Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remains of Apostle Paul May Have Been Found
Associated Press (excerpt) ^ | December 6, 2006

Posted on 12/06/2006 4:29:58 PM PST by 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 ~


(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apostle; apostlepaul; archaeology; catholic; christianity; godsgravesglyphs; paul; relics; rome; saintpaul; stpaul; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-409 next last
To: ops33

Not to cause debate, but is there reasoning as to why her body went to heaven?


251 posted on 12/07/2006 12:53:41 PM PST by Sensei Ern (http://www.myspace.com/reconcomedy - For a good time visit www.laurelbaptisttemple.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Beginning with post #14, I could see that this thread would largely degenerate into a Protestant v Catholic polemic.


252 posted on 12/07/2006 12:58:57 PM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, avoid the moor, where the powers of darkness are exalted.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Kolokotronis
By all appearances even the Gnostics knew the difference between Thomas and, say, John. It's just modern academics who don't. The only ones who ever disputed the place of the four Gospels were Marcionites, and they took away, not added.

I don't think it's that simple: they're not called the Gnostic Gospels, for nothing; the Epistle of Barnabas, at least, was accepted by many Christians as part of Scripture in the 2nd century, and the Church's struggle against all sorts of heretical movements started from the very beginning. Even Paul had to warn about those who "come and preach another Jesus whom we have not preached, ... or a different gospel which you have not accepted."(2 Corinthians 11:4)

Please read more carefully. That phrase [the surviving history] has nothing to do with "Tradition". It has to do with history in the ordinary sense...

I reiterate: that is Tradition. We know it the same way we know about Caesar conquering Gaul. It is the part of our history by which we know the Apostolic teachings accepted and handed on (the word 'tradition' is taken from the Latin 'trado, tradere' meaning to hand over) by their converts and their successors in the early Church.

Do texts start as Canonical? ... was John a part of the Canon as soon as it was put down on papyrus, or did it need to be added later?

In its more general sense, "canon" (like "the literary canon") means a body of writings generally accepted as having time-tested value. In the ecclesiastical sense, "canon" means an ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council. In any sense, "canon" always indicates something that has been ruled on and accepted. (Excuse me if this seems nit-picky, but we have to agree, one way or another, on what we mean by the word.)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a process stimulated by disputes, both within and without the Church, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.

So the Gospel of John was authentic, God-inspired Truth as soon as it was being conceptualized in the mind of John; it was authentic, God-inspired Tradition as soon as it came out of his mouth (e.g. handed on --- spoken to a group of disciples, or dictated to a scribe), and authentic, God-inspired Scripture as soon as it was written. But it wasn't Canon until it was "canonized" --- that is, it was acknowledged to be authentic, accepted by the Church.

I've always been mystified why anyone would take [the Lerins quote] seriously. If that's how you define orthodoxy, then by the surviving history (in the sense I intended that phrase in the first place) there's no orthodoxy at all.

I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by that. Orthodoxy is the truth that has been handed down to us. It is still being handed on: by word of mouth, in writing, in the example and lives of the Saints.

No?

Then how do you learn the truths of the Faith?

(P.S. Kolokotronis? I'm inviting you testimony here, my Orthodox brother!)

253 posted on 12/07/2006 12:59:10 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Glory to God in the highest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

You correctly point out that the content of the New Testament was only finalized several centuries after the death of Jesus, so that the "Bible alone" philosophy could not have been maintained by the early Christians since they did not have the complete Bible as we know it. The "Bible alone" doctrine is actually a fairly late invention in Christianity, indeed, it could aptly be called a "tradition of men." That said, it is not an entirely bad philosophy, but - again - people have differing interpretations of specific biblical passages, so even the "Bible alone" philosophy does not eliminate disputes over doctrine.


254 posted on 12/07/2006 1:07:04 PM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, avoid the moor, where the powers of darkness are exalted.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
But is simple forgiveness of the boy by the neighbor sufficient for the reparation of the wrong? Shouldn't the boy repay the neighbor for the broken window, in addition to asking for forgiveness?

Sure the boy (or sinner) should do restitution or pay back for wrongs done when/if possible.

However, paying back God? Don't think so.

255 posted on 12/07/2006 1:35:12 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
nobody claimed to have relics which would have come only from a dead body. Teeth, yes. Vertebrae, no.



(Sigh.) OK, and I have an ovary of Abraham Lincoln. Obvious hoax, and with no ecclesiastical approval, I double-dog-guarantee it.


I'm not vouching for the authenticity of any relics. It is highly probably that 100% of them are fakes. I am just refuting your statements (1). That nobody has ever claimed to have had relics of the Virgin Mary and (2) That nobody has ever claimed to have had relics of the Virgin Mary that could only have come after she died.

To make a blanket statement that nobody has ever made such claims is hard to defend without extensive research. And just a cursory Google search reveals claims that refute both of your assertions.

Lastly, I don't know if the bone in the cathedral in France was there with or without ecclesiastical approval or not. But that's not relevant to either of your assertions!

jas3
256 posted on 12/07/2006 1:39:03 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Our teaching is that he kept the wounds of his crucifixion by his own choice as a testemony of what he did.

That's what I believe as well.

257 posted on 12/07/2006 1:39:52 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

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

That's my point. They don't exist. Never have.

258 posted on 12/07/2006 1:45:06 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: jas3
Sorry: my expression was sloppy-- really sloppy --- so let me try again:

(1) considering the red-hot centuries-long multi-continent-wide enthusiasm for holy relics, if there were widespread belief that the remains of Mary's body were still one earth, there would have been widesread interest in either finding or fabricating such remains. But there wasn't, so there wasn't.

(2) If the Church taught that neither Jesus nor Mary left any earthly bodily remains, it would repudiate purported relics. It did, so it did.

Thank you for the correction, fellow FReeper. I misspoke myself.

And P.S., I think there were, over the centuries, instances of fraud; but there were also ongoing processes of authentication (as with the authentication of "Old Masters" artwork: people who had an interest--- devotional, financial, or otherwise--- were motivated to secure evidence and guarantees that they were getting the "real thing.") So no, I don't think that most of the relics are fraudulent.

259 posted on 12/07/2006 2:11:10 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Sipping a long, cool glass of sorry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

Paul Camarata was recently talking about St. Paul Outside the Wall on the Saintcast podcast. Interesting stuff for a Protestant to learn!


260 posted on 12/07/2006 2:15:44 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: what's up
However, paying back God? Don't think so.

Agreed. How would one go about doing that anyway? He owns it all - we're just being allowed to use it.

261 posted on 12/07/2006 2:19:47 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: what's up
If God can do whatever He wants, why is it so hard to entertain the possibility that He created Mary sinless, so as to be the perfect vessel for His Son, then desiring that she who bore Jesus not be corrupted in death, took her, bodily, to Him upon her death?

I'm not asking for you to believe it, only to not consider it a 'mere fancy', or some sort of lunacy or heresy, when it is entirely possible.

262 posted on 12/07/2006 2:28:27 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Sensei Ern
I'm not that knowledgeable of the finer points of Catholic teaching but if you go to the Catholic Encyclopedia website I'm sure you can find the reasoning behind the teaching.
263 posted on 12/07/2006 2:29:05 PM PST by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; A.J.Armitage

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

I say I agree. God inspired The Church and that inspiration is manifested in Holy Tradition, what The Church always and everywhere believed. That was the infallible yardstick by which The Church measured the "contending" writings for inclusion in the canon of scripture. But truth be told, the only real difficulties presented were Hebrews and Revelations. As to the rest, by the 370s Christians knew what was "in" and what wasn't. For example, for Christians of the 4th century, the idea that the Gnostic "Gospel of Thomas" would be included in the canon was a laughable as it is today. And the reason for that is that The Church knows and teaches us what Christians have always and everywhere believed in this regard.


264 posted on 12/07/2006 3:09:19 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

I put money in an envelope every Sunday for this?


265 posted on 12/07/2006 3:10:58 PM PST by toddlintown (Six bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; A.J.Armitage

"I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by that. Orthodoxy is the truth that has been handed down to us. It is still being handed on: by word of mouth, in writing, in the example and lives of the Saints."

In Holy Orthodoxy, we LIVE that Tradition, AJA. It is completely and thoroughly ALIVE.


266 posted on 12/07/2006 3:13:16 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Sure God can do anything he wants, but why would he do something that the Protestants disagree with?


267 posted on 12/07/2006 3:16:57 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

;o)


268 posted on 12/07/2006 3:24:34 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

They might find if they opened Paul's tomb that all of those explanations about sola scriptura are in there along with the proof that the Lord had very little regard for His mother and compared Peter to a pebble.


269 posted on 12/07/2006 3:27:28 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
I have no desire to see Paul's exhumed remains. None

me neither.

270 posted on 12/07/2006 3:45:37 PM PST by Theophilus (A person is a person no matter how small)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

Nobody is talking about doing that.


271 posted on 12/07/2006 3:58:54 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
If God can do whatever He wants, why is it so hard to entertain the possibility that He created Mary sinless

Because it contradicts a MAJOR doctrine central to and repeated over and over in the Bible (which is God's Word)...and God does not lie.

That's like saying God is going to revoke Heaven tomorrow for all believers. That would be against the promises of eternity with him for His children and would make God out to be a liar.

272 posted on 12/07/2006 4:45:02 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
I'm just glad St. Paul stopped requiring job seekers to disclose criminal records!

:-)

...Steve often says to me "At least *you* think you're funny..."

273 posted on 12/07/2006 4:50:34 PM PST by 2Jedismom (http://kimsbug.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: what's up; SuziQ
"Because it contradicts a MAJOR doctrine central to and repeated over and over in the Bible (which is God's Word)...and God does not lie."

How does it contradict THIS Scripture:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." (Ephesians 1:3-4)

That sure fits Mary to a T.

274 posted on 12/07/2006 5:33:20 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Holy and blameless, Gratia Plena.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

They are also needed to fulfill what is said of his return to the Jews.


275 posted on 12/07/2006 5:42:14 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

"One can need a Savior without ever committing an actual sin"

That' pretty theoretical since all of us have sinned, but if you have done no sins, why would you need someone to save you from your sins?

"or receiving original sin. One can need a Savior in order to prevent one from receiving original sin."

Original sin is a false teaching. We are not born guilty, we will eventually become guilty by our own choice and actions later on, but only Adam is guilty of what Adam did.

"Therefore, Christ sinned."

Christ is specifically cited as an exception and he would not be able to atone for our sins if he had sins of his own, nobody else is is said to be an exception, nobody else needed to be an exception.


276 posted on 12/07/2006 5:44:31 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Grig

What's really interesting is that according to the Catholic Church, believing that Mary was born without sin is required for salvation. It's right there in the pope's declaration.


277 posted on 12/07/2006 6:14:34 PM PST by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Grig
That' pretty theoretical since all of us have sinned,

Not Mary, according to the Church.

but if you have done no sins, why would you need someone to save you from your sins?

To save you from original sin.

Original sin is a false teaching.

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

-A8

278 posted on 12/07/2006 6:21:48 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Tao Yin; Grig
What's really interesting is that according to the Catholic Church, believing that Mary was born without sin is required for salvation.

Not true. The Church believes that Protestants can be saved without becoming Catholic, and without believing that Mary was born sinless.

-A8

279 posted on 12/07/2006 6:31:57 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Won't believe it 'til I see DNA evidence...


280 posted on 12/07/2006 6:37:35 PM PST by streetpreacher (RUDY/ROMNEY 2008: Supporting Marriage between a man and a woman, then a woman, then a woman...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
That sure fits Mary to a T.

Wrong. Notice the "us" in the verse...plural...not "she".

This does not connote just Mary, but all believers. John in Revelation says Christ was crucified from the foundation of the Earth; all believers were actually sanctifed before time began in a way.

However, all created humankind are sinners while living in Adam's fallen world in time. The scripture you pointed out does NOT delineate Mary as special.

281 posted on 12/07/2006 6:40:43 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: what's up; Mrs. Don-o

Yeah, what she said!


282 posted on 12/07/2006 7:10:43 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

In the MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, Pope Pius XII writes...

"Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

"It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

I'll try and find the specific reference to salvation requiring belief in Marian stuff, but this right here is pretty amazing. According the Pope Pius XII, I've completely fallen away from the diving and the Catholic Faith, and I'm going to incur the wrath of God, Peter and Paul. Amazing.


283 posted on 12/07/2006 7:11:34 PM PST by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: 2Jedismom

Or not accepting former persecutors!


284 posted on 12/07/2006 7:12:46 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Read post #281.

Her comment about the Ephesians verse doesn't make sense.

285 posted on 12/07/2006 7:18:18 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Tao Yin
Those who with full knowledge *reject* this teaching (i.e. the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) have indeed fallen away completely from the Catholic Faith. To hold to the Catholic Faith is to affirm all the dogmas of the Church. And those who *with full knowledge* reject the Catholic Faith are, according to the Catholic Church, not saved.

But it is not true that according to the Church one must believe in Mary's Immaculate Conception in order to be saved.

-A8

286 posted on 12/07/2006 7:45:20 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
So no, I don't think that most of the relics are fraudulent.

Have you ever been to Italy? Just about every church has a part of the "true" cross or a swatch of an article of clothing of the Virgin Mary. The sum total of all the wood chips and fabrics would be several tons in weight. I'm sure that MOST (if not all) of these relics are fake. And unlike the Rembrandt Project, which has done a reasonably good job of authenticating works, how can one authenticate a swatch of fabric or a piece of wood as being the real thing?

jas3
287 posted on 12/07/2006 7:45:32 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: what's up

Makes as much sense as any other Scripture quoted today.


288 posted on 12/07/2006 7:48:10 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Makes as much sense as any other Scripture quoted today.

Yes, the scripture makes sense.

Her explanation of it does not.

289 posted on 12/07/2006 8:12:23 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I don't think it's that simple: they're not called the Gnostic Gospels, for nothing;

Well, they were written by Gnostics and they purport to recount the words and/or actions of Jesus, so yes, they would be called "Gnostic Gospels". Not sure what you think that has to do with my post.

I reiterate: that is Tradition.

At first I thought you mistakenly assumed I was thinking of Cardinal Newman when I mentioned "history", but apparently now you insist on misreading any knowledge of the past as Tradition with a capital T. The only reply I can think of is to ask you to stop being silly.

Excuse me if this seems nit-picky, but we have to agree, one way or another, on what we mean by the word.

Either I'm not putting the question right or you're trying to dodge it. Ignore the word "Canon". Does the Church add anything or recognize what already exists?

The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a process stimulated by disputes, both within and without the Church, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.

The last line is inaccurate. The first ecumenical (or "ecumenical" for the EOs out there) council that said anything about the Canon was Trent. The only counciliar definitions before that were local. So the final form of the New Testament Canon preceeds the "dogmatic definition" by over a thousand years.

Which means (and this must seem an irony for someone in your position) that Christians throughout most of history have used a Canon with exactly the same basis Protestants still believe ours has.

I've always been mystified why anyone would take [the Lerins quote] seriously. If that's how you define orthodoxy, then by the surviving history (in the sense I intended that phrase in the first place) there's no orthodoxy at all.

I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by that. Orthodoxy is the truth that has been handed down to us. It is still being handed on: by word of mouth, in writing, in the example and lives of the Saints.

It would probably help if you read what Vincent said. I had assumed you knew, since you not only introduced him to the discussion but quoted him in Latin and English.

290 posted on 12/07/2006 9:37:00 PM PST by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: what's up
However, paying back God? Don't think so.

It's not a perfect analogy. That's why I included the formal definition.

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.
The debt is "payed back" by drawing on the merits of Christ. In a sense, God is paying back Himself, through His Church.
291 posted on 12/08/2006 4:49:46 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
For example, for Christians of the 4th century, the idea that the Gnostic "Gospel of Thomas" would be included in the canon was a laughable as it is today.

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

--The Gospel According to Thomas

Dan Brown, believes that the "patriarchal church" suppressed this supposed gospel. What a maroon.
292 posted on 12/08/2006 4:57:59 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

So salvation requires that you don't reject the Immaculate Conception after learning about it?

Weird how the apostles never mention such complications for salvation.


293 posted on 12/08/2006 5:49:50 AM PST by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Tao Yin
Weird how the apostles never mention such complications for salvation.

The Apostles were the foundation of the Church (a living organism), they were not merely the source of a set of dead doctrines. Dogma is clarified and made explicit over time by the Church. Did first century Catholics have to accept formally the doctrine of the Trinity in order to be saved? No. That doctrine was not made formally explicit until the First Ecumenical Council, 300 years after Christ ascended. And likewise with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It was not made formally explicit until 1800 years after Christ ascended.

-A8

294 posted on 12/08/2006 7:41:11 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: what's up
I didn't say Mary was special as per that one verse. I just said she was included in "us," and that therefore her being prepared to be "holy and blameless" from the beginning did not contradict this Scripture; nor does it contradict the character of God to do such a thing.

The very fact that some verses of Scripture says that none are sinless, none are "just," none are holy but God; and others say, for instance, that Joseph was "a just man" and God chose "us" to be holy and blameless before Him, means, at the very least, that we need to interpret these Scriptures in a wide and authoritative context.

Which is just what you (or I) who do proof-texting by one-liners cannot do.

Catholics and Orthodox --- and others, if they wish to --- do well to pay close attention to how the earliest disciples and successors of the Apostles came to understand and interpret these texts. This is called "Sacred Tradition,"-- its study comprises Patristics (the study of the Fathers) and it is of particular importance to Catholic and Orthodox theology; many Protestants study and benefit from it as well.

Be careful, though. The further back you go, back to the Third, the Second, the First Christian centuries ---Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Andrew of Crete --- the more Catholic and Orthodox your thinking will become.

Fair warning, my FReeper friends.

295 posted on 12/08/2006 8:03:01 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (We're very interested.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I'm not sure I understand what what you mean, this is what we were talking about:

"...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

296 posted on 12/08/2006 8:34:53 AM PST by Theophilus (Sola Scriptura!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: jas3
I read somewhere (sorry, I couldn't find it in Google) that the many, many relics of the True Cross are mostly mere splinters of wood, and that a modern estimate of their total aggregate weight comes to about 70 kilograms. Which is not too bad as a ballpark estimate of the weight of a cross.

In any case, we know from hsitory that the ermpoeror Constantine's mother, Helena Augusta, found the remains of Christ's cross on her quest to the province of Palestine in 327-328 AD. You may be skeptical about this, but it is as well-attested historically as anything we know about the ancient world, e.g. Julius Caesar's war in Gaul.

297 posted on 12/08/2006 8:40:26 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (We're very interested.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

I think you are reading it wrong.

It says the remains of THE TOMB. It does not say St. Paul's remains.

There is a difference, one is talking about a sarcophagus, the other is talking about human remains.

What they intend to display is the sarcophagus, kind of like the one I pictured in #198.


298 posted on 12/08/2006 8:47:17 AM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
The Apostles were the foundation of the Church (a living organism), they were not merely the source of a set of dead doctrines.

Wow! Are you saying that without the RCC to add to the theology of the apostles that the faith is dead?

I know you believe that the RCC isn't adding to the faith, but seriously... How long is the list of things that can't be denied so that salvation is guaranteed?

I'm curious how much longer it's going to take to clarify and make explicit the requirements and stipulations of salvation.

I guess that's the difference. I believe that everything required of salvation can be found in the Bible. I also believe that the Bible isn't a dead document without the RCC.

Weird, but this reminds me of the debate over the constitution's interpretation and intent.

299 posted on 12/08/2006 8:52:30 AM PST by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: ops33

scripture reference?


300 posted on 12/08/2006 8:54:55 AM PST by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-409 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson