Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by AcesLucky on June 29, 2009 at 4:29pm

I think they accept carbon dating when it can be used in their favor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JayBarti on June 29, 2009 at 6:11pm

True this is ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by unholyroller on June 29, 2009 at 7:29pm

Indeed.......but how many True Brlievers will swallow the story as fact....no questions asked? Nothing less than DNA would convince me, and since that's impossible.....well.....'scuse my skepticism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Daoust on June 29, 2009 at 8:02pm

It could be true, but more than likely it is not. The Catholic Church is the greatest deceiver in history. For believers they will believe it because they want it to be true. Once you swallow a load of bullshit, more doesn't matter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Somnolent Aphid on June 30, 2009 at 12:39am

Clearly, the church is infallible. They must be the true bones.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Drawz on June 30, 2009 at 1:06am

I was at hannity.com when I saw this story posted and there were more than one poster who accepted it based on the Pope's say so alone. Now John Paul II accepted the theory of evolution, which includes science like carbon dating but the folks rushing to affirm their belief that these are Pauls bones don't, for some reason, agree with his Holiness on that point. They do however seem more than willing to accept Benedicts rather unsubstantiated claim that these are Pauls remains. All the science says is that they found someone's bones that fit the time and place that Paul was supposed to be buried. Maybe it's him, maybe it's not but the Catholics seem to be much more credulous when they're dealing with something they want to believe. But then I suppose most of us are.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Tobin on June 30, 2009 at 7:40am

More proof for my articles on other Groups about the true history of the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church. Yes, the bones could be anybody's. As far as Canonization is concerned that is one big joke. Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, were only names given much later by the Church. The identity of the writers of the Gospels is unknown. How about St. Veronica. There was no person of that name as this article shows: There is no reference to the story of St Veronica and her veil in the canonical Gospels. The closest is the miracle of the woman who was healed by touching the hem of Jesus’ garment (Luke 8:43–48) her name is later identified as Veronica by the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate". The story was later elaborated in the 11th century by adding that Christ gave her a portrait of himself on a cloth, with which she later cured the Emperor Tiberius. The linking of this with the bearing of the cross in the Passion, and the miraculous appearance of the image only occurs around 1380, in the internationally popular book Meditations on the life of Christ.[4] The story of Veronica is celebrated in the sixth Station of the Cross.[5]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the name "Veronica" comes from the Latin vera, meaning "true" or "truthful", and the Greek eikon, meaning "image"; the Veil of Veronica was therefore largely regarded in medieval times as the "true image", the truthful representation of Jesus, preceding the Shroud of Turin.[3]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on June 30, 2009 at 9:40pm

Either the bones are Paul's, or they are not.

If they are not, it does not prove that there was not a Paul. Only that it's not him in the box.

If they are Paul, then it does not prove that Paul was a saint. Only that he's been kept in the box for a very long time.

As others state, the fact that the bones came from Paul's time does not prove they are his. They don't prove that he existed. I don't know if there is independent historical evidence for the existence of Paul, or not, but if there was, that still proves nothing. So a Roman soldier in the mysterious East had a psychotic break and became a cult leader. It doesn't prove the existence of Jesus, doesn't improve existence of Yahweh, doesnt prove existence of Mary.

It does appear to prove the existence of the catholic church, but we already knew that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on July 1, 2009 at 4:53am

Thanks for correcting me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colin Frewin on July 1, 2009 at 5:00am

I'm surprised that they waited until the bones were dated!, but i guess they wanted 100% undeniable proof so used a little bit of science. When was it that they denied that carbon dating was 100% proof?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on July 1, 2009 at 4:19pm

It is highly likely that Paul existed (or someone like him) in that there was surely a founder of the most powerful mind control network in history.

How can we know these bones belonged to this founder. There is no science that can test for that.

In the end - who gives a rats ass?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pol o'maoleoin on July 1, 2009 at 6:27pm

Whether they are his bones or not (and i doubt it), Im sceptical of any 'relic' that involves constantine who built the basilica over the 'grave' 250+ years afterwards. Him & his lady were so fond of 'relics' they practically founded an industry for them (his wife bought the WHOLE cross at one stage...oh and the steps Jesus mounted to be dealt with by Pontius P)...Folklore i reckon led to an old grave being identified as Paul's grave.....

I live in France and anxiously await the carbon-dating of the FOUR foreskins of baby Jesus that are in various cathedrals here, along with breast milk of mary, various tears of Jesus, and probably his rattle too

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page