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.
Haven't you answered your own question in 215? The discussion between Abraham and the rich man sounds to me that it is possible for someone to come from the dead.
It sounds to me that Abraham is saying that those persons would not believe someone from the dead because they had hardened their hearts. Also, Abraham says "if" they were to rise from the dead.
What about when Jesus is transfigured, with the disciples, and Moses and Elijah are there with them. Not only do they appear, Peter wants to erect booths to each of them. Why not just a booth to Jesus since the other two were just men?
You weren't reading my request very well (unless you think appealing to a medium to call up a dead spirit is "ethical.")
1 Sam. 28:3, 6-8: "Now Samuel was dead...Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land...He inquired of the Lord, but the Lord did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets. Saul then said to his attendants, 'Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her.'...'Consult a spirit for me and bring up for me the one I name.'"
-A8
Rather, for these folks, every prayer going to a saint is one less direct plea being made to God or Jesus.
You're just engaging in condemnatory speculation, now. That doesn't seem like the sort of behavior either Jesus or Paul would endorse.
He did? Then Jesus was sinning at the Transfiguration?
Hint: "necromancy" and "communicating with the dead" aren't two words for the same thing.
"...every prayer going to a saint is one less direct plea being made to God or Jesus."
Perhaps a rereading about the Marriage Feast at Cana might help you to understand this basic Christian concept.
So? Peter could have wanted to any one of a number of things. That does not make it right or some huge doctrinal edifice to build on.
Colofornian: Show me where in Scripture anyone is ethically (meaning not communicating via a medium) communicating with beings in heaven that are not God or angels.
Well then this would qualify. 2 Macc. 15:12-16 – the high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah were deceased for centuries, and yet interact with the living Judas Maccabeas and pray for the holy people on earth.
When I last venerated Testudo in the late 1970s, he had been painted a garish red by his acolytes. It is good to see the deity restored to his original burnished state. By tradition, Testudo's continued fidelity to his post indicates that no virgin has yet graduated from the University.
So if Jesus does something, then it ok for YOU to do it also? Of course not. That's such a nonsensical/lame response. Jesus claimed to be God. If you tried that, it would be sin.
Interesting - I like to think Blaise Paschal splits this difference well in his Penses.
When I read this sentence, it seemed pretty stunning:
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.
It's hard to believe anybody forgot what was in the crypt.
"Necromancy" is a communication with the dead in which responses come from the dead and generally future events are predicted. It seems that Protestants derive some huge satisfaction from using big words, even if they don't quite understand what they mean. Perhaps Jack Chick could write a dictionary for them to use when they launch into their litanies of misconception.
So he was setting a bad example for us?
What do you mean, claimed to be God?!?!
My point it Jesus is talking to Moses, who was dead at the time and Elijah. Jesus is talking with dead men.
If Jesus said that we would do the things that He does, why wouldn't we be able to converse with the Saints as well?
Are you saying that our Lord sinned? Because THAT is blasphemy. And if it is your contention that the Lord sinned, what other sins did he commit?
Ok, you win, Jesus wants each of us to float up into the clouds and chat with Moses and Elijah just like he did. :)
Meant to ping you to this.
I think ya got him on the Transfiguration thing.
Not that we want to 'get them'.. but you know what I mean.
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.