Apostle Paul's bones may have been found

I think you're aiming at the wrong group there 100p. Modern catholicism is pretty supportive of science.
 
It's more than a tad amusing that we find bodies all the time that go unidentified yet somehow we can identify the remains of "Paul" or some russian kids, etc. or somehow piece together what actually happened at the Alamo. We can't even agree on how we got ourselves involved in Iraq.
 
Do they have DNA from his toothbrush to compare? I don't see how you could ever really know. I'm kinda in the who cares category. What's the Pope gonna do, worship them, make soup?
 
The pope may cite them as relics hoping to increase interest in Roman Catholicism.

I think finds like this are very interesting because we always learn much about the past.

It would take a lot to convince me this is Paul's remains though. The fact the body is wrapped in purple linen with gold laminate would be evidence to me it is not Paul. From his writing he just doesn't strike as a guy who would have that kind of thing.
 
a. Christian tradition is that the basilica was build around a memorial at the site where Paul was buried after martyrdom.
b. Christian tradition is that in the 4th century, when the basilica was built on the location, that the relics were moved to a sarcophagus under the altar.
c. The preparation of the relics in the sarcophagus correspond to the typical practice regarding major relics during the 4th century.
d. The sarcophagus is under a marble tombstone that says "The apostle and martyr Paul"
e. Modern science puts the relics as being from the 1st century.

Whoever prepped those relics for the sarcophagus was operating under the impression that they were extremely important relics. The tombstone the sarcophagus was buried under says "This is Paul. Yes, that Paul." It seems pretty reasonable to me to conclude that the relics in the sarcophagus were the same relics that the original memorial for Paul was built around in the late 1st century. Doesn't seem like much of a leap to come to the conclusion that the relics are, at the very least, the same relics that had been venerated as Paul's from the 1st to 4th century. Whether they are actually Paul's or not can never be determined, but since the time of Paul's death people have been treating them as if they are.
 
How the apostle Paul was buried would have little to do with how he eschewed luxury but more how those who revered and loved him wanted his remains entombed.

It is an exciting find. I do not understand the logic of those who think it will help the Catholic Church. I see it as an important find for all Christians whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, or etc.
 
I'm as atheist as they come, and I think this is pretty cool!

Loop, would you say the same thing if they thought they discovered King Arthur's body or someone else like that? Do you not care about historical remains, or are you just anti-religion? Maybe you just need to re-watch "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
biggrin.gif
 
Several years ago when I was in Rome I had the opportunity to go on the Scavi tour of the catacombs undeneath the altar in St. Peter's Basicalla. It was amazing to the point of being unreal to walk through the ancient burial sites that included the tombs of both pre-Christian Rome, as well as the tombs of early Christians. These tombs had been buried for centuries before being excavated in the mid-twentieth century, and extremely well preserved.

As stated above, the belief that these may be the bones of St. Paul are based on more than just carbon dating. It is based on modern science, archeology, and a thorough understanding of historical tradition.
 
This is a cool find for archeologists and Christians alike. Even more cool if it really is Paul (formerly known as Saul)

hookem.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top