At least that's what the church says. Bones contained in the Basilica of St Paul have been carbon dated and show that they are from a man who lived sometime in the first or second century. The church is saying this proves they are the bones of St Paul when they could really be bones from anyone who lived back then. What all do you think?

Here's the full story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/29/vatican.st.paul.bones/in...

Views: 6

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think they accept carbon dating when it can be used in their favor.
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.
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.
Clearly, the church is infallible. They must be the true bones.
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.
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]
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.
Thanks for correcting me.
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?
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?
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

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service