[imardmd1]

Though the apostle Paul, a Roman citizen raised in the Roman colony Tarsus and likely having Latin as his native language, had the inspired Greek words of the epistle to the Philippians written down, these were the words translated into Latin that appeared on this silver amulet that is under discussion here.

The only thing that one now can legitimately presume is that the person buried with that treasured article was almost certainly a professor of faith in the Christ of the scripture in it.

And that is all. He may have been only passing through, when he passed on, eh?

You find it too easy to use the words "ignorant" and "blathering" to impugn the person who deflates your assumption that Latin was the medium in which the sacred (inspired) documents of the early (when?) church (singular) were circulated.

Your logic there is false.

Beyond question, it was in the Koine Greek that the early Christians communicated the history of Jesus' earthly ministry and the founding facts of how the New Covenant was to be administered. These documents were translated into many other languages, one of them being Latin, and that rather poorly.

So, who is the ignorant one in this debate? The one who resorts to name-calling? The one who trusts that "church" is to be made a proper noun in English, and only applies to the one organization claiming sole ownership of The Faith and the Vatican as its headquarters?