Saint Paul's Tomb Discovered?

It seems that they have already decided it contains Saint Paul. And I am not sure those who are working on the project are going to be "objective".

"Our objective was to bring the remains of the tomb back to light for devotional reasons, so that it could be venerated and be visible," said Giorgio Filippi, the Vatican archaeologist who headed the project at St. Paul Outside the Walls basilica.
Click to expand...

If only there was some DNA to compare.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
It seems that they have already decided it contains Saint Paul. And I am not sure those who are working on the project are going to be "objective".



If only there was some DNA to compare.
Click to expand...

There are some hair samples for sale on ebay. ;)
 
no real need to "freak-out" about whether people in the bible are real or not. Refences to most of the main people in the bible can be found in other peoples\countries histories.

The real worry comes from people trying to say that everything in the bible is true and cannot be faulted.

After all the bible and god are a circlur argument - you can't have one with out the other
 
I have some St. Paul toe nails listed on ebay for anyone who needs an investment.
 
TheChadd said:
I don't get why this would 'freak you out' ?
Click to expand...


I think it is another 'hit' for believers to cling to and throw at you, while still ignoring all of the misses. I agree that is no reason to freak out any more than we already should be.

My argument back is always the same - Greek Epics and Tom Clancy novels are always set in real locations and reference real people, but that doesn't make any of the events that happen in them real. There is no more reason to accept the Bible because we found St. Paul's tomb as there is to accept that Medusa existed because we found the Ionian Islands.
 
Ok, so they found a tomb in Rome. How, exactly does that make it St. Paul's?

Marc
 
Marc L said:
Ok, so they found a tomb in Rome. How, exactly does that make it St. Paul's?

Marc
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking...it sounds as if they had the tomb set-up as St. Paul's years ago, but I saying it and it being so are two different things. Even if they find some moldy old bones, I don't know how they could prove they were St. Paul's without some pretty stellar evidence.

ETA: removed reference to DNA as unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
The only thing that I find really interesting is how'd they lose it? I mean, the church was built specifically to commemorate the tomb of St. Paul, one would have thought, over the centuries, that when rennovating or rebuilding after the fire in the 1820's, they'd have paid particular attention to the object of venneration. So, somewhere during the existence of the church to honor St. Paul, they lost track of his tomb?

On another note entirely, next time any of you are in Rome, contact the Vatican and try and take the "Scavi" tour under St. Peter's. There's an entire Roman necropolis being excavated under the site of St. Peter's...they started the excavation because they were'nt too sure of the site of St. Peter's tomb (sound familiar? They got to keep better records). Anyway, walking down Roman era streets knowing that you are under the Vatican is very strange and interesting...I don't advise it for clausterphobics, however.
 
headscratcher4 said:
So, somewhere during the existence of the church to honor St. Paul, they lost track of his tomb?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you hate to be the one that had to report he lost it? "Uh...Your Holiness... You know that guy that founded our religion and this whole building is for...yeah... we lost him."
 
One of his letters to the Corinthians was found recently,got lost amongst the Christmas mail.No-one to deliver to,but at least return addressee has turned up!
 
Read the story carefully:

Two ancient churches that once stood at the site of the current basilica were successively built over the spot where tradition said the saint had been buried. The second church, built by the Roman emperor Theodosius in the fourth century, left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt.

So the only thing that has happened is that 'tradition' has been reaffirmed.

The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.

The sarcophagus is for real, but we don't know what or who is inside. Personally, I don't think it makes a difference if the contents are analyzed. If it turns out the sarcophagus gets 'debunked', people would still go there as if it were the real thing, just like they do with the shroud of Turin.
 
headscratcher4 said:
The only thing that I find really interesting is how'd they lose it? I mean, the church was built specifically to commemorate the tomb of St. Paul, one would have thought, over the centuries, that when rennovating or rebuilding after the fire in the 1820's, they'd have paid particular attention to the object of venneration. So, somewhere during the existence of the church to honor St. Paul, they lost track of his tomb?
Click to expand...

They didn't exactly lose it. One church was built on the ruins of the other and the sarcophagus was buried. It was under the floor the whole time and people knew it was there, they just didn't want to dig the floor up. Somebody had to make a big management decision to dig it up. Of course, they still don't know for sure who is in it, just that tradition holds that it's St Paul.

eta: Sorry, didn't see that bjb said basically the same thing.
 
bjb said:
Read the story carefully:

Two ancient churches that once stood at the site of the current basilica were successively built over the spot where tradition said the saint had been buried. The second church, built by the Roman emperor Theodosius in the fourth century, left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt.

So the only thing that has happened is that 'tradition' has been reaffirmed.

The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.

The sarcophagus is for real, but we don't know what or who is inside. Personally, I don't think it makes a difference if the contents are analyzed. If it turns out the sarcophagus gets 'debunked', people would still go there as if it were the real thing, just like they do with the shroud of Turin.
Click to expand...

I don't know that the tradition would be confirmed unless they were able to confirm that St Paul is really there and I can't figure out how they would be able to confirm it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

EDIT: And if they really thought old boy was there, you would think they would want to dig it up and make sure there is access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom