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 ~

[Mrs. Don-o]

(Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Andrew of Crete) --Oh, I like these guys. .. but their words are not to be taken as "gospel" but in the historical context in which they are said.

Right you are: their words are not "Gospel," but they do constitute our source for understanding what "THE Church" believed back in the first Christian Centuries when, like now, it was "fighting the good fight."

"none are "just," none are holy but God" --- This is in the unredeemed state. Joseph had faith so in the context is correctly deemed just...as was Abraham. Along with Mary.

Good as far as it goes.

But to go a little further, if you're willing to spend more time on this conversation: do you believe that Jesus had a defective, fallen human nature?

[Grig]

"Orthodoxy is the truth that has been handed down to us."

Orthdoxy is just what the majority accept, true or not.

[Grig]

"That is the heresy of Pelagianism, condemned in the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431."

That is an opinion (and council) of men, one I reject. Original sin is a teaching that defies the justice of God. Do we imprison or punish people for the crimes of their parents? No, even mortal men know that is not justice.

[Doohickey]

Then Mary didn't need her son as a Savior. Correct?

Depends on how you interpret the Scripture. Prior to the sacrifice of Jesus, everyone was tainted with the Original Sin. Therefore, Mary needed salvation despite never having committed a sin of her own.

[CommerceComet]

>>Why would God Incarnate have His perfection tarnished by being born to a sinful woman? I have never understood this argument.

Sorry. Too many interruptions while I was trying to type the earlier post. Let me re-phrase this question: Why would God Incarnate's perfection be tarnished by being born to a sinful woman? This is what I don't understand.

[Tao Yin]

the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven

WHAT? Is that how this started? Oh, that's funny! I hold the apostles in the highest esteem, but hearsay about their deductive reasoning does not cut it for theological debates.

I have been given the promise and guarantee that the scriptures are the inerrant word of God. I have no promise or guarantee that the apostles always spoke truth and neither do I have any promise or guarantee that hearsay stories about the apostles are true.

This is the same reason that I don't pray to the saints. I have been given no promise or guarantee that they can or will listen.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Ah, I forget Luke 1:46-55 is referred to as such. The phrase, "God my savior" would not have been uncommon in the Jewish world of that age or before (see Job 19:25-26). Mary saying this may reflect a saving faith - but only God knows for sure. Same as only He knows the heart of anyone.

[what's up]

our source for understanding what "THE Church" believed back in the first Christian Centuries when, like now, it was "fighting the good fight."

Of course. Much of what they say is extrememly valuable as is true of any historical document.

However, when they contradict the scriptures and their clear meaning, that is when we must consider their statements false.

[Mom MD]

If she did not need her Son as a Saviour, why did she call him that?

[paulat]

If she did not need her Son as a Saviour, why did she call him that?

Like I said...I am not a theologial student.

I was just trying to parse things out logically.

[paulat]

do you believe that Jesus had a defective, fallen human nature?

I think Jesus took on a humanity of being as much as he could be tempted. Why would Satan bother, otherwise?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sorry. Hmm. I guess I messed up that link to Amy Welborn's account of the tour of rhe "Scavi": the excavations of St. Peter's burial place in Rome.

Try this cut-and-paste:

http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/03/scavi.html

[paulat]

If she did not need her Son as a Saviour, why did she call him that?

I just went back and pulled out my St. James.

I think it goes back to the Catholic interpretation of the Trinity.

I think, in her mind, "God, the Father" was the Saviour for bringing her "God, the Son." I think that's the case, because the Son had not yet lived out his destiny.

I've never been able to wrap my mind around who "God, the Holy Spirit" is.

It's the age-old dilemma. Who is "I am Who am"?

Far greater minds than mine have thought about this.

[oldfart]

bump for later reading

[Mrs. Don-o]

"However, when they [the early Fathers]contradict the scriptures and their clear meaning, that is when we must consider their statements false."

I understand your postion. However the "clear meaning" of Scripture is often a matter of dispute. Then the question is: how do you determine the meaning of Scripture?

The usual rule of thumb is:

• (1) "Let Scripture interpret Scripture": let later or clearer Scriptures shed light on earlier or more obscure verses.
• (2) Since Scripture itself says, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth," (1 Timothy 3:15), find out how the Church interpreted Scripture, referencing for instance:

  (a) early Fathers of the Church (the Fathers don't aways agree, so we look for a "consensus of the Fathers," meaning, most of 'em);
  (b) how the early Church worshipped (e.g. ancient hymnody and Liturgy), "Lex orandi, lex credendi";
  (c) official documents of Councils and Synods...

  Way, way down he list would be:

  (x) the meaning most congenial to modern writers (last 500 years?) in critical discontinuity with the ancient Church
  (y) the meaning most congenial to 21st century American re-inventers of Church (e.g. Gay Church Interprets Scripture!) and
  (z) the meaning most congenial to me.

  Makes sense?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I think Jesus took on a humanity of being as much as he could be tempted. Why would Satan bother, otherwise?"

True. But even a human being with an un-fallen nature --- I'm thinking, Adam and Eve in Paradise before the Fall --- could be tempted.

So let me re-phrase the question: do you think Jesus' human nature was that of Adam and Eve in Paradise before the Fall, in other words, pure and perfect in a creaturely sense --or-- did He have, like the rest of us, a degraded human nature as a result of the inherited consequences of sin, which darkened the human intellect, weakened our will, and deranged our appetites?

[paulat]

So let me re-phrase the question: do you think Jesus' human nature was that of Adam and Eve in Paradise before the Fall, in other words, pure and perfect in a creaturely sense --or-- did He have, like the rest of us, a degraded human nature as a result of the inherited consequences of sin, which darkened the human intellect, weakened our will, and deranged our appetites?

Just thinking out-loud...I think he had the human nature of Adam and Eve...it would make wonderful theological sense. He would put himself in the position of having to make the Ultimate First Decision.

[what's up]

However the "clear meaning" of Scripture is often a matter of dispute

Often. However, a doctrine such as the sinfulness of created man is a fairly easy one to ascertain throughout scripture.

If you let Scripture interpret Scripture on that point there should be very little confusion.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Just thinking out-loud...I think he had the human nature of Adam and Eve...it would make wonderful theological sense. He would put himself in the position of having to make the Ultimate First Decision.

That's what I'm thinking, too. I admit I'm just groping around here, because I don't know the full implications, but it seems to me that that's why St. Paul identifies Jesus as a kind of "second Adam":

Romans 5:14
Adam [is] a type of Him who was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So also it is written, "The first Man, Adam, was made a living soul." The last Adam was made a life-giving spirit.

I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this, but think of this: Jesus has only one human parent -- His mother--- from whom He derived His humanity. He had no human father. So from a genetic point of view, everything human that was heritable, came from her.

She's an XX, and Jesus as a male had to be an XY, so I don't know how that works out. But it seems to follow that if Jesus' human nature was pure and perfect in the creaturely sense --- nothing in his nature or nurture as a human was darkened, weakened, bleared, smeared or disordered --- that tells you something about his mother.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Question: was Jesus' human nature "sinful"?

(If you check out recent posts in this thread with FReeper paulat (341, 351, 356, etc), that's what we're discussing, too, if you want to comment.)