I knew that "Doubting" Thomas was from the bible. I didn't know until someone told me Friday that Thomas was one of the people who saw Jesus after he returned (after rising from the dead) or that Thomas' doubt pertained to the resurrection of Jesus.

(Happy Easter, everyone.)

Monique, I commend the Bible to everyone who speaks English.It seems as though 60% of our everyday expressions come from the Bible, or Shakespeare. How about "Old as Methuselah", seems to me he was 768. Now, that is old. Since the Northeast is majority Catholic, relatively few locals have read the Bible.

The Iliad and The Odyssey are more interesting and better written. The Buddhist Sutras are more succinct, and to my mind more pure; likewise the Upanishads, especially the Baghavad Gita.

The bible is interesting, and important because it happens to be the myth of the age in the West where we live. It does appear to be fading. Ah well, it has had a long run, and has served some well. like anything else it has been used for both good and evil - observe Warrington's smarmy slam at Catholics.

Sammy: " observe Warrington's smarmy slam at Catholics. "

Not meant to be, it simply is not important in their faith. Remember that Martin Luther was excommunicated (and would have been burned) for translating the Bible into the vernacular. This led to the great schism in Christianity, with the Protestant faithful reading scripture and Catholics being advised not to. I understand that some Catholics are now forming "Bible study" groups, but this is quite new. Try this one, ask a Catholic to name 6 books of the Bible.

Warrington,
First off, have you been tippling too much. Why did you address sammy when OldTimeLefty wrote the post? Far too off handed and indicative of sloppy preparation.

What nonsense you write after that. You assume a partisan line that sounds anti-Catholic and you try to hide it with unproven assertions. Any Catholic will tell you that the bible as we have it today was culled from many testaments which were written after the death of Jesus. You may want to ask yourself why, for example, the Gospel of Thomas or that of Peter have been excluded as canon. The answer is that these books were rejected by the Catholic Church. The books that were included were declared "sanctus" by the Catholic Church and became bible. Such declarations got their start with the council of Nicea in 323, though some may point to Acts 15 as the first instance of a group of early Christians coming together to settle a dispute over doctrine. Look up Homoousious and Homoiousious and the Arian heresy for your edification.

It might be good for Justin(ian) to step in here and say something. Come on Katz swallow hard and send in at least an imperial nod of agreement this time with OldTimeLefty. Do it, even though the truth hurts.
OldTimeLefty

This is how I see it.
I looked in temples, churches & mosques. I found the Divine within my Heart. Rumi

OldTimeLefty

OTL, sorry to confuse you with Sammy, tippling will be my downfall.

I don't know what is unproven in my assetions. The fate that befell Martin Luther is certainly well known.

While not an expert, I am familiar with the Council of Nicea and the compilation of the accepted Bible. If I recall correctly, the primary purpose was to establish the divinty of Christ. I am not defending the various "heresies" extant at that time and excluded from the bible.

I assume you intend to dispute that the Catholic Church does not encourage the faithful to read scripture. I don't think you have the better side of that argument.

"Smoke shall rise, forever and ever, from the torment of those who worship the beast, or bear his mark, or his number". Perhaps that is my fate.