Christina Gallagher & The House of Prayer

How did she become so wealthy?

And you gotta love that video. I'm converted.

Ah be fair guys, if you were being visited by the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of God it would be pretty bad form to give her anything but the best 5 star accommodation that money can buy. Why else would she bother showing up in Tuam?

Outrageous! Where does the Sunday World get off implying that Amanda Brunker is now slim? Even at that ridiculous angle, she looks hefty x8.

unhappychappy wrote: »

JESUS NEVER TOOK ANY MONEY OFF ANYONE SO YES CHRISTINA IS A FRAUD AND CON ARTIST. RELIGION IS FREE. IT'S SAD HOW SO MANY DELUDED PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THESE CON ARTISTS AND IM SURPRISED AS SHE HAS CONNED SO MANY OUT OF MILLIONS THAT SOMEBODY HASN'T SHOT HER AND PUT A STOP TO THEM ROBBING THE VUNRABLE. CHRISTINA CAN'T PROVE WHAT SHE CLAIMS, AS WITH JESUS HE MADE MIRACLES HAPPEN AND PROVED TO EVERYONE [ turned water into wine etc] WHY DON'T THE FOLLOWERS DEMAND PROOF THEN IM SURE CHRISTINA WILL BE PROVED A CON ARTIST, IT'S AS EASY AS THAT, SUMBODY SHOULD DEMAND PROOF, JESUS HAD NO PROBLEM PROOVING

Please stop shouting.

unhappychappy wrote: »

JESUS NEVER TOOK ANY MONEY OFF ANYONE SO YES CHRISTINA IS A FRAUD AND CON ARTIST. RELIGION IS FREE. IT'S SAD HOW SO MANY DELUDED PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THESE CON ARTISTS AND IM SURPRISED AS SHE HAS CONNED SO MANY OUT OF MILLIONS THAT SOMEBODY HASN'T SHOT HER AND PUT A STOP TO THEM ROBBING THE VUNRABLE. CHRISTINA CAN'T PROVE WHAT SHE CLAIMS, AS WITH JESUS HE MADE MIRACLES HAPPEN AND PROVED TO EVERYONE [ turned water into wine etc] WHY DON'T THE FOLLOWERS DEMAND PROOF THEN IM SURE CHRISTINA WILL BE PROVED A CON ARTIST, IT'S AS EASY AS THAT, SUMBODY SHOULD DEMAND PROOF, JESUS HAD NO PROBLEM PROOVING

The story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts does not fit with your argument. Ananias sold off his land and donated most of the proceeds to the church, but kept a portion for himself and his wife. They were both struck dead when Peter learned they did not give him all their wealth. Sounds like the early Church was run by con men just as bad as Christina Gallagher.

Also Jesus specifically avoided proving his powers according to the Synoptic Gospels.

“Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.”

and from John:

"blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

It also explains Satan's temptation of Jesus where he tells him to jump from the pinacle of the Temple and be caught by angels. It is the oddest of the three temptations on the face of it as there are obvious benefits to inheriting the kingdoms of the Earth or to create bread while fasting, but what is the benefit in jumping off the Temple? It would be that he would have proven his identity to the masses. Jesus refused to do so.

She could refer to the example of Ananias and Sapphira to show how she is just following the example of the early Church and anyone demanding proof is just someone of "An evil and adulterous generation" as Jesus would have described them.

unhappychappy wrote: »

JESUS NEVER TOOK ANY MONEY OFF ANYONE SO YES CHRISTINA IS A FRAUD AND CON ARTIST. RELIGION IS FREE. IT'S SAD HOW SO MANY DELUDED PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THESE CON ARTISTS AND IM SURPRISED AS SHE HAS CONNED SO MANY OUT OF MILLIONS THAT SOMEBODY HASN'T SHOT HER AND PUT A STOP TO THEM ROBBING THE VUNRABLE. CHRISTINA CAN'T PROVE WHAT SHE CLAIMS, AS WITH JESUS HE MADE MIRACLES HAPPEN AND PROVED TO EVERYONE [ turned water into wine etc] WHY DON'T THE FOLLOWERS DEMAND PROOF THEN IM SURE CHRISTINA WILL BE PROVED A CON ARTIST, IT'S AS EASY AS THAT, SUMBODY SHOULD DEMAND PROOF, JESUS HAD NO PROBLEM PROOVING

Not to put too fine a point on it but you may want to read the bible in more detail before coming in here all guns blazing and making such comments. As it is, you're wrong and I mean fractally wrong.

Pompey has already pointed out why this is the case but just a few extra points to add to his excellent post.

Firstly, to deal with your last point first, Jesus had great problems with "proving" his powers. Matthew 4 tells of the temptation in the wilderness of Jesus and while Jesus not only refrains from demonstrating his power he also comments "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

Secondly, Mark's gospel from which the other synoptics borrow heavily is built on a hidden hero narrative in the style of Homer. In Mark's gospel Jesus is at pains to cover up the "miracles" he performs. In Mark 7 he specifically tells the witnesses not to tell anyone what they saw. The problem is that there is a significant theological rift between John and the synoptics with the synoptics depicting a human Jesus preaching a liberal form of Judaism and making few references to himself while John's gospel has a more conservative Jesus promoting his divinity and making frequent references to himself in the form of the "I am" sayings.

Finally, Jesus' miracles are themselves just syncretic borrowings from earlier traditions. None of these stories are actually historical narratives. Just to take three of Jesus' more famous miracles, the marriage feast of Cana is borrowed from a similar miracle in Greek myth and the story of Dionysus, the raising of Jairus' daughter in Mark 5 is borrowed from a similar story in 2 Kings 4 and the story of Lazarus is borrowed from an earlier tradition concerning the raising of Osiris from the dead by Horus. The Jesus miracle stories are later additions used to bolster the legend of Jesus.

You see, if what you said was true and Jesus "proved" his claims (not that he makes any in the synoptics) then as Mark 7:36 points out his fame would have spread far and wide. And yet we have no contempraneous accounts of Jesus and the extra-biblical references to Jesus that there are are limited in detail.

Granted, Christina Gallagher is a con-artist but then when you have messages in the bible rebuking people for seeking proof such as Matthew 4 or John 20, then what do you expect.

Sarky wrote: »

Best phrase ever.

Wasn't familiar with the term so had a gander at rational wiki.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

You're wrong there, and there, oh, and there too, there, now let's step back a little, yep, still wrong.

Media player isn't working in that link, so can't listen to the show.

I once had a landlord who was a follower. It was sad to think that the rent I was paying him was indirectly ending up in Christina's pocket.