Bones of St Paul confirmed?

fitz0

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0630/1224249784768.html

Anyone else hear this? From the details given it looks like the early church didn't go without either, even St Paul had "rich purple linen, laminated with gold." I'm surprised that the Vatican actually chose to get the bones analyzed even if it was by Vatican archaeologists.

Zillah

So?

robindch

I gather that carbon dating -- not the same unreliable thing that's rubbished by creationists, presumably -- has dated some bones to the first or second century.

Ratzinger has said that, since the coffin had "Paul apostle martyr" written on it, this "seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul". More here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/science/29vatican.html?_r=2&ref=science

It's the kind of thing that's probably best taken with a pinch of faith.

Dades

-- MOVED to Christianity --

Do with it what you will, Fanny, PDN.

It's all very Dan Brown!

the_dark_side

How was this done? Did they have dental records?

Fanny Cradock

So, assuming these are the bones of Paul, you are complaining that one of the most important and revered figures in Christianity was given an honoured burial by those who cared for him? Yes, how awful. They should have just thrown him in a river.

Anyway, thanks for being considerate enough to send this our way, Dades. However, given the direction this thread has already taken, a lock is in order.

Fanny Cradock

OK, by request I'm opening this thread again. Any messing will result in infractions and bans.

jhegarty

The article seems light on detail , but I presume the bones were re-buried at some stage. I can't imagine that the early Christians had the resources to produce a purple and gold coffin.

Was there any dating done on the non-bones contents ?

Owen

My understanding of the article is that they found bone fragments from between the 1st and 2nd centuries in the tomb, and are putting 2+2 together and claiming it is Paul. The evidence is all very circumstantial.

Húrin

No big deal. Not as if Paul's existence is contested.

postcynical

It's probably very interesting to scientists and historians but unless they find some of his writings buried with him, it's really not very important. Nice story though.

Pompey Magnus

It would be interesting if true but I'm not terribly convinced. The tomb dates from at least 390 AD so presumably whoever wrote "Paul apostle martyr" did not know the person buried in it.

Also the earliest tradition about Paul's death was from 1 Clement written around 95 AD by a member of the Roman Church and he implies that Paul died in Spain "He taught righteousness to the whole world, and came to the limits of the West, bearing his witness to the rulers. And so he was set free from this world...". A prominant Roman Christian would surely have been aware if Paul had been buried in his own city just a few decades earlier (quite possibly even during the lifetime of the author), but it seems as if the author of 1 Clement was not aware of this at all.

Its not for another hundred years that the first mention of Paul dying in Rome is found, in the Acts of Paul which is highly legendary and not at all a reliable historical document. This story looks just like modern Christians getting fooled by another phony Christian tourist trap of the Emperor Constantine and Helena Augusta, just like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

philologos

Charco: Given the New Testament account in Acts it seems most likely that Paul was martyred in Rome. As for "limits of the West" that could also refer to just entering into the Western part of the Roman Empire. Which from Acts is true if we are to believe that Paul arrived in Malta and Rome before dying.

PDN

I would be highly sceptical as to whether they are Paul's bones or not. Ecclesiastical authorities have a poor record in this regard given the 'discoveries' of many dubious relics over the years. In centuries gone by churches claimed to possess pieces of the True Cross, milk from the Virgin Mary's breasts, and in the Middle Ages at least fifteen separate churches claimed to possess an arm, hand, or finger of John the Baptist.

philologos

PDN: I'm also inclined to think that you are right to hold skepticism over this, because even amongst Catholic authorities and archaeologists there is a dispute over whether Peter died in Rome or in the Holy Land.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Charco: Given the New Testament account in Acts it seems most likely that Paul was martyred in Rome. As for "limits of the West" that could also refer to just entering into the Western part of the Roman Empire. Which from Acts is true if we are to believe that Paul arrived in Malta and Rome before dying.

Firstly Acts never mentions Paul's martyrdom, you are mixing up early and late traditions to make a claim that no ancient source actually makes. As Acts does not give details on how Paul died then we need to look outside the New Testament for evidence and the best we have is 1 Clement, which when read neutrally seems most likely to assert that Paul did not die in Rome.

Secondly I cannot see how any Roman could identify the city of Rome as being the "limits of the West", this really does seem to be clutching at straws. Rome was roughly in the centre of the Empire, this phrase clearly means that the author is claiming Paul died about as far west in the Empire as possible, which means Spain (or perhaps Gaul, North Africa or Britain).

Spain was a destination that Paul himself claimed he was intending to travel to so either the author of Clement was aware of a firm tradition in which Paul died in Spain or else Roman Christians were completely unaware of how Paul died or where he went to after Rome and so made the assumption, based on his letter to their Church, that he continued to Spain and died there.

The fact is that the first mention of Paul's death in Rome comes from an unreliable account written at the end of the second century.

philologos

Charco: If Paul had indeed gone to Spain, do you not think that would have featured in the book of Acts. No, rather instead Rome was the last destination if you look to Acts 28. That's where I am indicating from. That, and there being no Epistle to the Spaniards

hamsterboy

jhegarty wrote: »

The article seems light on detail , but I presume the bones were re-buried at some stage. I can't imagine that the early Christians had the resources to produce a purple and gold coffin.

Was there any dating done on the non-bones contents ?

Wow....an early christian martyr AND a true yellowbellied Wexican like meself

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Charco: If Paul had indeed gone to Spain, do you not think that would have featured in the book of Acts. No, rather instead Rome was the last destination if you look to Acts 28. That's where I am indicating from. That, and there being no Epistle to the Spaniards

Spain wouldn't feature in Acts if Paul died before accomplishing anything there, why would it? Rome is indeed the last destination mentioned in Acts, but there is nothing here to assume that Paul did not travel elsewhere after Rome. I would also argue that Acts may not be a completely reliable history of Paul as it seems to be at odds with Paul on certain details so I don't have full faith in trust what Acts says.

Also Paul only wrote epistles to churches he founded (except to the already established church of the Romans which was an exception), if Paul did not found a church in Spain then there would be no-one for him to write an epistle to.

philologos

Who said that Paul was in Spain at all? I think you are reading into Clements work so as to promote your own view. You're not understanding me Charco, you say there is nothing to assume he didn't travel. I'm saying there is, given the account that Paul was ordered to Rome to put his case before the Emperor. If you look to when Paul was being interviewed by Felix, Agrippa, and Festus this is the context we are given for why Paul was going to Rome. Paul was going to Rome for a specific purpose. He wouldn't have had the freedom to go to Spain. It's highly unlikely that Paul went to Spain at all.

As for Paul and Epistles to churches he founded, I disagree with you. Paul didn't found the church in Rome, he merely visited it.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

I would also argue that Acts may not be a completely reliable history of Paul as it seems to be at odds with Paul on certain details so I don't have full faith in trust what Acts says.

But apparently full faith in a rather vague statement by Clement? I have to say, Charco, that your posts tend to manifest a marked tendency for cherry-picking. Any text that doesn't agree with your notions is simply dismissed as unreliable, while those that support you are cited as if they were Gospel Truth.

Paul's tomb was described by Caius as being on the Ostian Way in Rome. Caius was a contemporary of Pope Zephyrinus (199-217 AD), but it is anybody's guess as to whether the tomb he referred to really was that of Paul.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Who said that Paul was in Spain at all? I think you are reading into Clements work so as to promote your own view.

We have three sources for the life of Paul from the 1st Century, Paul himself, Acts, and 1 Clement. Paul said he intended to travel to Spain after visiting Rome in his letter to the Romans. Acts says Paul spent two years in Rome. Clement, a Roman Christian, says Paul went to "the limits of the West" and died there. Now none of the sources explicity say that Paul died in Spain and none say that he died in Rome, but putting the three together it makes most sense to conclude that he died in Spain.

You're not understanding me Charco, you say there is nothing to assume he didn't travel. I'm saying there is, given the account that Paul was ordered to Rome to put his case before the Emperor. If you look to when Paul was being interviewed by Felix, Agrippa, and Festus this is the context we are given for why Paul was going to Rome. Paul was going to Rome for a specific purpose. He wouldn't have had the freedom to go to Spain. It's highly unlikely that Paul went to Spain at all.

Well this is one of the places where I have a problem with Acts, I am highly skeptical about how plausible it is for an unknown Jewish leather worker to be granted an audience with the Emperor of Rome. This seems to me to be highly unlikely but for the sake of argument I will accept it. Even if it is true, Acts does not say how the trial before the Emperor went. It is quite conceivable that Paul was freed and went on his way to Spain.

As for Paul and Epistles to churches he founded, I disagree with you. Paul didn't found the church in Rome, he merely visited it.

Thats not disagreeing with me, I said exactly the same thing. I specifically pointed out that the letter to the Romans was an exception to the rest of the genuine Pauline epistles. And as I said Paul would not have written an Epistle to the Spaniards if there was not already a Spanish church.

PDN wrote:

But apparently full faith in a rather vague statement by Clement? I have to say, Charco, that your posts tend to manifest a marked tendency for cherry-picking. Any text that doesn't agree with your notions is simply dismissed as unreliable, while those that support you are cited as if they were Gospel Truth.

I don't have full faith in 1 Clement, but I believe that a source written by a Roman Christian on the question of whether Paul was buried in Rome can be afforded a certain degree of historical reliability. In fact I earlier pointed out that even with 1 Clement I am not completely convinced that the author knew where Paul died, but this isn't too important, what is important is that the Roman author does not claim that Paul died in Rome but instead claims that he died elsewhere.

It is quite conceivable that the author of 1 Clement did not know where Paul died and made the assumption that he went on to Spain based on Paul's letter to the Romans, however it is not conceivable that the author, living and writing in Rome, did not know that Paul was martyred and buried in Rome just 30-35 years earlier.

I am not cherry picking at all, I am using a valid historical approach to ancient documents in order to draw a rational conclusion on a disputed question. You seem to disagree with my conclusion so perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where along this process you feel I went astray.

philologos

Charco wrote: »

We have three sources for the life of Paul from the 1st Century, Paul himself, Acts, and 1 Clement. Paul said he intended to travel to Spain after visiting Rome in his letter to the Romans. Acts says Paul spent two years in Rome. Clement, a Roman Christian, says Paul went to "the limits of the West" and died there. Now none of the sources explicity say that Paul died in Spain and none say that he died in Rome, but putting the three together it makes most sense to conclude that he died in Spain.

I don't think it makes the most sense given what information we have about Pauls audience in Acts. However, you suddenly pick and choose which parts of these texts you want to deem authentic so as to move the discussion in a path of your preference. I personally don't think this is honest.

Charco wrote: »

Well this is one of the places where I have a problem with Acts, I am highly skeptical about how plausible it is for an unknown Jewish leather worker to be granted an audience with the Emperor of Rome. This seems to me to be highly unlikely but for the sake of argument I will accept it. Even if it is true, Acts does not say how the trial before the Emperor went. It is quite conceivable that Paul was freed and went on his way to Spain.

Paul was a Roman citizen so he would have had the right to appeal to the emperor in the case of his captivity. See Paul and Silas' release from prison in Phillippi in Acts chapter 16. It is only conceivable if you don't look at the whole picture.

Charco wrote: »

Thats not disagreeing with me, I said exactly the same thing. I specifically pointed out that the letter to the Romans was an exception to the rest of the genuine Pauline epistles. And as I said Paul would not have written an Epistle to the Spaniards if there was not already a Spanish church.

You're making two assumptions:
1) Paul did not write the letter to the Romans, which is funny as you use the book of Romans above as a reason why you think Paul went to Spain. So if Paul did not write Romans, therefore Paul did not have the intention to go to Spain.
2) How do we know that there wasn't already a Spanish church? - You said earlier that even if there was a Spanish church that Paul wouldn't have written to them. There seems to be a lot of shifting and changing in your argument.

Charco wrote: »

I am not cherry picking at all, I am using a valid historical approach to ancient documents in order to draw a rational conclusion on a disputed question. You seem to disagree with my conclusion so perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where along this process you feel I went astray.

Yes you are.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it makes the most sense given what information we have about Pauls audience in Acts. However, you suddenly pick and choose which parts of these texts you want to deem authentic so as to move the discussion in a path of your preference. I personally don't think this is honest.

I don't pick what I want to deem authentic, I pick what I think is authentic. I don't accept any historical document as being a 100% unbiased account of the truth. If this is dishonest then I am guilty along with pretty much any historian worthy of the name.

What is ironic however is that on this question I am not doing the cherry picking, it is you. My explanation is completely compatable with what all three sources say, your explanation requires you to discount what 1 Clement says as it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

You're making two assumptions:
1) Paul did not write the letter to the Romans, which is funny as you use the book of Romans above as a reason why you think Paul went to Spain. So if Paul did not write Romans, therefore Paul did not have the intention to go to Spain.
2) How do we know that there wasn't already a Spanish church? - You said earlier that even if there was a Spanish church that Paul wouldn't have written to them. There seems to be a lot of shifting and changing in your argument.

Hold on, what? You seem to have gotten things all over the place. When did I make the assumption that Paul didn't right the letter to the Romans? Of course he did. What I said was that all his other genuine letters were to churches he founded.

Also when did I say that if there was a Spanish church Paul wouldn't have written to them? I don't remember saying anything like that at all. Paul was going to Spain to convert the gentiles there, that's what he did. There is no reason to assume that there was already an established Christian community in Spain in the 50s AD.

philologos

Charco wrote: »

I don't pick what I want to deem authentic, I pick what I think is authentic. I don't accept any historical document as being a 100% unbiased account of the truth. If this is dishonest then I am guilty along with pretty much any historian worthy of the name.

You're dismissing and rejecting texts based on how you want to argue, and when someone brings into light another text, you reject that text as "not being authentic enough". I think that is just humorous. I'm willing to consider every single text that you put forward, if you are not able to do the same we can't have a proper discussion about it. It's merely just you guiding the discussion however you like.

Charco wrote: »

What is ironic however is that on this question I am not doing the cherry picking, it is you. My explanation is completely compatable with what all three sources say, your explanation requires you to discount what 1 Clement says as it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

How? I'm willing to accept every text you put forward. You have rejected large portions out of Acts because well, you don't believe they happened. What use is using them in you argument serving then? IMO, if you use part of Acts, you should be willing to refer to all of it instead of just taking what passages you like out of them.

I don't discount 1 Clement, I just think you are adding your own interpretation onto the text.

Charco wrote: »

Hold on, what? You seem to have gotten things all over the place. When did I make the assumption that Paul didn't right the letter to the Romans? Of course he did. What I said was that all his other genuine letters were to churches he founded.

Relevance? If Paul wrote a letter to the Romans why wouldn't he have written one to the Spaniards?

Charco wrote: »

Also when did I say that if there was a Spanish church Paul wouldn't have written to them? I don't remember saying anything like that at all. Paul was going to Spain to convert the gentiles there, that's what he did. There is no reason to assume that there was already an established Christian community in Spain in the 50s AD.

See above. You said Paul didn't write to any other church apart from the ones he founded. Then, I later commented, he wrote to the church in Rome. So if there was a church in Spain why wouldn't he have written to them especially if he intended to visit there. It really doesn't add up.

(BTW, Paul was martyred circa 64AD, so we are talking the 60's here).

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

You're dismissing and rejecting texts based on how you want to argue, and when someone brings into light another text, you reject that text as "not being authentic enough". I think that is just humorous. I'm willing to consider every single text that you put forward, if you are not able to do the same we can't have a proper discussion about it. It's merely just you guiding the discussion however you like.

So what part of the texts did I reject, the part where Paul was martyred in Rome in Acts? Because in my version of Acts that part isn't mentioned unfortunately.

Yes, I do reject quite a bit of Acts, I don't believe the miracles actually happened and from a historical viewpoint these events cannot be accepted as being historical fact anyway.

I also think Acts is incorrect on other details of Paul's life, for example Acts claims after his conversion Paul met with the disciples in Damascus and then went straight to Jerusalem, however Paul claims he did not meet with any apostles and that he went to Arabia after converting, only going to Jerusalem and meeting Peter three years later. Do I believe Acts or Paul, well as Paul was actually involved in these events I reject Acts' claims and believe Paul of course. In 1 Thessalonians Paul claims Timothy accompanied him to Athens and then returned to Thesselonica, in Acts Paul went alone. Do I believe Paul or Acts on this? Again I have to trust Paul over Acts.

Acts does not seem to be completely reliable when it comes to Paul, this is why I do not trust it fully and why I don't think it should be accepted unthinkingly as being completely truthful and accurate.

How? I'm willing to accept every text you put forward. You have rejected large portions out of Acts because well, you don't believe they happened. What use is using them in you argument serving then? IMO, if you use part of Acts, you should be willing to refer to all of it instead of just taking what passages you like out of them.

Thats not how historians use ancient sources, for example if historians wanted to find historical details on the war between Greece and Troy from the legendary story of the Siege of Troy they are not compelled to accept that Achilles was dipped in the River Styx by his mother making all but his ankle invincible. Likewise historians using Acts to mine out actual historical events are not compelled to accept as historical fact that King Herod was killed by an angel. I'm sorry to tell you that this is just not how historians work.

I don't discount 1 Clement, I just think you are adding your own interpretation onto the text.

No, I'm not adding my own interpretation. I am reading the text as it was clearly intended to be read. The texts clearly says he went to the limits of the West, understanding this to be Spain is entirely reasonable, however arguing that the city of Rome is at "the limits of the West" is bizaare and highly implausible.

Relevance? If Paul wrote a letter to the Romans why wouldn't he have written one to the Spaniards?

Paul was writing to Roman Christians, I don't think he would have written to Spanish Christians as I don't think there was an organized Church there if there even were Christians at all there. But you know what maybe there was a church and maybe he did write a letter to them but it just didn't survive, like other letters of his.

See above. You said Paul didn't write to any other church apart from the ones he founded. Then, I later commented, he wrote to the church in Rome.

You didn't correct me on this, I clearly specified that he wrote to the Romans.

So if there was a church in Spain why wouldn't he have written to them especially if he intended to visit there. It really doesn't add up.

For exactly the same reason that we don't have a letter from Paul telling the Christians in Galatia that he intends to visit there to convert them, because there was no Christians there for him to write to before he came and converted them.

What is so hard to understand about this? I will try and explain this one more time. Paul would decide on a region occupied by pagans (eg Galatia), he would visit this region and convert some of the locals to Christianity, he then leaves the region for somewhere else but would later hear of trouble or confusion in the church and would send back an letter to try and clear up the problem. He certainly did not write to them first.

His letter to the Romans is different, he intends to visit Rome as he travelled to Spain, perhaps to use the city as a base for his mission, and so Paul explains his mission and teachings to the Romans there, either because they were only dimly aware of him or else because they knew a great deal about him and what they heard had made them suspicious of him. Paul is not intending to convert the Romans, he is simply trying to persuade them that he is genuine.

There is no reason to expect that, even if there was a church in Spain, he would have written to them. This was not his style when he was converting pagans.

mdebets

Jakkass wrote: »

How? I'm willing to accept every text you put forward. You have rejected large portions out of Acts because well, you don't believe they happened. What use is using them in you argument serving then? IMO, if you use part of Acts, you should be willing to refer to all of it instead of just taking what passages you like out of them.

I have to disagee with you here. A source document is never 100% correct or 100% incorrect. There are all shades in between. So you can pick and choose, or better loook at all parts, compare them to other sources and make a judgment, if that specific part is believable or not.

Take the following as an example.
If I write a history about what I did today, I could write that I went to work in the morning, went back home in the afernoon and went in the evening to the Wicklow Mountains, to kill a .
When you look at it you'll see that parts are true (me going to work and home are at least possible truths, as I could be lying and had in truth a day off today, but you won't be able to decide this on the text alone), but others are not so clear.
However, if you also find my absent record from work, which states that I had a day off today, you would see that the first part is indeed false. When at the some time you find documentation that shows that I participated in a Life Role Playing Game in the Wicklow Mountains, you could deduct that I did indeed slaied a 3-eyed pink dragon (even so if it was only a fellow player).
So you see that the first part of this ficticious document was false, while the seciond one was true.
The same analysis and comparison with other sources needs to be done for all document.

Jakkass wrote: »

See above. You said Paul didn't write to any other church apart from the ones he founded. Then, I later commented, he wrote to the church in Rome. So if there was a church in Spain why wouldn't he have written to them especially if he intended to visit there. It really doesn't add up.

I would say his argument would go as follow.
Paul only wrote letters to churches he founded. The only exception was the letter to the Romans. It therefore is not surprising that he didn't wrote any to the Spanish church, as he didn't founded it. That he didn't wrote an Epistel to the Spaniards is therefore no indication that he didn't go to Spain.
You're argument was that he didn't go to Spain, because there is no Epistel to the Spaniards.

If you look at the Epistels of Paul, you'll see that he didn't write a letter to every church he visited (or otherwise, we would have much more epistels of Paul). He only wrote to churches he founded, with the exception of the Epistel to the Romans. This suggests that is letter to the Romans was not just written because he was to visit Rome, but because the Roman church was special and/or he wanted to especially comment on the conflict between Gentile and Jewish Christians in Rome. If he went to Spain, and didn't had any pressing matter to attend to there, he might not have written a letter to them, as the church, if it existed, wasn't as important as the Roman church.

philologos

Charco wrote: »

So what part of the texts did I reject, the part where Paul was martyred in Rome in Acts? Because in my version of Acts that part isn't mentioned unfortunately.

The successful appeal to the Emperor by Paul, the conflict in the Temple in Jerusalem, and having the audience of Agrippa, Felix and Festus is a notable part of the whole plot of why he even went to Rome in the first place. You dismiss that this happened.

Charco wrote: »

Yes, I do reject quite a bit of Acts, I don't believe the miracles actually happened and from a historical viewpoint these events cannot be accepted as being historical fact anyway.

I'm not referring to the miracles for the time being. There seems to be historical events that don't involve miracles that you contest, and then others you use when convenient. It's like when I hear Islamic apologists quoting the book of John for some passages, and rejecting it for others when trying to make a case that God was not a Trinity.

Charco wrote: »

I also think Acts is incorrect on other details of Paul's life, for example Acts claims after his conversion Paul met with the disciples in Damascus and then went straight to Jerusalem, however Paul claims he did not meet with any apostles and that he went to Arabia after converting, only going to Jerusalem and meeting Peter three years later. Do I believe Acts or Paul, well as Paul was actually involved in these events I reject Acts' claims and believe Paul of course. In 1 Thessalonians Paul claims Timothy accompanied him to Athens and then returned to Thesselonica, in Acts Paul went alone. Do I believe Paul or Acts on this? Again I have to trust Paul over Acts.

You'd need to provide quotations for us to have a meaningful discussion on these.

Charco wrote: »

Acts does not seem to be completely reliable when it comes to Paul, this is why I do not trust it fully and why I don't think it should be accepted unthinkingly as being completely truthful and accurate.

I'm not convinced that you are correct yet.

Charco wrote: »

Thats not how historians use ancient sources, for example if historians wanted to find historical details on the war between Greece and Troy from the legendary story of the Siege of Troy they are not compelled to accept that Achilles was dipped in the River Styx by his mother making all but his ankle invincible. Likewise historians using Acts to mine out actual historical events are not compelled to accept as historical fact that King Herod was killed by an angel. I'm sorry to tell you that this is just not how historians work.

Charco, it's fine to contest, but you'd have to give me a more probable narrative of how Paul got to Rome after being arrested in Jerusalem than the one in Acts since you don't believe in it. Your narrative would also be expected to be held up to the same scrutiny. Rejecting the occurrences of history isn't enough in a historical discussion, you'd have to provide a more logical explanation. Which you clearly haven't.

Charco wrote: »

No, I'm not adding my own interpretation. I am reading the text as it was clearly intended to be read. The texts clearly says he went to the limits of the West, understanding this to be Spain is entirely reasonable, however arguing that the city of Rome is at "the limits of the West" is bizaare and highly implausible.

Yes, it could also mean the limits of the Western Roman empire. We've already been through this much. I don't see why you think 1 Clement is any more authentic than the New Testament in the first place.

Charco wrote: »

Paul was writing to Roman Christians, I don't think he would have written to Spanish Christians as I don't think there was an organized Church there if there even were Christians at all there. But you know what maybe there was a church and maybe he did write a letter to them but it just didn't survive, like other letters of his.

Paul wrote to Greeks mainly if we are to assess who he wrote to on this.

Charco wrote: »

For exactly the same reason that we don't have a letter from Paul telling the Christians in Galatia that he intends to visit there to convert them, because there was no Christians there for him to write to before he came and converted them.

We have no reason to assume either way.

Charco wrote: »

What is so hard to understand about this? I will try and explain this one more time. Paul would decide on a region occupied by pagans (eg Galatia), he would visit this region and convert some of the locals to Christianity, he then leaves the region for somewhere else but would later hear of trouble or confusion in the church and would send back an letter to try and clear up the problem. He certainly did not write to them first.

Not all the churches were set up by Paul. You seem to think that churches would have to be set up by Paul for them to receive interaction with him. I personally think, Paul had intended to go to Spain, but had been martyred before he ever managed to reach there. You manage to twist one passage from a non-canonical Christian text for your own benefit.

Charco wrote: »

His letter to the Romans is different, he intends to visit Rome as he travelled to Spain, perhaps to use the city as a base for his mission, and so Paul explains his mission and teachings to the Romans there, either because they were only dimly aware of him or else because they knew a great deal about him and what they heard had made them suspicious of him. Paul is not intending to convert the Romans, he is simply trying to persuade them that he is genuine.

Yes, dating is crucial though. There is no reason to suggest that Paul actually arrived in Spain apart from that passage which is totally open to interpretation that you have provided.

Romans was written in the 50's. Paul died in the 60's in Rome. Paul was arrested in Jerusalem, so it is hardly likely that his plans remained the same.

Charco wrote: »

There is no reason to expect that, even if there was a church in Spain, he would have written to them. This was not his style when he was converting pagans.

There is no reason to expect that Paul ever arrived in Spain. That's my point.

mdebets

Charco wrote: »

No, I'm not adding my own interpretation. I am reading the text as it was clearly intended to be read.

No, you are not doing this. You are adding you're own interpretation (as does everyone). You don't have any real way of knowing how the text was intended to be read. You have some pointers that give you a theory of how it was intended to be read, but there is no real way of knowing if you are right or wrong (or even if there is such a thing as a universal way it was intended to be read in the past).
All a historian is doing is proposing his theory of how the events happen in the past. He is not showing how they realy happened (otherwise, History would be dead, as we would know exactly how the past happened).

mdebets

Jakkass wrote: »

Charco wrote:

Acts does not seem to be completely reliable when it comes to Paul, this is why I do not trust it fully and why I don't think it should be accepted unthinkingly as being completely truthful and accurate.

I'm not convinced that you are correct yet.

Have a look here for some points were Acts is historically incorrect, but also, where it is indeed correct.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

The successful appeal to the Emperor by Paul, the conflict in the Temple in Jerusalem, and having the audience of Agrippa, Felix and Festus is a notable part of the whole plot of why he even went to Rome in the first place. You dismiss that this happened.

No I don't, I'm not completely convinced that these did happen but I'm certainly not dismissing them. There is a difference.

I'm not referring to the miracles for the time being. There seems to be historical events that don't involve miracles that you contest, and then others you use when convenient. It's like when I hear Islamic apologists quoting the book of John for some passages, and rejecting it for others when trying to make a case that God was not a Trinity.

Yes there are non-miracle events that I am skeptical about, there is nothing wrong with this. Just because an event is plausible does not mean it actually happened.

You'd need to provide quotations for us to have a meaningful discussion on these.

I think that would lead the discussion wildly off topic so probably best to leave this to another time.

Charco, it's fine to contest, but you'd have to give me a more probable narrative of how Paul got to Rome after being arrested in Jerusalem than the one in Acts since you don't believe in it. Your narrative would also be expected to be held up to the same scrutiny. Rejecting the occurrences of history isn't enough in a historical discussion, you'd have to provide a more logical explanation. Which you clearly haven't.

Ok, here is one possible alternative that is quite conceivable. We know already that Paul intended to travel to Rome anyway, perhaps this is exactly what happened. He might have gone freely to Rome and then on to Spain where he died. There is nothing implausibe about this, perhaps the story about his arrest and being taken to the Emperor is just a later story. Or maybe indeed he did get arrested, I just don't know for certain either way.

Yes, it could also mean the limits of the Western Roman empire. We've already been through this much. I don't see why you think 1 Clement is any more authentic than the New Testament in the first place.

I'm not saying 1 Clement is more authentic, it is not the case that the New Testament says he died in Rome and 1 Clement says he died at limits of the West and so I ignore the NT claim and accept the claim of Clement. The stone cold fact of the matter is that the NT does not say how and where Paul died, therefore it is of limited use when trying to conclude if his bones are found in Rome.

Paul wrote to Greeks mainly if we are to assess who he wrote to on this.

I'm not sure I understand you here.

We have no reason to assume either way.

Well we do, as I pointed out earlier Paul travelled to places where there were no Christians and set up his churches there. He was going to Spain because Spain was pagan and he was intending to bring Christianity there.

I personally think, Paul had intended to go to Spain, but had been martyred before he ever managed to reach there. You manage to twist one passage from a non-canonical Christian text for your own benefit.

Ok, so which historical source do you rely on for your claim that Paul was martyred in Rome? As I said the earliest source for this claim comes from the Acts of Paul, a non canonical Christian text written 100 years after 1 Clement. No earlier document says this. Acts doesn't say it, Clement doesn't say it, so please justify your claim.

Yes, dating is crucial though. There is no reason to suggest that Paul actually arrived in Spain apart from that passage which is totally open to interpretation that you have provided.

Totally open to interpretation? Can you please give me a logical explanation how a person living in Rome could possibly think that Rome was at the western limit of the Roman Empire?

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

I would be highly sceptical as to whether they are Paul's bones or not. Ecclesiastical authorities have a poor record in this regard given the 'discoveries' of many dubious relics over the years. In centuries gone by churches claimed to possess pieces of the True Cross, milk from the Virgin Mary's breasts, and in the Middle Ages at least fifteen separate churches claimed to possess an arm, hand, or finger of John the Baptist.

Anyone interested in some hairs from the beard of Elijah? They were taken from the mantle he gave to Elisha and preserved by devout men and hidden in a cave in Pella. The Brotherhood have now put them on sale in support of 'missions'. Credit cards are accepted.

P.S. Carbon dating has not been applied, as Elijah did not die and these hairs have likewise all the appearance of modernity. Any similarity to my beard is pure coincidental.

Red Hand

PDN wrote: »

I would be highly sceptical as to whether they are Paul's bones or not. Ecclesiastical authorities have a poor record in this regard given the 'discoveries' of many dubious relics over the years. In centuries gone by churches claimed to possess pieces of the True Cross, milk from the Virgin Mary's breasts, and in the Middle Ages at least fifteen separate churches claimed to possess an arm, hand, or finger of John the Baptist.

Plus, it would have been foolish for people to keep the bones of an apostle in his tomb/grave, when they could be making money from selling/touring the remains. Maybe, they took St Paul and replaced his remains with the bones of another man shortly after he died?