Posted on 02/17/2005 12:58:57 PM PST by Mike Fieschko
What's wrong with satisfying curiosity?
Check this out....
Because it means that the Catholic church actually got a Basillica in the right place for once.
No offense intended to any Catholics out there...really...a lot or them were built in the wrong place...St. Mark's in Venice was thought to be the most reliable one...so this would be a big deal.
Plus...St. Paul was just pretty cool.
Sounds like Walt Whitman and the 29th. bather.
That is what it was.
***What's wrong with satisfying curiosity?***
Ever see Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark? Know what happens when they open the Ark? =P
"The tomb should not be opened merely to satisfy curiosity, he insists. There is no doubt, he says, that St. Paul was buried on the site, "because this basilica was the object of pilgrimages by emperors; people from all around the world came to venerate him, having faith that he was present in this basilica."
What? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", we insist its St. Paul because simply everyone thinks it is. Twould be nice to know that there is someone buried there....we would never know for sure that it actually THE St. Paul or not.
Re: the homophobe comments...he wasn't a homophobe at all. His lists of sins included a lot of activities, 'modom was just one of several.
And it is wrong. Maybe not sinfulto those who insist "thats shoving religion down their throats" but physically and naturally wrong.
"Do we know what his "thorn in the flesh was yet?"
Many(most?) conservative Biblical scholars think it was a vision problem. Probably after suffering temporary blindness on the road to Damascus, he was never restored to full sight. There are things in his letters that would indicate he had poor eyesight.
A lesser held view was that Paul was marryed to a woman that wasn't a believer. This is not supported directly by scripture.
Whatever it was, it was given to him to keep him from becoming arrogant or prideful - that much scripture tells us.
I believe that they believed it, at any rate.
Why must one be a "phobe" to dislike or preach against something abhorrent?
I guess that, by your simple minded twisting of the english language that we all are:
Murderphobes
Rapephobes
Molestaphobes
Crawl back under your rock.
Someone send these guys an application for the CIA... : )
Hey, Protestants like St Paul too!
Typical liberal, trying to turn Jesus into a UN bureaucrat. Why do you bother, since you don't believe anyway?
or it might have been Peter and others whom the Lord personally chose and taught for 3 years - and who had many differences in doctrine with Paul -
While Paul did confront Peter when Peter was in error, Paul also deferred to the elders in Jerusalem on scriptural issues.
I always thought it was because he survived being stoned. That must have left a mark . . .
Actually some theologians beleive he did. [A] requirement of the Sanhedran according to Mosaic Law was to be married. And of course 'Saul' was a member of the Sanhedran which is clearly documented. One theory is that his wife died althought the Scripture is silent on this theory.
Archeologists are making a lot of new discoveries in Italy nowadays. Really exciting stuff to those of us who care.
Hmm...that could be the next "Irish Spring" commercial! Or not.
his "thorn in the flesh" was the same as ours, Liberals!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.