Skip to comments.Remains of Apostle Paul May Have Been Found
Posted on 12/06/2006 4:29:58 PM PST by HAL9000
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 ~
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
That's the belief system of the ancient Egyptian religion of Isis, Osirus, and Horus -- nothing to do with Christianity.
You should really try dating other people, now and then.
For Sure, you could get in touch with your inner woman and end up with and inner child. Then you'll have REALLY screwed yourself.
There isn't any. It is a Catholic belief.
Just Google "mary assumption scripture" and you will have plenty of information.
Pls see #104.
There is no Scripture supporting your assumption that all theology be taught formally in Scripture.
Anyone engaging Catholics or Orthodox on these threads should realize that "where is that in Scripture?" is not the trump card in thes discussions. Keep in mind that neither the original Church nor the Bible itself teaches that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
Would God have chosen someone unsuitable to be the mother of His Son? We know that Jesus revered His Mother, and Jesus, being the Second Person of the Trinity is part of God, so I'd assume that yes, God revered Mary as well. That doesn't mean that Mary is equal with God, but it does mean that we should revere her, above all other human beings, except for Jesus.
Well, consider this: Jesus is God, co-equal with the Father. (I think all Christians would defend that statement.)
And Jesus honored Mary. Because Mary was His mother,and the Commandments say "Honor thy father and thy mother."
He certainly didn't worship and adore her, because He is God she is human; a disciple; in her own words, a handmaid.
So: "revere" in the sense of "adore"? No. "Revere" in the sense of "honor"? Yes.
"Sola Scriptura" - it is the fundamental basis of Protestant faith.
(5) Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
(6) Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Save me a bone, I need a good luck charm.
Here you go, you might learn something.
God chooses whom He wills. It may not seem "logical" but there you go. God knows better than us.
Some would have considered, for example, that David was unsuitable to carry the line of Christ since he was guilty of adultery and murder. Yet God chose him. David praised God for bestowing grace on him despite his sin; Mary did the same.
? accelerated decay??:)
How do you know?
Well, since the Apostles knew her personally, and the youngest one took her in as his Mother when Jesus died, I will defer to THEIR teachings on the matter. They may not have written an Epistle or a letter to one of the outlying communities to that effect, but it was an accepted teaching in the first century of Christianity, and is one of those traditions on which our Faith was founded.
Mary rejoices in God her Savior. She acknowledges that she needed to be saved from sin.
That is always a good practice but if you're going to be honest about that you will have to acknowledge that they did not teach that Mary was sinless or was assumed into Heaven.
What did she need to be saved from if she did not commit sins?
I know.. I just wanted somebody(else) to say it so the lurkers could consider the ramifications of it..
According to Catholic belief...Mary did not carry the burden of Original Sin...the burden that the rest of humanity carries.
In Catholicism, she is considered to be the only pure human being ever.
OOOOOoops , I forgot that the grail lineage is not PC! ( sarc). Why elese would they be derching for the bones but to have a new novel? Its perfect, the bones glowin the dark as several sleuths conive to steal the bones, trace their keepers of ancient lineage, and read to secret codex of the lost epistle of Paul, that was kept secret but for initiates of the Order of the Glowing Sarcophagous?
Oh the propaganda that men decompose!
But Mary herself claims that she needed a Savior (as every human being other than Christ does).
Mary was a Jew...of COURSE she wanted a Messiah.
No. Catholicism teaches that Jesus Christ was a pure (i.e. sinless) human being, and that Mary's sinlessness was due to Christ.
A Jesuetical fine point I will grant.
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
Here is a chance to gently refute the anti-Catholic lies that surround us.
"...it is a Catholic belief that Mary ascended into Heaven, just like her Son."
Actually it is the belief of both Orthodox and Catholic Christians that Mary WAS ASSUMED into heaven.
She did not ascend like her Son.
No, hosepipe...it is a Catholic belief that Mary ascended into Heaven, just like her Son. The belief is that she was the only totally pure human being.
The Catholic church celebrates the Feast of the Assumption.
Google has a lot of information
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
alas... although you did use AP instead of Pravda (six of one...):
Vatican archaeologists unearth St. Paul's tomb
Pravda | December 6, 2006
Posted on 12/06/2006 9:18:21 AM EST by NYer
How else would that tradition have started? BTW Mary's home in Ephesus is still an honored site, even by the Muslims who live there, who honor Mary as the mother of Jesus.
well anyway I like it
what is the difference between "assumed" (taken up) and ascention? (moving upward)
Alas, the search for a previous post didn't because of the apostrophe in "Paul's" in the earlier headline. And we used different keywords.
After the resurrection, Jesus offered His own wounds as proof it was indeed He. What that a deception?
What do you mean? Any number of ways. Lots of traditions were started apart from the Apostles' teaching.
It's a tricky search, can be hard to find stuff.
You are, of course, misrepresenting those passages badly. Paul doesn't say, and Scripture doesn't say, that anything we need to know is outside the Canon and would always be outside the Canon. Remember that when Paul wrote the Gospels weren't written yet, but now they have been written (a rather significant difference).
If you say Jesus' wounds went with him to heaven then are you saying the paraplegic will continue to have to use a wheelchair in heaven for lack of missing limbs? Those who died in fire will walk around with dripping flesh? Lepers will carry leprosy-scarred skin with them?
You didn't answer the question. Probably because you DO believe Jesus deceived the disciples.
According to tradition, the Apostle Luke got the story of the Nativity from Mary, herself. Is it out of the question to assume that he and some of the other Apostles may have witnessed Mary's Assumption and told the followers of Jesus about it? If it's not in the Bible, that wouldn't be unusual, after all, the Gospels are the story of Jesus's Incarnation, His public life of ministry, His Crucifixion, and His Resurrection. The letters from Paul, Peter and the other apostles to the new Christian communties were exhortations to live as Jesus had taught.
The New Testament is not Mary's story. That's why it doesn't include stories of what she did when she left Jerusalem, after Jesus's Ascension. We know Jesus placed her in the care of the youngest Apostle, and there are suggestions that she eventually moved to Ephesus, where there was a new Christian community. There is a house there that is purported to be that of Mary. But that isn't in the New Testament, either, even though Paul writes to the Ephesians several times.
I choose to believe that it is tradition, passed down through the teachings of the Apostles, and later their disciples. You may not believe it, but I don't know of any evidence that it isn't true.
bumpus ad summum
Neither did you.
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.