• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Canonization of the Saints

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I really don't much getting into the naming of "saints" but I do feel it's worthwhile reading their biographies because there are some remarkable stories involved.

As to miracles, why not? Do they in reality happen? I don't know, but why is it that many believe in miracles happening in the past but not closer to the present?

Shrugs. I don't know. @Deeje was mentioning that once the apostles died there was no more need of miracles. What's odd about that is then and now are the same reality. So, only two thousand years ago people were walking on water and now in the 21st century, they forgot the act.

It's interesting the history of the saints. My confirmation saint was Gurtrude and she was the patron of purgatory. I wanted to pick Saint Francis but it was too late. Though purgatory is another discussion, obviously.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Healing the sick was apparently not limited to the apostles. Declaring that the "kingdom of heaven has come near to you" and healing the sick was given to the 70/72 disciples according to Luke 10:1-10. As the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and can be found by those who seek it (Matthew 6:9), the only problem is that the "many" have chosen instead to follow the wide path to destruction (Matthew 7:13). That path would be the path of lawlessness (Matthew 7:23), and as the wicked, "receive of her plagues" (Revelation 18:4).

@Deeje
What year did that stop?
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Without insult...With respect to your signature line: These two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his/her transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his/her transgression. These two are fools. (AN 2.21) Reconciliation, Right & Wrong.

It seems unbecoming and making one guilty enough of going into the fires of hell to call someone a "fool" (Matthew 5:22). There is also the saying, as one judges others, so shall they be judged. Do you see your own transgressions? What would they be?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It seems unbecoming and making one guilty enough of going into the fires of hell to call someone a "fool" (Matthew 5:22). There is also the saying, as one judges others, so shall they be judged. Do you see your own transgressions? What would they be?

You gotta read the sutta. The Buddha doesn't refer to fools as christians do the mark of the beast. It just means ignorant of The Dhamma and continues with ways to not be of ignorant (by practice). It's referring to lack of knowledge not the people.

You have to read The Suttas. With the mark of the beast, and that mess*, is strict belittling of The Church. The OP addresses the beautification etc of the saints and how they relate to present day miracles of mother Teressa.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
You gotta read the sutta. The Buddha doesn't refer to fools as christians do the mark of the beast. It just means ignorant of The Dhamma and continues with ways to not be of ignorant (by practice). It's referring to lack of knowledge not the people.

You have to read The Suttas. With the mark of the beast, and that mess*, is strict belittling of The Church. The OP addresses the beautification etc of the saints and how they relate to present day miracles of mother Teressa.

And here I thought you were relating being a fool to those not seeing their transgressions. Kind of like calling almost everyone a fool, rather than just stupid/ignorant (Jeremiah 51:17), as in everyone who has or makes idols.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
And here I thought you were relating being a fool to those not seeing their transgressions. Kind of like calling almost everyone a fool, rather than just stupid/ignorant (Jeremiah 51:17), as in everyone who has or makes idols.

Nope. The Buddha "attacks" The source, our ignorance, not the person himself. The source of all our pain etc is mind oriented.

I've never liked christian talk against people with whom don't follow gods laws. It's very bias and not a spiritual asset to growth.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The Bible itself speaks of a cut-off period for the miracles that Jesus and his apostles performed. They were never supposed to be a permanent arrangement, but merely a demonstration on a small scale of the blessings of the Kingdom to come.

Paul spoke of the need for miracles as something that spiritual 'infants' needed to see and respond to. Miracles were performed by Moses and other prophets in the OT. But Jesus gave his disciples the ability to perform miracles initially by the use of his name.

After his death and resurrection, the holy spirit empowered the disciples to speak in different languages, to heal the sick, and even to raise the dead. But Paul indicated that miracles would only be performed during the apostolic period, since the passing on of the gifts was always accomplished by the laying on of their hands. Once the apostles died, the gifts died with them.

Paul wrote..."Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with.. . . .When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. . . . .Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13:8; 11; 13)

So instead of miracles, there would be other more mature things to indicate a person's devotion to God as a disciple of his Christ...."faith, hope and love".



The Bible confirms that the choosing of "saints" (holy ones with a heavenly calling. Hebrews 3:1) was left entirely in God's jurisdiction. It isn't the church who chooses a saint, it is God. And it is done whilst the person is alive...not after they have died.

Romans 8:15-17....
"For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: “Abba, Father!” 16 The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 If, then, we are children, we are also heirs—heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ—provided we suffer together so that we may also be glorified together."

Acts 9:32, 36-41, (Jerusalem Bible): “Peter visited one place after another and eventually came to the saints [ha·giʹous] living down in Lydda. At Jaffa there was a woman disciple called Tabitha [who died] . . . [Peter] turned to the dead woman and said, ‘Tabitha, stand up’. She opened her eyes, looked at Peter and sat up. Peter helped her to her feet, then he called in the saints and widows and showed them she was alive.”

Clearly, these saints were not yet in heaven, nor was it just an outstanding individual such as Peter who was viewed as a saint.

2 Cor. 1:1; 13:12, JB: “From Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and from Timothy, one of the brothers, to the church of God at Corinth and to all the saints [ha·giʹois] in the whole of Achaia.” “Greet one another with the holy kiss. All the saints send you greetings.”

All these early Christians who were cleansed by the blood of Christ and set apart for God’s service as prospective "joint heirs with Christ" in his heavenly kingdom were referred to as saints, or holy ones. You can see that recognition of their being "saints" was obviously not deferred until after they had died.



Since these so-called miracles were accomplished after "Mother Teresa" had died, it is really relying on superstition rather than on what the Bible tells us about "saints".



No miracles performed after the death of the apostles is genuine. No miracle performed by Jesus or the apostles was useless either. (No weeping statues or stigmata or anything else that smacks of superstition.) The Bible indicates that the devil can perform tricks too.

Those upon whom the gifts of the spirit were bestowed may have used the gifts until they passed away but there was no one left to pass the gifts onto others...and there was no need. The Christian congregation was then firmly established and the writings of Paul and the other apostles such as John and Peter were used as a basis for teaching about the Lord Jesus and the importance of his mission to rescue faithful ones from the sin inherited from Adam. (Romans 5:12)

I'm afraid that the Catholic church has deviated from what is taught in scripture and taken on a role that actually belongs to God alone.


Another question for you. What is the difference between B.C., A.D., an C.E. to where supernatural miracles can happen in one era but fast forward not possible in the future eras?

Apostles aside.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Nope. The Buddha "attacks" The source, our ignorance, not the person himself. The source of all our pain etc is mind oriented.

I've never liked christian talk against people with whom don't follow gods laws. It's very bias and not a spiritual asset to growth.

I was under the impression that stupid is as stupid does. And stupid/evil starts in the hearts and minds of men. The "pain" would be the results/Karma of the acts, predicated on the urges stemming from the evil heart and mind (Matthew 15:19). This "pain" should be investigated from the point of one's unacknowledged transgressions. A reasonable person would generally assume that mental pain would follow the murdering of their neighbor. That action of murdering your neighbor, would be against the Law, and therefore invoke consequences, seen or unseen.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
It seems unbecoming and making one guilty enough of going into the fires of hell to call someone a "fool" (Matthew 5:22)...................

I find that in the Greek the word that has been translated into English as hell fire is from the word: Gehenna.
So, Jesus was talking about Gehenna at Matt. 5:22.
Gehenna was just a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were destroyed forever Not burning forever.
Clergy have wrongly used hell fire as a scare tactic to try to control the flock of God.
Whereas, Jesus referring to the scribes and Pharisees as 'fools and blind ones' because they distorted the truth.
On the other hand, someone ' wrongly ' calling a 'brother ' as being a 'despicable fool' (Raca) could make himself liable to Gehenna (destroyed forever), as Psalms 92:7 says the wicked will be 'destroyed forever'.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Another question for you. What is the difference between B.C., A.D., an C.E. to where supernatural miracles can happen in one era but fast forward not possible in the future

From my viewpoint:

B.C. stands for Before Christ was born.
A.D. After Christ was born.
C.E. is often used by Jewish scholars as 'Common Era' thinking that C.E. is more accurate.

In order for 1st-century Christianity to be quickly established, then Jesus and his apostles performed miracles.
As gospel writer Luke informs us that such miracles would end with the death of the apostles.
So, once the 1st century ended so would such miracles end until Jesus would being his 1,000-year reign over Earth.
So, yes, such miracles will be possible in the future.
Please notice that there will be ' healing ' on Earth according to Revelation 22:2.
Mankind will see the return of the Genesis "Tree of Life" on Earth for the 'healing' of earth's nations.
In this coming future time, mankind will see global international healing as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The Catholic Church does not "make" saints it "Recognises" them for what they are.

The church is seen to put criteria on people in order for the church to "beatify" a human who was as sinful in life as anyone else.

God chooses the "saints" while they are alive.

Just for the record, what do you believe a "saint" is, compared to those who aren't chosen?

Seemingly impossible "Miracles" happen. As such we usually attribute them to God, and perhaps with or without the intervention of saints.
Seemingly Impossible "Miracles" happen..... what ever we may believe.

That is true, but not all "miracles" are from God. The devil can do tricks too and masquerading as "an angel of light" he can take people away from God by deceiving them. (2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

In a world ruled by the devil, nothing is as it seems. He knows how to play on people's emotions....and he doesn't play fair.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I was under the impression that stupid is as stupid does. And stupid/evil starts in the hearts and minds of men. The "pain" would be the results/Karma of the acts, predicated on the urges stemming from the evil heart and mind (Matthew 15:19). This "pain" should be investigated from the point of one's unacknowledged transgressions. A reasonable person would generally assume that mental pain would follow the murdering of their neighbor. That action of murdering your neighbor, would be against the Law, and therefore invoke consequences, seen or unseen.

You can't compare The Dharma to scripture. That's totally incompatible.

Um. How did you get this:

The "pain" would be the results/Karma of the acts, predicated on the urges stemming from the evil heart and mind (Matthew 15:19)

Karma isn't the result of actions, it the actions itself. It's one. It's starts from the mind. The heart is not isolated. It comes from mind. Mind is source. Heart can come as a result depending on your good or bad deeds? All deed based.

Scripture says sin of the heart. The Buddha says transgression of the mind. The former the heart controls the mind. The latter, the mind controls the heart. The former, a fool is the person who breaks the law; it's talking about that person's nature. The Dharma is talking about a person's actions. We aren't fools. We do foolish things but our nature isn't sinful therefore, the word fool is different context. English words vary by context meaning.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
From my viewpoint:

B.C. stands for Before Christ was born.
A.D. After Christ was born.
C.E. is often used by Jewish scholars as 'Common Era' thinking that C.E. is more accurate.

In order for 1st-century Christianity to be quickly established, then Jesus and his apostles performed miracles.
As gospel writer Luke informs us that such miracles would end with the death of the apostles.
So, once the 1st century ended so would such miracles end until Jesus would being his 1,000-year reign over Earth.
So, yes, such miracles will be possible in the future.
Please notice that there will be ' healing ' on Earth according to Revelation 22:2.
Mankind will see the return of the Genesis "Tree of Life" on Earth for the 'healing' of earth's nations.
In this coming future time, mankind will see global international healing as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.

How is the first century different than this century in regards to the laws of nature?

Bible aside
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Apparently the beasts/kings can recognize them, for "they wear down the saints" (Daniel 7:25)
I find the Hebrew uses the word "exhaust......" instead of wear down.
Those political kings/beast-like governments recognize Jesus' ' brothers ' (Matthew 25:40) who are 'alive' on Earth at the coming ' glory time ' of Jesus involving himself into mankind's affairs - Matthew 25:31-33.
Involving himself before those holy ones are worn out or completely exhausted.
Holy ones, like the apostles, who have already died can't be affected by anyone on Earth.
So, Daniel is talking about living saints or holy ones who are alive on Earth. (our day or time frame)
Only God did and does the choosing of who are the saints or holy ones - Romans 8:14-30.
That means No man or groups of men can decide, for it is only by God's calling.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
How is the first century different than this century in regards to the laws of nature?
Bible aside
Laws of Nature makes me think of the 'Law of Cause and Effect'. To me that Law was set in motion by God.
So, to me whether it's the first century or before or after, the same laws apply.
Just because we have Not yet seen a resurrection does Not mean it can't be part of the Laws of Nature.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Please show us the verse(s) that supposedly says that as nothing you posted says or suggests that. And please try and just answer the question without writing an essay or giving a sermon. You should easily be able to show us in one paragraph if it's there.

I am a stickler for detail metis.....don't ask me questions if you don't want a detailed answer. The truth is in the detail.

Please notice the details in the Revelation that the apostle John saw in vision concerning Jesus and his bride bringing the blessings of the kingdom to redeemed mankind....

"21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”
(Revelation 21:1-5)

Was the Revelation part of your theological teaching metis?

This is the culmination of the Bible's entire scenario. It is the reintroduction of God's rulership over this earth under the leadership of Jesus Christ and his "bride"....not a made up of Catholic nuns, but a body of chosen individuals (both male and female on earth but transformed into spirit beings in heaven) who make up a "government" (Isaiah 9:6-7) that will bring redeemed mankind back into an acceptable condition to serve their God and complete the mandate given in Genesis, as God intended (Isaiah 55:11.....humans were given opportunity to "fill the earth" but they could not bring it into the paradise condition that God intended because of sin. They were told to "fill the earth and subdue it") The present state of the planet is proof of why that could not be accomplished. Rather than subduing the earth, humans are destroying it. (Revelation 11:18)

The "saints" are those who go to heaven to rule with Christ....his "joint heirs" who, like Jesus also have the role of priests. (Revelation 20:6) These have to be given immortal spirit bodies in order to live in heaven, in the presence of God. These are the only ones who go to heaven and they are chosen by God, not the church....the rest of humanity will live on the "new earth" under the rulership of the "new heavens". (2 Peter 3:13) God's original purpose revealed in Genesis is bought back for us with the price of Christ's blood. We are living in the time that John saw in vision almost 2,000 years ago.

Sermon complete.....
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Laws of Nature makes me think of the 'Law of Cause and Effect'. To me that Law was set in motion by God.
So, to me whether it's the first century or before or after, the same laws apply.
Just because we have Not yet seen a resurrection does Not mean it can't be part of the Laws of Nature.

That's a pretty huge two thousand year gap. What in the past two or three hundred years or so till today have things been Les extravagant in miracles?

I was reading early this year about believing in gods until I think the Romans came in and introduced humanism. We lost our Pagan beliefs over skepticism. I think we still have them floating around in our heads. Having computers and matchbox cars doesn't invocate (edit. invalidate) the Pagan nature of deity thinking.

At least that's the conclusion I drew from basic observation and history here where I live. Once you get it, you see it everywhere. Then you laugh and wonder why we still think this way.
 
Top