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.
Paul got the snot beat out of him on multiple occasions, up to and including being stoned and left for dead.
I always wondered if Paul was blind or had begun to go blind. (maybe cataracts?) Check out Galatians where Paul is rejoicing that when he preached to them they received him even as they would Christ. "They did not despise him because of his infirmity but would have even plucked out their own eyes and given to him."
Gal 4:13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. Gal 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Gal 4:15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
From what I know, many of the early Church sites were nothing more than pilgrammage stops, with no major edifices--out of fear of destruction by local pagans or Romans most likely. Constantine did a lot of building, but was normally he built over places that Christians had been visiting for centuries already. At least from my (rather limited) understanding of the Biblical archaeological record.
And the OT has lots of groups that 'enlightened' scholars thought were complete fabrications, only to have later archaeological evidence provide substantial support for those stories (the Hittites were thought to be a "Mythological People" for example).
The term " thorn in the flesh" or thorn in my side as used in the old testament most often stood for persecution from your enemies. Paul is asking the Lord to remove the Judaizers from coming behind him, and trying to put his converts back under the law. It was'nt sickness, and it wasn't homosexuality for God's sake!
The source is Paul's own words/writings, but I don't have specifics.
I agree. I posted something similar in another thread today. Why is disagreeing with or countering a particular idea automatically "fear" (the meaning of the suffix "-phobe")? Like you, I certainly don't fear homosexuals, but abhor homosexuality.
The whole word "homophobe" is quite a misnomer. "Homo-" means same; "-phobe" means fear. So, "homophobia" means fear of the same, not revulsion toward homosexuality. Its a liberal knee-jerk word disconnected from meaning.
I have heard the theory that St. Paul was asexual, and that this accounts for his thinking that this was a desirable state for others.
So...yeah...exactly...they went and took it. So...that's exactly my point.
Well, for example, there's no real physical evidence that St. Peter is actually in St. Peter's.
Really, I didn't mean anything nasty in the comment. I mean, it's a matter of faith, I think. There's not a ton of physical evidence for a lot of stuff, yet we believe and are justified by it anyway...
I don't believe that "we" "know" either of those things, at all. I am unaware of any "policy" of Jesus' regarding earthly equality for women.
Relevant article because St Paul was (according to the homosexuals and their sympathizers) an "unapologetic homophobe" as exhibited in post #10.
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
I have always been taught he was a Pharisee, that he came from a Pharisee family. I don't know of any overlap between the two groups.
"IF" this is truly Paul's bones, I would love for DNA test to be run.
There are many evidences within his own writings that his thorn in his flesh was his eyesight.
He was roundly abused and stoned a number of times, even left for dead once.
His ending of the letter to the Galatians, I believe, is "see what large letters I use." Assuming that the large letters were necessary because he couldn't see small ones, and assuming that the stonings might have also hit his face and injured his eyes, then the "flesh" that needed repair would have been eyes.
"The tomb should not be opened merely to satisfy curiosity, he insists."
Just wondering what other reason there could be ?
I always figured that Paul's "large letters" language referred to the fact that he was illiterate. The fact that what he was saying was being scripted by a scribe and then he'd, so the churches he was writing to would know it was him, would script a couple of lines in his own hand.
Just what I was taught in my Christianity classes...
Ah Ok I see what you mean. I didn't think you meant anything nasty, it was an honest question on my part.
I think the long-standing traditions of pilgrammage spots extending back to the beginning of Christendom really support a lot of these sites, but you are right. The physical evidence is often lacking.
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.