No proof that Vatican bones are St Paul's, says Dutch expert
Europe News
Jun 29, 2009, 16:28 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1
Yawn. We needed an expert to tell us that we don't know what St. Paul looked like so we can't say anything. When it comes to religious figures, people are excruciatingly exacting in what they will accept as possible. But if this were some secular personage, there would be much less doubt. The reason is that anything that supports religious tradition is false until indubitably proven otherwise. So here is a person, right age per C14, in a tomb bearing the name Apostle Paul, Martyr, clothed in royal purple and sequins. But we can't even go there...Gotta be indubitable. Stupid Christians. Stupid Pope. Bunch of myth bearing fools.I love experts.
Good point. I just read an article entitled 'Prehistoric European Cave Artists Were Female'. The article reports that experts determine that handprints on the cave drawings as being female prove that women painted the drawings. Seems to be a fairly ok assumption. But given the likes of what the Dutch expert contends, we shouldn't be able to make such a conclusion. Afterall, maybe the men made the drawings and had women imprint their hand. Something like they represented everything they wanted to acquire...more animals and more women. So why do scientists have no problem with some assumptions but attack others when they both seem to engage the obvious. I wonder what the Dutch expert would say to this article...if he were consistent he should say that we do not know what the handprints mean to represent (a signature or a wish or simply the presence of women) and therefore we cannot say that women drew the pictures. Yeah, I love experts too. They can be so logical when the 'feel' like it.
I'm glad someone is pointing out the obvious. The 'proof' reports don't say anything specific about the 'scientist' that did the tests, except that they didn't know where the material came from - great! No provenance! No chain of custody? Nice.
Not to mention the reports that there are holes drilled in the sarcophagus (since filled in) so that the faithful through the middle ages could shove stuff in, like incense and bits of cloth or prayers. There is nothing about this 'sealed' coffin that can be definitively established at this time.
Why do Christians insist on 'proving' the absolute truth of their infallible faith and then insist on doing such a poor job of it? There's little actual evidence of the existence of 'St Paul' other than folk tale. But if the story of 'St Paul' helps a person in their own modern life to hold on in times of trouble and be a better person throughout - what is the value of 'proof' anyway?
The only reason to insist on religious proof is to stick it to someone who doesn't believe as you believe. It's not about being a better person yourself. You can do that without 'proof.'
The writer above asks 'Why do Christians insist on 'proving' the absolute truth of their infallible faith and then insist on doing such a poor job of it?'
The above statement demonstrates two glaring errors: one, Christians do not so insist - faith by definition is of things unseen, it cannot be proven scientifically. All that is involved here is collecting evidence to support the constant bimillenial traditon that St. Paul is in fact buried in St. Paul's tomb. That has nothing to do with the Catholic faith itself.
Two: there is no effort to prove the faith scientifically, so there can be no 'poor job' of it as there is no 'job' of it at all. Heaven cannot be detected with thermometers, x-rays, etc., nor can God, Who is existence itself, not a limited being like us. There is abundant evidence for most of the truths of the faith, such as over 500 eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ (see Acts) and so on, but the person who wants to regard the faith like measuring a rock will be disappointed in one sense (faith cannot be measured like such trivial realities as dirt), and relieved in another (faith regards realities far beyond what we experience here - thankfully).
Faith is a supernatural gift - a power, given to those who ask for it or for whom others have asked (prayed) and who accept it. For those who do not beleive, no proof will ever suffice. For those given the gift, no proof is necessary as the gift itself suffices.
Here is a prayer for the above writer - God grant you the grace of desiring the faith.
Sorry Linda but your 500 witnesses & the Book of Acts are almost certainly second century fabrications with no more authority or veracity than a 2100 AD report of what you had for breakfast this morning...
It's OK. I used to think the New Testament was reliable too. Look into it...it ain't.
Cheers
-evan
Kinda hard to believe this would be 'Saint Paul', as it is fairly obvious that 'Paul' was in fact Apollonius of Tyana:
Is Apollonius of Tyana - Paul of Tarsus ?
Apollonius of Tyanna, a Pythagorean philosopher and contemporary of the Jesus Christ of the Gospels. Many agnostic and atheistic scholars as well as other free thinkers believe that some portions of the Gospels of Jesus Christ are actually modeled on the adventures of Apollonius. Quite possibly, due to the lack of historical evidence for Jesus as depicted in the Gospels. - some believe him to have actually been the Jesus Christ. Others postulate the theory that Paul the Apostle and Apollonius are one and the same.
Some scholars argue that Paul of Tarsus a/k/a Paul the Apostle did not exist, and that All of the original writings and teachings attributed to him in the New Testament are the writings and teachings of Apollonius of Tyanna. Other scholars present reasonable arguments that Paul was only a mythical character patterned after Apollonius.
The hypothesis that Apollonius was actually the apostle Paul lends itself much credence upon a brief review of the available facts..
1. Apollonius is a Greek name, the Latin Romanized version would be Apollos . Apollos over a period time as well as convenience morphed to Paulos. Paulos in its English format is Paul
2. Apollonius was born in the city of Tyana, in the Roman province of Cappadocia, in present day Turkey. At the age of twelve Apollonius went to Tarsus and was educated there, coincidentally Tarsus is the birthplace of Paul of Tarsus a/k/a Paul the apostle. Tarsus is the place Apollonius moved to at a young age and went to school, hence he could be referred to as Paul of Tarsus both Apollonius and Paul were in Tarsus at the same time in their youth, as Newman points out, Apollonius and Paul were also at Ephesus and Rome at at exactly the same time . Apollonius's biographer does not mention Paul at all, but Paul's biographer speaks of 'Apollos' having been at Ephesus with him. .Many of his teachings coincide with Paul of Tarsus, and Paul is said to have done many of the same things Apollonius did. {Catholic Authorities claim that Apollonius of Alexandria is the Apollos of the New Testament }
3. Both Paul of Tarsus and Apollonius were unmarried and as far as History records neither produced any progeny .
4. Martin Luther(Founder of Protestant- Christianity} believed Apollonius to be the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews . And there are strong cases that early Christian censors, and plagiarizers inserted the name Pol / Paul in place of Apollonius/apollos/paulos wherever it could be found, it remained in the New Testament as Apollos in some instances because the Paul character they were creating was the speaker in the instances in question . Fortunately, one book survived in its entirety- Life of Apollonius of Tyana - by Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana was secretly carried to the Near East where it remained over a 1000 years. In 1801 it was brought to Europe and was translated into English .
5. In the Greek text, Apollonius is commonly written as Pol as well as Apollos, 'Apollos' of the New Testament - the eloquent 'Jew' whose preaching and baptizing at Corinth and at Ephesus preceded the work of the Apostle Paul. Almost as if the narrative of Apollos is John the Baptist to Paul/Pol being Jesus.
I also agree. If it were a discovery of some secular individual, or even a nonchristian, say Mohammed for example, or mabey even an australopithecus jawbone, all doubts would be cast aside. If we would dare to disagree with the popular consensus, we would be considered the lowest of the low. Personally, I take with a grain of salt what ever the secular world brings forth as a spectacular discovery. I have more trust in the tried and true historical documents like the Bible than educated guesses.
i find it to be a very interesting fact that there are those that go out of their way to try and overturn the historicity of the Bible. Attempts have been made, and will continue to be made to try and overturn the Trust and the Faith of those who follow The Good Shepherd. My advise to those who try. Your attempts will prove futile. Don't you realize that they are engraved in the palm on His hands? Nothing can separate the love of God from those who love Him. Our spiritual forebears endured great testing and persecution but the Gates of Hell never prevailed. So today, like the Prophet Elijah, the last remnant will in the End will prove triumphant. Only then, and only at that time will the Mighty Power of God be vindicated. He is the Word of God made flesh.
I have read somewhere that the Pope sent the remains of both Peter and Paul to a Saxon King in England, probably to keep the Saxons Christian and not convert to Islam. If that were true, then who is in this tomb?
(Check on the Web for King Offa’s gold coins praising Allah!)
When scientist say that cave drawings were made by women, or a jaw bone is that of an early man, that are not claiming to know SPECIFICALLY who the women artist was, or what is the name of the early man. They think that the artist was a women, not Mary Smith. The Pope is saying it is St. Paul, not just any man. You compare the 2 as the same thing.
The expert is right in saying there is no way to prove it's St. Paul. I have no issue with the Pope saying it's St. Paul. Great, it's St Paul, rejoice, but it 'could be' any man.
And the reason that some of us want 'proof' of various Christian claims through the years, is not because we have a lack of faith, but more to do with the fact that Christians claim the Bible is the 'truth'. You can't argue faith as a Truth. Truth is a surety, faith is not.
Your point is well taken in stating that a nonbeliver would 'want proof of various Christian claims.' I must say in all due respect, it is not a Christians responsibility to provide proof to any nonbeliver. Like the Christian, he must search for the Truth like hidden treasure. That prerogative solely belongs to God. He has certain requirements He demands from all who come to Him seeking Truth. No. 1- To know God is the beginning of wisdom. If anyone wants to doubt the Bible or say it is a myth, he has a right to say it. Amazingly that freedom to deny Him was given by God Himself. And if a Christian believes the Bible is Truth and inspired by God, that is also his right to believe it to be so. In scripture it states, 'Behold I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my voice and open the door and let me in, I will come in to him, and will sup with him.' For anyone to be wise, he must first become a child in spirit. He must aquire a teachable spirit.
Ok, once again, the church proves itself to know it alls that, in fact of matter, it is quite faithful to the mode and manner of scientific inquiry that allows for the veracity of claims. I would refer 'Happy Sceptic' And Freed from Religion' to the following. You guys are at the base of it, anti-religous bigots and in actuality are fearful most of being incovenienced by a truth greater than you are what you can ascertain via empirical means. Religion is a matter of 'belief' for you which does not rise to the level of knowledge. You will accept only what is empirically true and empiricism is your criteria for undubitability. In short you are materialists.
Notice the Pope's fair mindedness when he uses the words 'This would seem to confirm...'
'Officials Discuss Investigation of Paul's Tomb'
Note Findings Concur With Tradition
ROME, JULY 3, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Investigation into the tomb held to be St. Paul's does not confirm that it is in fact the Apostle who is buried there, but it also does not contradict that tradition, Vatican officials noted.
Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, archpriest of the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, and Ulderico Santamaria, director of the diagnostic laboratory for the conservation and restoration of the Vatican Museums, discussed the investigations during a press conference today.
Benedict XVI had asked that the results of the research would not be announced until the close of the Pauline Jubilee Year, which ended last Monday. The Holy Father himself was the first to divulge the findings, during his homily at the Vespers service that brought the jubilee to an end.
The Pope explained: 'A tiny hole was drilled in the sarcophagus, which in so many centuries had never been opened, in order to insert a special probe which revealed traces of a precious purple-colored linen fabric, with a design in gold leaf, and a blue fabric with linen threads. Grains of red incense and protein and chalk substances were also found. In addition, minute fragments of bone were sent for carbon-14 testing by experts unaware of their provenance. The fragments proved to belong to someone who had lived between the first and second centuries. This would seem to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition which claims that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul.'
Cardinal Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo classifed the results as 'not only interesting but also [results] that mesh with' what is believed about the location of Paul's remains.
The cardinal, whose resignation as archpriest of the basilica for reasons of age was accepted today, indicated that further investigations could be a possibility in the future.
He noted that to actually open the sarcophagus will be difficult, because it will require dismantling the papal altar on top.
For his part, Santamaria explained how the technique of drilling into the sarcophagus 'reduced to a minimum [...] the risks of deteriorating the interior by preventing any oxygen from getting into the tomb.'
Nonsense. In short, I am not a Christian. But a fundamentalist Christian would of course argue that I must be faithless, rather than accept the truth that many of us hold a non-Christian faith. My faith does not depend on the equally fervent belief of others. It does not depend on outrageous literal 'truth.' Consequently I do not find myself in the bitter and awkward position of bending science go the will of myth nor brow-beating 'unbelievers.' But, again, the real villian here is the marketing whores of the media who reshape the news to flatter the majority views expressed in the latest opinion polls.
At least experts can be almost certain that the coffin does not contain the bones of Michael Jackson.
Hey common, no one in the Czech Republic under 70 believes in Jeebus anymore, the latin text was translated into Czech so everyone can see it has nothing to offer over Gilgamesh, Konfucius, Mahabharata or Book of Dead. Read the whole lot with enjoyment as nice beletry don't knee don't whip your back, be free! If you really need a crutch, study more and it will get better!
page: 1
Latest Headlines in Europe
- 1. Cyprus inaugurates new airport in Larnaca
- 2. Real beat luckless Atletico, stay one point behind Barca (Roundup)
- 3. Camoranesi's brace triggers Juve's hammering of Atalanta (Roundup)
- 4. Pedro the hero as Barcelona thrash Mallorca (1st Lead)
- 5. Nine-man Deportivo move up to fourth by winning in Getafe
USA
Your Talkback on this Story