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:

Views: 133

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Okay, here's a few thoughts.

There are some catholic churches around the world, that "hold" holy relics. One such church my parents recently visited(on holiday). It is claimed they had the relics, from the 3 wise men. Because the relics were so fragile, they could not be tested by science but are reverred and are "proof" of God and the story for millions of humans.

Now, we all know what that means. Can't be tested...gee..what are you hiding?

The Catholic church is not filled with morons.They may have their motivations and they may lack integrity, but never presume a beliver is stupid. So this particular bone find is interesting is it not? The catholic church, is willing to concede that these bones are in fact dated correctly(Thanks secular science)...and that certain presumptions(IE catholic conclusions) can be drawn from them.

The major skeptic say's AWESOME!! The catholic chruch supports carbon dating. Let's go check these holy relics huh?If they are willing to test these bones, using secular science, why not the artifacts from the wise men?

My conclusion..the church DEFINATELY tests everything BEFOREHAND to confirm it's validity to itself. If science show's the artifact to be a fake, they will keep quiet, because the common man, not really understanding God himself(like the pope) must be kept within the faith. They do not even need to try, to attempt integrity. They know , their followers will trust them.

The church will ONLY allow testing to occur by the secular scientists if it supports their view.

I have no problem, if these are the remains of St Paul. I really don't care. St Paul, probably existed, and was probably instrumental in creating the original christian church..or he could have simply belonged to the sect of humans who so misunderstood the gospels, that he believed he could reduce "Jesus love" for the sinner, into his own..very jewish and rule based doctrine, which happend to support the leading rulers of the day. Take your pick.

Nevertheless. A very old body, carbon dated to a century means it is a very old body carbon dated to a centry. I am quite interested in knowing who it is. If they want to believe it is be it. I doubt every part of human history told around camp fires and written down is a lie. Moses was probably real. As was Jesus.

So what?

I will finalize my comments by saying, that I honestly think athiests are sometimes threatened by the wrong things. As though THIS grave and THIS body belonging to Paul..some-how makes religion true. It just makes the characters of the bible, human and real which I've alway's suspected they were. I dont' care, if we find mary's body, in a tomb with writings of the 1st century, claiming Mary witnessed the human ressurection.

How many athiests, are "threatened" by religious claims? This is what you need to ask yourself. Maybe, Paul was real. Maybe he believed what he taught, and maybe he was buried within an ancient tradition and his bones are found.

Does that mean God died for our sins? Does Paul existing..mean there is a God after all?
I think you are enhancing my point? Some athiests seem to see these things and are threatened by them.

I'm not. I dont' care if they are St Pauls bones. He probably existed and his bones may even be hanging around. I agree with you about who he may be. I also think whatever he experienced, would have been written down in accordance with the language of the day and must be interpreted by scholars..of integrity to find their meaning.

It just seems that athiests will refute ANY evidence of any religious "truth" (Ie St paul existed) when there is no reason to do so.

In the same way, the bible is not proof of anything, the bones of ST paul are not proof of religious claims(of divninity etc) either. It's not something to get worked up about.
The Church appears to like carbon dating when it supports their claims.

However, they still trot out the Shroud of Turin every few years even though its been carbon dated to the 13th Century

Roses are Red
Violets are bluish
If it weren't for Paul
We would all be Jewish.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service