A question, and thoughts about, "saints".

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 


Can you think of any reason why none of the names I've mentioned appear in the book of Martyrs?

Fox's Book of Martyrs? (aka Actes and Monuments)

You know that's a Protestant book, right? I'm not sure that I'd be expecting a non-biased totally comprehensive overview of Catholic Saints from a book whose primary focus is on Catholic persecution of Protestants during the Reformation (while largely ignoring the Protestant persecution of Catholics.)




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I make no claims of knowing the exact history of the church... but im not really sure that's a valid argument.

During the period we're speaking of Im not even sure if there was a separation of Catholic / protestant beliefs.

And biblical cannon wasn't even established at that time either... The book of Martyrs includes all of the major contributors to the Faith excluding St. Christopher

Why would he be the ONLY major saint excluded from said book?

then again perhaps im wrong here, do you know of any other saints that were also excluded from Foxes book?




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
Why would he be the ONLY major saint excluded from said book?

What is your evidence that he is? Have you compared all saints of the Eastern and Western churches to those listed in his book?

Again, if your sole reason for saying that he didn't exist as a person is his exclusion from an anti-Catholic book written 1,200 years after the fact, that's pretty worthless evidence. Foxe made no secret of the fact that he would distort the truth when it served his cause.

That he's a venerated Saint by the Anglican Church (the church Foxe would have belonged to) is a fair indication that they didn't think anything of Foxe not listing him.
edit on 8-1-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Saint is another word like angel, its a man made term to encompass an idea.

From the stand point of above, they classify it as believers or non believers, and ones who have not made a choice.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Saint is another word like angel, its a man made term to encompass an idea.

a man made TERM, or a man made CONSTRUCT?
are you saying that all believers are saints? or that angels are saints?
(I don't believe angels are ascended humans, by the way. There may be angels among us, but they aren't the same kind of "humans" as the rest of us. They were always different, and we don't become angels. No halo and wings and harp and cloud with our name on it.

I don't know much about the heirarchy of angels, though, except for the "types" that men describe: cherubim, seraphim, archangels, ..... i think all that is man-made as well, like an analogy. humans seem to have the need for "pecking orders", or "levels of importance." I don't see why it would be like that above; I see it more as the ethereals having different roles, but each is just as important as the next.)


edit on 9-1-2013 by wildtimes because: close parentheses



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Man made construct, yes.

There are different levels of angels as their needs to be a chain of command. But, when this is all done, everyone will be equal above.

Yes, they are different from angels, there are no halos, as man would get you to believe. About man becoming angels, no. But, some from man can be given an elevated role, this may be what some may call saints.




new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join