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 ...
"what is the difference between "assumed" (taken up) and ascention? (moving upward)"
Christ with his own power as God raised himself to heaven.
Mary was raised to heaven, not by her own power (she is of course not God), but by God's power.
oh, geeze...you couldn't let sleeping dogs lie, could you?
I'm getting ready for about 40 posts full of snotty, pious name calling all followed with the assurance that "THIS" (whatever "this" is at the moment) is exactly what Jesus would have wanted.
The conservative movement is dead. There are no new ideas and damned few ideas of any kind, especially in threads like this.
On the other hand, if you want arrogant, self righteous high dudgeon and (squeeky old lady voice)"JesusJesusJesus", then buddy, this is just the right website for you!
I have come to the conclusion that there are lots of damned stupid people out there self-describing themselves as "conservatives".
The end result is the same, and the end result is the same for a person who dies and is later resurected and goes to heaven.
If Christ was not too good for death and rotting in the grave (for a short time at least) then it doesn't nothing to dishonour Mary or anyone else to die as well.
I'm surprised this thread is so focused on Mary instead of how wrong it is to make an object of veneration out of Paul's tomb.
"The end result is the same, and the end result is the same for a person who dies and is later resurected and goes to heaven.
If Christ was not too good for death and rotting in the grave (for a short time at least) then it doesn't nothing to dishonour Mary or anyone else to die as well."
As to whether or not Mary died, to my knowledge, there is no biblical, historical, or widely held traditional belief.
I think, however, that it is important to note that IAW Catholic belief, Mary did not raise herself to heaven on her own, but was raised by the action of God.
"I'm surprised this thread is so focused on Mary..."
The Mary focus was brought in after the thread was hijacked.
"... how wrong it is to make an object of veneration of Paul's tomb."
If you wish to believe that it is wrong to venerate the relics of St. Paul that is your prerogative.
Hundreds of millions of Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and Protestant Christians, however, do not likely agree with you on this point.
Thank you for the explanation.
"Hundreds of millions of Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and Protestant Christians, however, do not likely agree with you on this point."
Well, perhaps I misunderstand what is meant by venerate in the article. I have no problem with people wanting to pay their respects or respecting the sancity of a grave (as would be the case for any grave), but when you start fostering the idea that physical objects (including dead bodies) have some kind of inherent mystical power or that they are worthy of some form or minor worship then you are getting into the realm of idolitry.
BTW, a saint was the term used for any Christian originally. The Catholic concept of Sainthood is another tradition men created later on. Paul was a man, his calling was divine, not he himself.
It's really interesting that every verse that the RCC uses to prove their point seems to point the direct opposite.
Grace is something freely given and not earned. Grace is not based on the receiver's value, but the giver's love. If the Lord filled Mary with grace, then she is getting something she doesn't deserve. Not only was Mary unworthy to have Jesus, she was totally unworthy. No woman was worthy to birth Jesus.
If Mary was born without sin and worthy to birth Jesus, she wouldn't need to be full of grace because grace is only needed when we are unworthy of the gift. The angel used the present tense "full of grace" because she was unworthy at that moment.
Mary herself says she is the bondservant of God; a slave deserving no wages and nothing in return. She is not the co-redeemer, she is a Godly obedient woman.
I'm not aware of anything in the Bible that says anything about that one way or another. Have you ever been to a wake and viewed the body? It's an empty shell. That person no longer occupies that body. If the Bible contradicts me, I will defer to it. :-)
"...but when you start fostering the idea that physical objects (including dead bodies) have some kind of inherent mystical power or that they are worthy of some form or minor worship then you are getting into the realm of idolitry."
Agreed. This is not Catholic belief.
"BTW, a saint was the term used for any Christian originally. The Catholic concept of Sainthood is another tradition men created later on."
In the Roman tradition of Catholic Christianity the word Sanctus means holy. It can be applied to the people of God, living or dead. Used with a persons name e.g. St. Paul, it implies a belief that that person is with God in heaven.
This traditional practice is held by Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and many Protestant Christians.
And why is that?
According to Catholic doctrine and the traditions of the Catholic Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary (Mary, the mother of Jesus) "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." This means that Mary was transported into Heaven with her body and soul united. The feast day recognizing Mary's passage into Heaven is celebrated as The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Roman Catholics. This doctrine was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950 in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.
Here's an incomplete list of ancient books which failed to make the cut.
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
The Gospel of Bartholomew
You don't believe in them, and neither do I. So I ask again: who determined the Canon? And on what basis?
Have you noticed that the ONLY sites which purport to be Marian apparitions that have been 'approved' by the Church are those at which Jesus IS glorified, and are ones where people are led TO Christ? There are a lot of kooks in the world, and one can claim any sort of 'apparition', but the Church is very wary about putting any store in the claims before some diligent research. If Mary is helping to lead God's people, she would be leading them TO Him, not away from Him. As for the title of Co-Redemptrix; it is simply a statement of the fact that Mary was an active participant in the Redemption of man by virtue of her "Yes" to God's invitation to be that "Woman of the Promise", foretold in prophesy. It was she who brought forth Jesus into this world, as the Father had planned, so she is an important figure in our Redemption. The Church does not teach that she did the redeeming, only that she was the one who God chose to make it possible for us.
Catholics venerate and honor Mary, as led by Jesus's own example; we do not worship her. As for the 'tradition' not being explicitly in the Bible, and thus you find it difficult to accept, what about the teachings of Jesus that ARE explicit in the Word of God that you don't accept, such as the primacy of Peter, and the Real Presence?
We could bandy Scripture about all day long, but as far as tradition is concerned, 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 who DID keep her story alive for the successive generations. They didn't make it up out of whole cloth a millenia later; they continued her story from its inception. As for the idea that Mary couldn't possibly have been conceived without sin, I personally believe that anything is possible with God, and if He wanted the mother of His Son to be sinless, so as to be a worthy vessel, He certainly could have done so. Far be it from me to put any limits on what He can do. And as was pointed out before, Christ was fully human, as well as fully Divine, yet he was also born without sin.
Included in the burial were pieces of wood certain to be fragments of the True Cross.
Han Solo's mom? :) (sorry, couldn't resist)
Apostle Paul - a real relic! ;-)