Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope: Scientific analysis done on St. Paul's bones
The Detroit News Online ^ | Jun 28, 5:30 PM EDT | NICOLE WINFIELD

Posted on 06/28/2009 4:07:41 PM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Not gonna take it anymore

What is so cool about this scam? How the hell can anyone prove those bones are paul’s. Do they have his dna? Right!


21 posted on 06/28/2009 4:44:22 PM PDT by gedeon3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gedeon3
What is so cool about this scam? How the hell can anyone prove those bones are paul’s. Do they have his dna? Right!

Maybe, however there are historical considerations:

1. The tomb is in the ONLY location that has ever been claimed as the tomb of Saint Paul.

2. The ancient inscription on the tomb says "Paul, Apostle, Martyr".

3. These studies seem to confirm that the tomb contains human bones.

Based on this, there is a strong possibility that they are Paul's bones. Keep in mind that Sts. Peter and Paul were revered by the early Christians, it is implausible that they would have incorrectly identified or forgotten the locations of their tombs.

22 posted on 06/28/2009 4:56:28 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

They didn’t worship Mary (especially after Jesus rebuked them for giving her special status at a wedding...see Bible), so it’s not so strange that she wouldn’t be found buried under a church like the Apostle Paul, or her possessions idolized and worshiped in shrines....until much later. Interesting logic, though.


23 posted on 06/28/2009 5:34:34 PM PDT by Cherokee Conservative (When Obama screws up healthcare, where will the Canadians go for their surgeries?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

“For those who deny the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary: How do you explain the total absence of any reputed relics of the B.V.M. in all of Church history? If the early Christians did not believe in the Assumption, wouldn’t there have been real and/or reputed relics somewhere? And if the early Christians DID believe in the Assumption, why don’t you?”

Could it be that they didn’t worry about “relics” during the first century? Could it be that they didn’t deify Mary even though she was the mother of Christ?

Could it be that Mary being a Jew, was buried according to custom and then her bones moved and mingled with those of her husband?

Christ is the deity, not Mary.


24 posted on 06/28/2009 6:06:47 PM PDT by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore

Bookmark


25 posted on 06/28/2009 7:38:34 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

LOL...


26 posted on 06/28/2009 8:21:33 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HangnJudge

Or the Ark...


27 posted on 06/28/2009 8:22:08 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo

Good insight.


28 posted on 06/28/2009 8:24:02 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore
Benedict said scientists had conducted carbon dating tests on bone fragments found inside the sarcophagus and confirmed that they date from the first or second century

The rest of the article says that "this confirms [sic] that these are St. Paul's bones"!

Considering that Paul died c. 56 AD, this is laughable...besides it could be anybody's bones. Maybe the good fathers should stick with their spiritual truths and not make scientific pronouncements in a dogmatic way.

29 posted on 06/28/2009 9:42:28 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; gedeon3
Based on this, there is a strong possibility that they are Paul's bones. Keep in mind that Sts. Peter and Paul were revered by the early Christians, it is implausible that they would have incorrectly identified or forgotten the locations of their tombs

First the article says "This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul." But in fact this doesn't confirm anything except that there are bones, and they are 1st or second century.

Second, if the early church could forget where Jesus' tomb was, or the tomb where his Mother was buried, or other apostles, why are Peter and Paul more important?

Third, when was this tomb made, in what year?

30 posted on 06/28/2009 9:56:25 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore
...they discovered alongside the bone fragments...a "precious" piece of purple linen with gold sequins...

That tickled me. Apparently, Paul not only preached the gospel to gentiles, but to pole dancers also.

I remember Jesus breaking bread with sinners and tax collectors, so maybe it all makes sense.

31 posted on 06/28/2009 10:08:56 PM PDT by Publius (Gresham's Law: Bad victims drive good victims out of the market.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore

Fascinating!


32 posted on 06/29/2009 8:12:40 AM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

According to tradition, Paul’s body was buried two miles away from the place of his martyrdom, in the sepulchral area along the Ostiense Way, owned by a Christian woman named Lucina. Upon it was erected a tropaeum which quickly became a place of veneration

Constantine I erected a basilica on the site of the tropaeum, significantly extended by Theodosius I from 386, now known as the Saint Paul Outside the Walls. During the 4th century, Paul’s remains were moved into a sarcophagus, except for the head, which according to church tradition rests at the Lateran. Paul’s tomb is below a marble tombstone in the Basilica’s crypt, at 1.37 meters below the altar. The tombstone bears the Latin inscription PAULO APOSTOLO MART (”to Paul the apostle and martyr”). The inscribed portion of the tombstone has three holes, two square and one circular. The circular hole is connected to the tomb by a pipeline, reflecting the Roman custom of pouring perfumes inside the sarcophagus. The sarcophagus below the tombstone measures 2.55 meters long, 1.25 meters wide and 0.97 high.

The discovery of the sarcophagus is mentioned in the chronicle of the Benedictine monastery attached to the Basilica, in regard to the 19th century rebuilding. Unlike other sarcophagi found at that time, this was not mentioned in the excavation papers.


33 posted on 06/29/2009 7:48:03 PM PDT by VAFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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