FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-08-2006, 09:33 AM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dzim77 View Post
In case you hadn't heard... a head's up (I guess this is a day late anyways)

From the BBC.com article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6219656.stm

"Archaeologists working for the Vatican have unearthed a sarcophagus containing what they believe are the remains of St Paul the Apostle.
The tomb dates back to at least AD390 and was found in a crypt under a basilica in Rome.

It has long been thought that the crypt contained the tomb of St Paul but the altar had hidden it.

St Paul was an influential early Christian who travelled widely in the Mediterranean area in the 1st Century.

Excavations at the site began in 2002 and were completed last month.

..The original inscription on the top reads: Paulo Apostolo Mart - Latin for "Paul Apostle Martyr".
I guess it means we can now forget about the tomb that was supposed to be below the Vatican, as this one was below the altar at Saint Paul's outside the Walls... but then again maybe not. This is after all a monument which goes back to 390 CE. It may have been a cenotaph, while the real tomb is under the Vatican. But then again it may just be as real as the hypothetical tomb under the Vatican.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 09:35 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Time to assimilate:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=189133
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 09:35 AM   #13
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
I guess it means we can now forget about the tomb that was supposed to be below the Vatican, as this one was below the altar at Saint Paul's outside the Walls... but then again maybe not. This is after all a monument which goes back to 390 CE. It may have been a cenotaph, while the real tomb is under the Vatican. But then again it may just be as real as the hypothetical tomb under the Vatican.


spin
too late for an autopsy i suppose?
dzim77 is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 09:39 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 543
Default

I'm extremely ignorant on these matters - one of the reasons I read this section. Anyway, is it credible that someone who gets martyred then gets buried in a sarcophagus in a tomb marked "Paul Apostle Martyr" on it? Or is this supposed to be someplace his body was moved to, when it wasn't so dangerous to be an apostle any more? Or what?

ETA: Many of my questions are addressed in the thread linked to by Malachi above.
pob14 is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 09:42 AM   #15
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
oops, sorry for the repeat.
dzim77 is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 10:05 AM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dzim77 View Post
too late for an autopsy i suppose?
Um, no. Not if the body doesn't have a head.

Jeffrey
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 11:13 AM   #17
CJD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: greater Orlando area
Posts: 832
Default

Just as Diogenes suggested, it's not a given that Paul was executed by the Romans. He could have just as easily traveled on to Spain, as was his design (Rom 15:24, 28), and died in obscurity heralding his king in foreign lands.

CJD
CJD is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 12:18 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJD View Post
Just as Diogenes suggested, it's not a given that Paul was executed by the Romans. He could have just as easily traveled on to Spain, as was his design (Rom 15:24, 28), and died in obscurity heralding his king in foreign lands.

CJD
In any case, we are saying that the chance that this is anything other than an old shrine, sans corps of Paul, is pretty low.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 10:23 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

The earliest evidence of the memorials to Peter and Paul at the Vatican and the Ostian Way (the site of St Paul's outside the Walls where the sarcophagus has been found)) appears to be Gaius c 200 CE quoted by Eusebius in Church History book 2 chapter 25
Quote:
I can point out the monuments of the Victorious Apostles If you will go as far as the Vatican or the Ostian Way you will find the monuments of those who founded this church.
Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 11:05 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
I don't know the history of this, but if he were actually beheaded in 65 CE, then how does he end up in this tomb a few hundred years later??
Lots of peoples have quite a thing for digging up remains and reburying them, especially remains of important people.
WishboneDawn is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:06 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.