Posted on 02/17/2005 12:58:57 PM PST by Mike Fieschko
Rome, Feb. 17 (CWNews.com) - Vatican archeologists believe that they have identified the tomb of St. Paul in the Roman basilica that bears his name.A sarcophagus which may contain the remains of St. Paul was identified in the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, reports Giorgio Filippi, a archeology specialist with the Vatican Museums. The sarcophagus was discovered during the excavations carried out in 2002 and 2003 around the basilica, which is located in the south of Rome. Having reached what they believe is a positive identification of the tomb, Vatican experts will soon make a public announcement of their discovery.
"I certainly am no expert."
Perhaps there's less to dislike in Catholicism than one might think, if one seriously looks into it.
Yes, I did know that.
Simply updated the name to make it recognizable.
I probably wouldn't use Nubia, Idumea, Parthia, etc. for the same reason unless something in the discussion required it.
No, the Church would not allow that, just as it cannot permit willful desecration for the sake of curiosity.
But you can see here how the mind of a non-Catholic thinks. There is this material thing here, and it belongs in a grave, and it's gross, so only someone really gross would want to touch it or look at it or move it or talk about it, unless, of course, there is some materialistic (scientific) motive. Therefore Catholics are morbid and gross. Period. Let's talk about something else. All of this precludes the reality of the spirit world. The Catholic interest in the relics of the saints has nothing to do with any such material or scientific basis, but is firmly rooted in the tradition handed down to us from apostolic times, beginning with the martyrdom of St. Stephen, whose mention is appropriate, for he was slain by stoning under the supervision of the same man with whom we are concerned in this thread. In the traditional calendar there is a feast day for the finding of the body of St. Stephen. The first Masses were said over the remains of such martyrs in the Catacombs, and even today the altar stones required for Mass contain a particular arrangement of the various relics of saints, all based on that tradition. As an "ex-Catholic" you ought to know all this. Which reminds me, when was the last time you attended a Traditional Latin Mass?
If anyone has any doubts about how objectively important the physical remains of the saints are, I would ask them to then please explain how satanists or witches are almost always able to tell from a distance the location of relics, and sometimes even the identity of the saint. One thing is certain: in exorcisms, the devil can be commanded to say whose relics are present, and therefore the devil always knows. But being a liar from the beginning, if you ask him (outside of the exorcism's binding venue) he would likely deny it.
Jesus was not a Christian? You must not be talking about Jesus Christ, right? Some other Jesus?
Yes, I am talking about Jesus Christ, he was a jew, not a Christian! Didn't you know that, it is in "all" the books?
You've been reading (and believing!) the wrong books, buddy. If Jesus wasn't the first Christian, then there are none in truth. Tell me, do you believe Jesus Christ is God?
Jesus Christ was "NOT" the first Christian. A Christian is by defined as someone that is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not following himself, but his father that sent him. It was only after his death did the term Christian come about.
Jesus Christ was "NOT" the first Christian. A Christian is by defined as someone that is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not following himself, but his father that sent him. It was only after his death did the term Christian come about.
Okay, so you don't speak English well. I'm okay with that. But when it comes to Christianity, you, who are apparently not one, should not be telling one who is what one is.
Who is it, perchance, that you have established as your source for the "is by defined as" to which you refer?
Incidentally, my original question still stands, to wit: Do you or do you not accept the divinity of Jesus?
I speak English fine, I just don't type well without my glasses on.
I, who am a Christian, do not think Jesus was a Christian, which is a follower of Christ. But I am certain he was a Jew! The "Christ" is the Saviour, and the sacrifice had not been made, therefore Jesus could not be a Christian because he was not yet prefected, (prefect) if you will.
So in order for him to have been a Christian it would mean he was following himself, which I think you will even agree at that point he was not doing, else why pray to his father to take this cup from him?
I can understand that you may not be able to follow this line of thought for whatever reason as it does require one to do more than just react to dogma that has been fed to the masses for years.
My question to you would be, "Do you believe that there is a Trinity or is all the Godhead manifested in Jesus?"
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
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.
