Remains of Apostle Paul May Have Been Found

Associated Press (excerpt) ^ | December 6, 2006

[HAL9000]

Excerpt -

ROME (AP) - 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 A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.

~ snip ~

[Moonman62]

Putting the idol worship aside, that sure is some beautiful architecture.

[wagglebee]

Martin Luther's wife.

[wagglebee]

You do realize whose tomb it is don't you?

And I agree, it is beautiful.

[AppyPappy]

Just like there's no evidence that the lost Plates of Nephi and the Book of Mormon aren't true either.

It's been less than 200 years. Produce them for me.

[Moonman62]

God the Creator would have no problem reconstituting the dust or ashes we become into a new body--of the same type of Jesus's after His resurrection.

Jesus said that God is spirit. And considering what we know about consciousness, resurrecting that would make the body unnecessary. Interestingly, John Paul II didn't seem the least concerned about the preservation of his body.

[A.J.Armitage]

You didn't answer the question.

Neither did you.

Your question happens to be irrelevant. After the Resurrection, before the Ascension, at the time when Jesus presented Himself to the disciples, He said His body had nailprints, and offered Himself for examination to prove the point. Were there nailprints because nails had been driven into those parts of His body, or because He was putting one over on them?

[jas3]

Interestingly, although there was an enormous commerce in relics in the church for twelve hundred years or more, and a very ardent interest in the remains and the tombs of the saints involved literally tens of millions of believers, nobody even claimed to have a relic of Mary: not a bone nor a tooth.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/relics.html

Actually it looks like lots of folks have claimed to have relics of the Virgin Mary including her breast milk.

jas3

[billbears]

Well most non Catholics do not realize that Catholics teach that Mary was taken into heaven

Well count me as one of those. I had never heard of it. Not really pertinent to the teachings of Christ one would think though. Course there are a lot of traditions that have risen up in many denominations that aren't really pertinent as well

[khnyny]

The following is the fascinating story of Scott Hahn and his conversion. Hahn was a Protestant minister who, after much prayer and incredible study of the the Bible and theology, converted to Catholicism. You may find it interesting (or not, lol). Hahn's writings on scripture and the Church are extremely well researched, eloquent, and enlightening.

http://www.chnetwork.org/scotthconv.htm

[A.J.Armitage]

So I ask again: who determined the Canon? And on what basis?

God did, on the basis of which writtings He had inspired.

Could the Church put Thomas in the Canon? Why or why not? If it does, would Thomas gain in authority, or would it always have had this authority?

[khnyny]

You, in particular, may find the following of interest.:)

The following is the fascinating story of Scott Hahn and his conversion. Hahn was a Protestant minister who, after much prayer and incredible study of the the Bible and theology, converted to Catholicism. You may find it interesting (or not, lol). Hahn's writings on scripture and the Church are extremely well researched, eloquent, and enlightening.

http://www.chnetwork.org/scotthconv.htm

[what's up]

I'll take the word of folks who were with Mary while she was alive, and who passed her story along to those Church fathers

Nonsense...they did not pass along any story of Mary's sinlessness.

As for the title of Co-Redemptrix; it is simply a statement of the fact that Mary was an active participant

No, "co" implies equality whenever it is used (as in co-ruler or co-op or co-sign). "Co" never implies simply an aide.

Yes, she was a participant in God's plan as was Abraham. But he is not considered a co-redemptrix. That was a very unfortunate term for the RCC to assign a created woman.

[DelphiUser]

>>That is why she was assumed (body and soul) into heaven by her Son, who spared her the dishonor of decay.

You are assuming a lot!

Sorry twisted humor here.

I did not know this about catholic doctrine; can you point me to a source?

BTW, Love your tagline.

[A.J.Armitage]

Jesus said that God is spirit. And considering what we know about consciousness, resurrecting that would make the body unnecessary.

So you'll follow some vague "what we know about consciousness" instead of Scripture.

[khnyny]

You might want to check out the work and writings of Marcus Grodi.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, right you are: there were certainly hoaxsters who claimed to have a specimen of Mary's milk or Christ's hair. Always highly dubious ---but more to the point: nobody claimed to have relics which would have come only from a dead body. Teeth, yes. Vertebrae, no.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So I ask again: who determined the Canon? And on what basis?
--"God did, on the basis of which writtings He had inspired."

Absolutely. But when was it decided that the "Gospel of Thomas," for instance, didn't make the cut? When, where, and by whom?

Could the Church put Thomas in the Canon?

No.

Why or why not?

Because it was never used Liturgically: Lex orandi, lex credendi. Nor was it referenced as authoritative by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, or received as Scripture in Orthodox/Catholic Churches. That's the basis the Ecumenical Councils used, to determine the authenticity of Scriptures: liturgical, patristic, and ecclesial Tradition. The spurious texts were not in the Tradition.

If it does, would Thomas gain in authority, or would it always have had this authority?

No other books can be added to or subtracted from the Canon of Scripture. This is on the authority of the Church, "the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth." 1 Timothy 3:15.

P.S. to Kolokotronis: from an Orthodox point of view, what say ye?

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

I've heard Mr. Hahn on tape. Anyone can be deceived. I do not deny that the church may have Roman Catholics within, as the Lord calls whom He choses. But each person called into new life has the responsibility to walk in Truth - God's Word - rather than fall into the deception of the flesh - most extra-Biblical religious doctrines.

[A.J.Armitage]

But when was it decided that the "Gospel of Thomas," for instance, didn't make the cut? When, where, and by whom?

By the surviving history, it was never given any serious consideration.

Because it was never used Liturgically: Lex orandi, lex credendi. Nor was it referenced as authoritative by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, or received as Scripture in Orthodox/Catholic Churches. That's the basis the Ecumenical Councils used, to determine the authenticity of Scriptures: liturgical, patristic, and ecclesial Tradition. The spurious texts were not in the Tradition.

So take the question back a step. When the Church used a book, was it recognizing something that would have been true of the book in any case, or was it giving the book something? Could the Church have used Thomas liturgically, and if it had would Thomas be Canon?

[therut]

I just learned it recently. The internet has been a great place to dind these things out. I have learned alot about Catholic teaching. If you grow up in an area where there are not Catholics like I did you know nothing about their theology. And I suspect it is the same vise versa. But this is not something to argue over.