Boro Nut

Neither I believe. A Saint Paul is in fact a north american fish, more specifically I understand it is a plaice in Canada. As neither of these gentelmen could have known of the existance of Canada let alone have been there, I find it extremely suspicious that they have been named after one of it's atributes. They are clearly late christian insertions to the original text.

Boro Nut

abe smith

Probably-irrelevant qy: Roman Catholicism alleges that *Revelation* (not the NT book, but formally-divulged information from "god" to humankind) TERMINATED with the death of the last "Apostle". Now my qy is, therefore, is PAUL considered to be one of the REAL apostles? He never did know Jesus really: YOU KNOW that if he had had first- hand acquaintance w/ his beloved Boyfriend, Paul would NEVER have shut-up telling us minutely about it! So, IF Paul the selfappointed Apostle is not a REAL Apostle, why shd we believe anything he is alleged to have written or had-written by his secretaries?
I guess I do understand that legend says Paul died @ Rome; and that One or all of the "Johns" (whether they are one guy or several different guys) died late/last.(which "fact" if that's what it is would have made "John"'s death the shut-off point for Chrx
revelation). This RC provision, that "god"'s direct revelation (<<ALLEGED!) to humanity ENDED then makes invalid all subsequent alleged stuff said to have been "revealed" to various saints, for example. I personally think all this stuff is FOOLISHNESS, but an interesting academic qy. Abe

Amos

It a place in North Eastern Alberta and there is a lot of good Catholics there!

The point made by Paul is that he met the real Christ on his way to Damascus and not the historical Jesus. He was an ambassador for Christ but nor for Jesus.

galiel

There's no plaice like Homer.