanted to make some comments and correct a couple things.
“I recently read two books of he new testament (John and Matthew) – I’ll also admit here that I’ve lied in previous posts about reading the bible, I hadn’t besides Genesis and Joshua and a few other books in the old testament.”
Nice.
Kazorek, don’t lie. It makes you look bad. Nobody believes you afterwards. If you MUST, obfuscate. Or embellish. But never lie or exaggerate.
“So, first of all, Richard Dawkins brought to my attention before I’d read them (Matthew and John) that Jesus was talking to and about Jews and certainly not any “Gentiles.””
I like Richard Dawkins. I admire him. I agree with him largely. But in this instance he goes a bit too far.
There is nothing to base this assertion on, that Jesus was addressing SOLELY the Jews when he spoke. Certainly, yes, in a theological sense you could say that his focus WAS on other Jews—he took no Gentiles that we know of into his confidence, and there were no Gentiles amongst his apostles (at least, not the originals—we don’t know who these men then proceeded to pass the wisdom onto). But this is not evidence that Jesus thought nothing OF the Gentiles or that his teachings were not meant for them as well.
I suggest to you a book called “Yeshua Buddha” by a learned theological scholar from Colgate named Jay Williams. The focus of the book is on the Buddhist nature of Christ, but it also parenthetically deals with the issue you’ve raised.
“It seemed to be completely true while I read, and in agreement with the old testament books I read.”
But you’ve admitted you’ve read very few of the old testament books. To which ones are you referring then?
There can be no doubt that later Christian writers edited and “slanted” Christ’s teachings and the stories ABOUT him to fulfill prophecy as well as magnify his PLACE in said prophecy. Or… perhaps I shouldn’t say there can be NO doubt–but rather there’s little doubt. However, an examination of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas tells us, perhaps, that we can pare down some of the things Jesus is reported to have said, to a central core (which happens to appear in the Gospel of Thomas). This core is part of the basis for the notion that Jesus’ message was “Buddha-like” in nature, and leaves off much of the ancient prophetic trappings about Jesus’ place as “messiah.”
“He considered himself a messiah to Jewish people only- gentiles weren’t even on Jesus’ radar.”
Again, this assertion can’t REALLY be supported. Sorry, but wrong. Furthermore, it can be argued quite readily, I think, that Jesus did NOT, in fact, “consider himself a messiah” to ANYBODY. The “messiah,” in Hebrew tradition, was taken at Christ’s time to be a specific sort of leader who would take the Jewish people into freedom and triumph. Jesus clearly discounted the political side of this notion and would have nothing to do with it. If anything, he REINTERPRETED the meaning of what the “messiah” was, but again, there is no evidence to say that he meant this ONLY to apply to the Jews.
“Instead I was disgusted with modern Christians and their hypocrisy because Jesus’ teachings were SO righteous (giving exception to the fact that he meant it to apply only to Jews). I’m in no way religious, in fact I doubt that anything about “Jesus” is true except perhaps the essence of his ideas and his actual execution.”
Well I’d agree TOTALLY with you about the hypocrisy of the large majority of modern Christians. In fact of most Christians throughout history. To my thinking they not only are hypocrites, but they misread Jesus’ words and intentions.
By the way, I’ve addressed this idea about the historical “truth” of Jesus before. You at least acknowledge the “essence of his ideas” and his “execution.” Surely we can say that he existed, that he said many of the things he was reported to say (particularly those things that gibe with the Gospel of Thomas and other apocryphal writings, indicating the core “text” of Jesus’ words) and was certainly in the places he was said to be in the Bible. Tradition has it that he was a healer and a teacher, and I think it would be absurd to doubt that these things were also true. Probably most of the stories in which he is a “character” in the Gospels actually happened–and we simply must judge from there how much “truth” is in them.
To me, the “truth” of Christ is the same as the “truth” of Buddha. I’m less concerned (in fact I’m concerned hardly at all) with their historical veracity in PRECISE terms (though I acknowledge that both existed and that much said about them is true) and much more concerned with the “truth” that they both taught… the poetic, metaphysical, metaphoric “truth” that they presented to us.
“In Matthew and John, Jesus is f*ing Gandhi and Buddha twisted into superhuman moral perfection”
I think this overstates the case.
“and he expects his followers to try their best to be like him.”
Ah… no. Again, that’s a modern fallacy made by both Christians AND atheists. What he SAYS is that he is “the way” (akin to “the way” of Eastern philosophy… the Tao, in other words) and says, in essence, that it is possible to “become” him–if you do as he did… this is the Buddhist aspect which you apparently noticed. But he, like the Buddha, isn’t saying, “he, try to do as I do. Act like me best as you can.” He is, in fact, saying, that if you want to reach “the Kingdom of Heaven” (or, we might say, Nirvana) then you must BECOME as he is, you must shed the worldly and material and follow him and do as he has done. This is different from just “trying to be LIKE him.” The Buddhist doesn’t get to Nirvana by doing good deeds and being kind and just and whatnot—though that’s a good step. Jesus is also clearly talking about the renouncement of the material (as the Buddha does), of the discarding of the ego and of desires.
In this, you’re correct—modern Christians haven’t a clue, or more likely, refuse to follow this instruction of Christ’s. But then most people who claim to be Buddhists don’t manage it either–both are tough teachings and instead people have found ways around them.
“I always hear that he is an example and you just “try.” It’s a crock.”
Again, yeah, I agree with you on that. There is no “try.” You do. But here, look at me… even me, a spiritual mishmash of Buddhism and semi-gnostic Christian teachings and apocryphal noodlings—I haven’t renounced desire or the ego. It’s freakin’ hard.
But god, what a world, if we were to just DO IT!
“Few in the world can claim they really “try” to follow his teachings.”
Absolutely correct.
view: actually one of them, in reality, is wrong. Jesus was either the son of God; perfect, sinless and worthy of all devotion and worship or he was just another “messiah figure” who lied through his teeth; imperfect, sinful and worthy of nothing.
there are things you can dismiss about someone and still hold to their main ideas. martin luther king jr. was not always faithful to his wife. that doesn’t mean that his ideas on racial peace were wrong. but you cannot dismiss someone’s claims to be God. they are claiming for themselves absolute superiority. either they are God or they are not.
if Jesus really was God then we have to listen to him when he says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). this rules out all other ways to God.
if Jesus really wasn’t God, then no one should ever listen to anything a Christian has to say about the spiritual realm. in fact, the apostle Paul says that if the believer only has hope for this life “we (christians) should be pitied more than all men” (1 Corinthians 15:9)
DiscHuker:
As you know, I do not agree with you on this.
“actually one of them, in reality, is wrong. Jesus was either the son of God; perfect, sinless and worthy of all devotion and worship or he was just another “messiah figure” who lied through his teeth; imperfect, sinful and worthy of nothing.”
Why the either-or? Why MUST it be this dichotomy? I’m sorry, Disc, but is your faith THAT shakeable that you can’t see beyond a rigid duality of TRUTH or LIE?
Did the Buddha “lie” when he taught that the destruction of desire can lead to nirvana? Did Jesus therefore “lie” if he said the same thing in different words, but instead has been TAKEN to be, LITERALLY, god? If He said that we can BECOME god, as HE became god by finding the way, by BEING the way, is that a “lie?”
I don’t KNOW what Jesus was. I am content not to know; I would rather focus on his teachings and the mythological truth ABOUT him and surrounding him.
YOU believe that instead, I must accept Him as god or I won’t find the Kingdom… and that it’s thus impossible for me to be “as” he is—rather I must simply submit myself to him.
Okay, that’s YOUR belief. But it isn’t the ONLY one, and I think it’s a mistake to make pronouncements about “either-or.”
Believe what you wish personally. But it’s this attempt to transfer or export the kind of rigidity you recommend that has given Christianity such a bad name in modern times.
randall: sorry if my meaning is being lost. because you know me you know where i stand on the issue, but i was not trying to argue for any particular position.
but in reality, Jesus was either God or he wasn’t, right. this isn’t some sort of imposed duality. if i claim to be 7 feet tall, either i am or i am not.
First, before I get good and started, let me point out that the following is my opinion, based on what I have understood from my reading and personal interpretation of the bible. And it’s written for my fellow Christians. Those of you who are atheist, agnostic, Muslim, etc, this is not necessarily for, about, or directed to you. There is no offense intended to you, you are free to believe what you want. While I may wish you would come around (or, in some cases, back around) to sharing my belief, I refuse to hit you over the head with it. Your religion is between your God and yourself. I am not trying to convert anyone here, just having a theological discussion with some of my fellow LVers.
First, as to the praying to saints to intercede for us with God – I find that the idea of praying for someone else to intercede between Christians and Christ to be laughable at best. From what I have read and understood, there is but one way to the Father, and that is through the Son. Read John 10:1 – 18. To paraphrase, those who do not enter the ranks of believers through the gate, but by other means, is a thief. Christ is that gate.
I also believe that we aren’t to try to communicate with the dead, because that is a form of sorcery, and sorcery is forbidden. Though I can see how scripturally, the argument could be made that those who have died before are not truly dead, since Jesus himself told the Sadducees regarding resurrection that God is the God of the living and not the God of the dead, and used patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) as examples, since these men had clearly died, but lived on in the afterlife.
Second (and trust me, I’m not Catholic bashing here) I remember reading (though I can not remember book, chapter and verse at the moment, though I will look it up and provide it if pressed to do so) that we have but one Father, and he is in Heaven, and we are to call no earthly man Father, so what’s up with calling priests “Father”?
Third, the large churches. I guess this is the point where I have to come completely clean. I am one of those “home church nuts”
. When I see a gargantuan church building on a street corner, the first thought that comes to my mind is “Wow, this church must be doing really well! There can’t possibly be anybody with any unfulfilled need for quite some distance around this church. No one is hungry, all the children of the area have nice warm winter coats, and no one is sitting around in the dark, having to make the choice between food and electricity. It’s really good that this congregation has taken care of the needs of all their brethren, had enough left over to then go take care of all the non-believers, and also had enough left over to build this monument to themselves!” Really, that’s how I feel. The early church that started immediately after the crucifixion and the resurrection met in each other’s homes, and would sell extra property to raise cash to take care of each other when the need arose. I don’t know when the large, dedicated meeting places came into being, and I don’t know why it was deemed necessary. When the patriarchs built a place to worship, they piled un-cut stones to make an altar for sacrifice. Why un-cut? Because stones that had been cut my human hands were defiled, God wanted them to use the stones as He had made them.
Then the Jews made the temple (then is deceptive, think 1000′s years later) to house the Ark of the Covenant (the resting place of God) and offer sacrifices. And they built it to God’s specifications.
When Christ came and was sacrificed, he fulfilled the law given to Moses, and, because He was resurrected, He endures as a living sacrifice, so we no longer have to make animal, grain, or monetary sacrifices. There is no need of an altar to sacrifice on. Then we were given the Holy Spirit, and out bodies became the resting place of God, temples in fact. Taking the example of the early church (who met in each other’s homes), and the idea that we become the temple, a large meeting place becomes a waste of resources that could be used to further God’s message, and to take care of His people.
(At this point, let me re-iterate, this is more for the people who believe that the people who don’t, but you are free to change your mind, if you’d like
)
Now that I’ve written this long response, and likely broken several rules of the commenting FAQ, I will quit writing, though I could go on for literally DAYS on the subject.
Sorry, didn’t mean for the whole thing to be italic. My end italic didn’t take, apparently!
DiscHuker:
“but in reality, Jesus was either God or he wasn’t, right.”
Uh, no. That was my point.
The only way that statement makes sense is if you assume a dichotomy to exist—a separation between “god” and what is “not god.” This seems natural and sensible… but suppose it isn’t?
Suppose we are ALL “god” in a sense. Suppose our consciousness is what makes god up. Or suppose our consciousness is a part of his greater consciousness. Suppose there *is no* separateness.
“this isn’t some sort of imposed duality. if i claim to be 7 feet tall, either i am or i am not.”
That’s different.
But suppose I say, “I am a man, 6’1″ tall, 230 lbs, 43 years old, caucasion…” (all of which is factual) but then I also say “I am stardust, a conglomeration of elements born in the furnace of stars long dead, that exploded and were then reborn in me and in everything else that exists on the earth and in what IS the earth itself… so in fact I and all other human beings are the same, and in turn we are the same as all other life, and in turn we are the same as the earth–part of the earth… we’ll even return to the earth as dust one day, so the separateness is an illusion…”
Suppose I say that? That too is factual. I am a man, but I am also a piece of the earth. And in turn, therefore, a piece of the universe. And to put it another way—I am made up of atoms which in turn are made up of particles, which are, perhaps, strings of vibrating energy which are essentially the same throughout the cosmos—and in fact may even be what “god” is, or a part of god… and I am, therefore, not separate from anything I can see or hear or discern *throughout the entire cosmos* and perhaps even *beyond.*
I am all those things, as are you. As are we all.
Where is the definition, then? The rigid separateness?
I AM, yes, what I am, in those particular measurements you mentioned above. But that doesn’t preclude all the other things I am.
We may ALL be Jesus, or God, or a part of one or both.
Jesus may have been a man who awoke to this consciousness in himself, and realized that in this sense he WAS god, as we all can be god.
Or he may have been more. As we all may be more.
I don’t require a separateness. I can see duality and sameness all at once.
randall: and that is fine. but if you say that my truth is not the truth and your truth is the truth then we have an exclusive belief systems, albeit with different parameters.
this was my original point. for someone outside of these systems of belief to just tell them to “get along” is being irresponsible with the distinctive beliefs of each group.
what makes a christian a christian is their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was actually God, the creator and maintainer of all things. any other view on Christ makes one of any number of other religions. to tell that person that they need to agree with another religion who doesn’t believe the same thing about the most fundamental of doctrines in their system is foolish.
129, 168. Randall:
Calm down, sir. All answers come in due time and I’m a busy girl so due time was a bit longer than usual! I double checked for art style and there is none that I could find. It’s a commercial product with a heavy Renaissance influence. As far as the name of the product…Saint Prayer Cards.
Randall:
What an interesting and thought-provoking comment… While I am a RC, I have always had questions and doubts regarding some of the teachings of my religion (including the exclusive nature “My way or hell!”)…
One quick questions though the the whole Jew/Gentile thing… If JC was born a Jew, why can we not assume that he was talking specifically to that group of people? The Church was formed when a group of people decided to follow his teachings because they believed him to be the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament… Those that did not believe him remained part of the Judaic tradition. No? What am I missing?
Anyway, thanks for the “fod for thought”…
DiscHuker (176):
Yes, I agree that what makes a Christian a Christian is his belief in the divinity of JC but why does that necessarily mean that we have to condemn all people who basically follow the teachings/message of Christ without believing in his divinity? It just doesnt make sense to me…
*** Oh and post 178 should be “food for thought…”
gtt: good question. this sort of view is exactly why Christianity cannot be synthesized with other religions. you cannot truly follow his teachings/message unless you believe he is God, that Jesus and the Father are one, that by the power of the Spirit of God he rose from the dead and promises to do the same for those who believe in Him.
it is condemnation in a sense but the purpose of the Church is to proclaim the good news that we who are dead in sin can be brought to life. we who stand condemned before a perfectly holy God can be not only forgiven but seen as perfectly righteous because of Christ. we who have been sold into slavery can be redeemed/bought back by the cross.
if you are standing in the street and have no idea that a truck is about to hit you, if i tell you the truck is coming but you don’t believe me, is it more loving to let you get smashed or to continue to warn you even if you don’t like to hear it?