Posted on 12/06/2006 6:18:21 AM PST by NYer
Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul that had been buried beneath Rome's second largest basilica. The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least 390 A.D., has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.
"Our objective was to bring the remains of the tomb back to light for devotional reasons, so that it could be venerated and be visible," said Giorgio Filippi, the Vatican archaeologist who headed the project at St. Paul Outside the Walls basilica.
The interior of the sarcophagus has not yet been explored, but Filippi didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future.
Two ancient churches that once stood at the site of the current basilica were successively built over the spot where tradition said the saint had been buried. The second church, built by the Roman emperor Theodosius in the fourth century, left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt.
When a fire destroyed the church in 1823, the current basilica was built and the ancient crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar.
"We were always certain that the tomb had to be there beneath the papal altar," Filippi told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Filippi said that the decision to make the sarcophagus visible again was taken after many pilgrims who came to Rome during the Catholic Church's 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint's tomb could not be visited or touched.
The findings of the project will be officially presented during a news conference at the Vatican on Monday.
Bookmark
I thought it was always assumed to be there? There are some mentions of the tomb of St. Paul that go back quite early.
Nonsense. The faithful don't need proof and the faithless won't believe it.
-A8
"I think you mean fideism."
True, but fatalism in the sense that people are predetermined either to believe on not believe and there is nothing you can do to effect that.
And where did you read that?
I would imagine it began on penecost; people who heard second hand the word the apostles preached and corrupted it.
Let's be frank most of the historic heresies re-manifest in folks with a small understanding of scripture and the church quite easily. It's very easy for folks to say Christ wasn't divine, that Christ would not admonish homosexuals, that Mary wasn't really a virgin, that Christ had other siblings, that Christ must have been married, that Christ was a good philosopher but not infailable, that baptism isn't necessary, that marriage isn't necessary, etc etc.
However once you have a good understanding of scripture it's very hard to justify these positions. This is why most of the Dan Brown types are forced to go looking for justifications in the gnostic (forged) gospels.
Well, since Jesus is fully God and fully Man, I would reckon he can do things we are not able to do as well as things that we are not permitted to do, wouldn't you agree?
Did Peter and John speak with Moses and Elijah? Not that I recall...and I do believe in most, if not all occurances of a heavenly being speaking directly with men the process was from the top down, not the other way around...
True, Christ said we would do the things that He does, but when or how is not firmly stated...perhaps when we are in a glorified state those things will be permitted?
I don't have any answers, I don't claim to know...just throwing some thoughts down on a flat screen with white background with black letters that form words...
Draw your own conclusions...
In Christ...glory to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!!
I think you are reading past his point, at least from this birds eye view of your discussions...
The practice of what's in the newspapers is the fruit of the faith of those who write them...at least that's the point I believe Colofornian is trying to make. This is what most people see more so than the doctrinal novels that the Church has and can, of course, be read by anyone who is willing to devote the time.
Sorry to interject, but it's been sitting there for so many posts that I couldn't resist...I'll back out of your discussion, it's been intriguing to read...
God Bless both of you...
Actually, Mary approached Jesus and then them...
1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
You said "That's what's great about Our Lady, she loves her children so much she petitions her Son before they even ask."
I'd just like to point out that this is what Christ said about Our Heavenly Father...Not anyone else.
Note verse 8 (Matthew)...
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
In Christ.
It appears Paul tended to agree with the Protestants:
1When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ[a] had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,[b]" he said
so did the Bereans:
As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
I'm just sayin...
The whole of the New Testament is a kind of gloss on the Old.
A complete straw man.
-A8
I didn't know. I thought the Vatican made money off this stuff. Still I wouldn't go to Italy to see a coffin with the alleged bones of anyone in them. This is not to isrespect the Catholic religion,it's just this stuff is not enlightening at all.
I didn't know. I thought the Vatican made money off this stuff. Still I wouldn't go to Italy to see a coffin with the alleged bones of anyone in them. This is not to isrespect the Catholic religion,it's just this stuff is not enlightening at all.
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.