2dimes wrote:Hey Saxi, do you think Matthew 10:34 might fit in here?
Seems fairly probable, a missionary showed up.
Tried to say, "I'm here in the name of Jesus."
Local guy recorded the event in a local language. "Met foreigner today named Jesus."
Kind of like when the guy who named this forum dropped by trying to call everyone, "Son of a bitch." but kept using dog instead.
Recently people have difficulty telling the difference between members here.
Yes, all these non-Canon Gospels are TRUE and many persons died (as Martyrs) trying to cover up a LIE. RIGHT. And all the prophecies of a Messiah (Anointed, Christ, from the Greek) in the Old Testament are false, too. And this Japanese story is based on ....what? A legend? I did not read something to offer anything that even resembles possible evidence or validation. Clothing? And not from some other random Jew who moved there? 2dimes story or theory seems more plausible.
As far as the "Gospel" of Thomas, there are many holes in the entire story to make it believable. It is NOT a Gospel and is NOT Canon.
Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomasand here:
https://crossexamined.org/why-the-gospel-of-thomas-isnt-in-the-bible/Of all these “suppressed” Gospels, far and away the poster child is the Gospel of Thomas. Liberal scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagels faun over this work. The Jesus Seminar even published a book titled The Five Gospels, which includes the canonical four-plus Thomas.
Yet there’s a bit of irony here. If these scholars would treat the canonical Gospels with half the amount of charity they give to Thomas, they’d all be Christians! Instead, they date Thomas very early and the canonical Gospels late. They claim Thomas’ view of Jesus is reliable, while the canonical Gospels contain myths and legends.
By contrast, I’m going to demonstrate, in the remaining pace, that the Gospel of Thomas is unreliable, was never considered as Scripture by the early church, and thus shouldn’t be included in our canon.
and as far as Mother Teresa, I will quote from that PRO-Church website (NOT..!..) Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_TeresaCriticism
Main article: Criticism of Mother Teresa
According to a paper by Canadian academics Serge Larivée, Geneviève Chénard and Carole Sénéchal, Mother Teresa's clinics received millions of dollars in donations but lacked medical care, systematic diagnosis, necessary nutrition and sufficient analgesics for those in pain;[120] in the opinion of the three academics, "Mother Teresa believed the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross".[121] It was said that the additional money might have transformed the health of the city's poor by creating advanced palliative care facilities.[122][123]
One of Mother Teresa's most outspoken critics was English journalist and antitheist Christopher Hitchens, host of the documentary Hell's Angel (1994) and author of the essay The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (1995) who wrote in a 2003 article: "This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. [Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."[124] He accused her of hypocrisy for choosing advanced treatment for her heart condition.[125][126] Hitchens said that "her intention was not to help people", and that she lied to donors about how their contributions were used. "It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty", he said, "She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, 'I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church'".[127] Although Hitchens thought he was the only witness called by the Holy See, Aroup Chatterjee (author of Mother Teresa: The Untold Story) was also called to present evidence opposing Mother Teresa's beatification and canonisation.[128]
In 1994, Mother Teresa argued that the sexual abuse allegations against Jesuit priest Donald McGuire were untrue. When he was convicted of sexually molesting multiple children in 2006, Mother Teresa's defense of him was criticised.[129][130]
Abortion-rights groups have also criticised Mother Teresa's stance against abortion and contraception.[131][132][133]
I am sure that Christopher Hitchens and abortion supporters LOVE Mother Teresa and look at the evidence very impartially. NO WAY.
