Friday, December 08, 2006

Vatican "discovers" Paul's tomb, AGAIN.


Today’s London Telegraph claims: “St Paul’s tomb found under altar.” It told readers that the tomb “has been found under of Rome’s largest churches and the stone coffin will shortly be raised to the surface to allow pilgrims to see it.”

There is nothing new in this. They made this claim a few years ago for the first time. I read a report from a few years ago on it just yesterday. Is the media’s memory so short-term that the Vatican can make the same announcement over and over and get tons of free publicity each time?

Here is a report from February, 2005 saying the same thing (that’s almost two years old). And this report says the tomb was discovered in 2002. I wonder how many times they have announced the discovery of this same tomb. Clearly they announced it in 2002, 2005 and now again in 2006. It’s the same tomb each time. And assume another flurry of press reports on Monday when the Vatican announces the discover again.

All this ignores whether the body is that of Paul or not. A Vatican archaeologist (isn’t a Vatican archaeologist anyone who tries to figure out the Pope’s thinking?) says: “I have no doubt that this is the tomb of St. Paul, as revered by Christians in the fourth century.”

Well, he would say that wouldn’t he? But notice what he said a bit more carefully -- most people won’t. He says he has no doubt it is Paul “AS revered by Christians in the fourth century.” Actually all he is saying is that the tomb he thinks he found was the one which was presented to the public in the 4th century as that of Paul. Remember that would be a few hundred years after Paul died. The only evidence that it is Paul is that in the 4th century people said it was. Remember the faked Shroud of Turin -- same sort of provenance.

So what inspired this search for a relic? Well the Archbishop “was inundated with queries from pilgrims (i.e. tourists) about the whereaboouts of the saint. The same requests have persuaded the Vatican that there is enough demand from tourists to warrant raising the sarcophagus to the surface so that it can be viewed properly.” It’s a Vatican equivalent of a new ride at Disneyland.

Last year the archaeologist, Giorgio Filippi, also said: “The tomb that we discovered is the one that the popes and the Emperoror Theodosius saved and presented to the whole world as being the tomb of the apostile.”

Theodosius began to rule in 379 which is three hundred years after Paul died. Now do you really think that in the year 379 the Emperor and the Pope made any real effort to determine if this was Paul or not. These are people who made all sorts of absurd claims about saints, miracles, etc.

So they will bring the coffin to the surface and put it on display. Hundreds of thousands of people will rush to the Vatican and light a candle in front of the dead man in the tomb. Each time they light a candle they will drop a little money for the impoverished Vatican. It is no accident they use very short candles for such purposes -- the sooner they have to be replaced the sooner someone else will light it for a fee. No doubt there will be banks of these candles so no tourist misses the opportunity of donating to the Vatican. And come morning the magic money machine of the coffin starts pulling in the cash again.

One Christian website pulls some distortions. It announced the Vatican will announce that archeologists “have positively identified the tomb of St. Paul.” But the sources they cite use words like “may” and “might” nor “is”.

There is little doubt that this man Paul existed. And he is a critical figure in history. After all he is the man who invented Christianity -- really invented it. His letters laid out Christian doctrine. That he never knew Jesus and was in conflict with those who did know Jesus is of little importance in the end. He set the course for what Christians would believe far more than Jesus did.

There really are no tests that can be made to show whether this is Paul or not. It’s not like we can compare DNA samples. There is nothing to link the Paul of 65 A.D. with the body that was presented by Theodosius three hundred years later. In fact there is dispute over when Paul died. It is said he was martyred but his demise is lost in history except for stories. There is no hard evidence as to the date of his death or how he died. There is little doubt that the tomb they are putting on display is the same one that was presented to the public by Theodosius. But nothing really links that tomb with Paul.

8 Comments:

Blogger Publius II said...

I was right with you, until you made the statement that Paul "invented" Christianity. And he wasn't in "conflict with those who did know Jesus." He had a disagreement with Barnabas and some of those who took Barnabas's side on the issue of contention. That was apparently put to the side. Peter and John, who would have arguably been the source of the most authority, apparently had no qualms with Paul.

Paul's teaching is completely aligned with that of Christ, and also that of the Old Testament. It does not contradict either.

December 08, 2006

 
Blogger Indioheathen said...

Publius said:

"Paul's teaching is completely aligned with that of Christ, and also that of the Old Testament. It does not contradict either."

You're right about his teachings being aligned with the Old Testament, but not all of his teachings are aligned with the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. For example, Paul condemned homosexuality. Jesus did not, and according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus recognized homosexuality (eunichism) as a legitimate sexual orientation.

December 08, 2006

 
Blogger Publius II said...

First of all, eunichism is not the same as homosexuality. During the time of Christ, eunichs were usually (though not exclusively) palace servants who had been castrated. Even today, eunichism is quite a bit different from homosexuality. It is true, from my understanding (though I am hardly an expert on the topic) that many eunichs today are also homosexual. And where in Matthew does he make a comment regarding eunichs? I couldn't find it.

Also it is very clear from the teaching of Christ, that sexual immorality was sinful. Besides this, it's also clear that Christ upheld the Old Testament as the Word of God, which clearly condemns homosexual behavior. It would be difficult at best to build a case that Christ accepted homosexuality as "legitimate" as you say.

December 08, 2006

 
Blogger Publius II said...

Nevermind. Found it in Matt 19. And he doesn't condone it in any way shape or form. He simply comments that eunuchs exist, some by natural causes, and some made that way by men. It also appears that he is using this term "eunuch" to encompass more than what we know it as. He's using it and drawing a parallel between that and celebacy, to teach about celebacy and remaining celebate for the purpose of dedicating your life to God alone.

December 08, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

If I said he wasn’t in conflict with those who knew Jesus I apologize I meant to say that he was in conflict with them. It is for that reason that he accussed James, the brother of Jesus (not for Catholics who say Mary stayed a virgin, right!) of preaching “another gospel”

We don’t know what the teaching of Jesus was except maybe glimpses here and there. We have only the unreliable gospels and we can’t be sure what Jesus said or what others made up along the way. Most sc holars, for instance, are pretty sure the bull about “they shall pick up serpents” was added later as it was not found in some of the early copies. So no one knows if Paul was aligned with Jesus, I doubt he is. I think he made up a version of Christianity that would appeal to Gentiles. That is why his version survived and the more Jewish type of Christians were basically destroyed when Rome invaded in 70 AD.

December 08, 2006

 
Blogger Indioheathen said...

Publius wrote:

"Found it in Matt 19. And he doesn't condone it in any way shape or form. He simply comments that eunuchs exist, some by natural causes, and some made that way by men. It also appears that he is using this term "eunuch" to encompass more than what we know it as. He's using it and drawing a parallel between that and celebacy, to teach about celebacy and remaining celebate for the purpose of dedicating your life to God alone."

I didn't specifically point it out in my previous response, but you prove my point that "eunuch" in many Middle Eastern and also Asian languages has more than one definition.

In European langauges, "eunuch" simply refers to a male with dysfunctional testes or without testes. But in Aramic and Hindi just to name a few, it also refers to one who is celebate and also to those who have a non-heterosexual orientation. Jesus' reference to eunuchs by birth is an example of the latter.

You also wrote:

"Also it is very clear from the teaching of Christ, that sexual immorality was sinful. Besides this, it's also clear that Christ upheld the Old Testament as the Word of God, which clearly condemns homosexual behavior. It would be difficult at best to build a case that Christ accepted homosexuality 'as legitimate' as you say."

The New Testament teaches that Jesus' reason d'etre was to fulfill the Law of Moses (Old Testament law) for those that accept him as the Messiah. Therefore, his mortal existence and sacrifice by way of crucifixion fulfilled the Levitican taboo against homosexuality and recognized by way of Matthew 19:12 the legitimacy of what we Indigenous American heathens refer to as "two spirit" people.

http://indioheathen.blogspot.com/2006/02/homosexuality.html

If you pick and choose Old Testament laws to abide and judge others by, then you are not a true Christian but a "Biblican." A true Christian is one who only follows the teachings and example of Jesus, and such Christians are in the minority among the Christianist sects.

December 08, 2006

 
Blogger Publius II said...

NGZ, could you pinpoint for me where Paul accused James of preaching another gospel? I cannot find any mention of such a claim pointed at James.

Also, you are correct that there are portions of scripture that appear in the old King James version of the Bible that now appear to be added. The modern english translations clearly make note where the earlier manuscripts differ from what was apparently added. This has very litte impact on what we believe Jesus actually said.

Indio, thanks for your comments, but I must humbly disagree with your interpretation. The reason being that even IF Jesus was commenting on homosexuality and accepting such behavior as "legitimate" then it would not be "fulfilling" Old Testament Law, but breaking it. And the context of Matthew 19 and the point Jesus was making about celebacy for the service of God does not fit with a discussion on homosexuality, but with instead it would fit with my interpretation of the word "eunuch" as one incapable of sexual activity, either by birth or by castration.

If you pick and choose Old Testament laws to abide and judge others by, then you are not a true Christian but a "Biblican."

This statement troubles me a bit, for two reasons. First, I try not to judge people at all, by any standard. When I do I only make myself a hypocrite, because I am no better than anyone else, regardless of behavioral habits. Secondly, it seems that I am not the one picking and choosing certain laws to abide by, as the overarching statement (concerning sexuality) of both the Old and New Testament seems to be that a man has no right to sexual behavior with anyone but his wife, homo or heterosexually.

December 11, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

This is a bad week for me. I need to do a lot of packing since I'll be gone for 3 months. I will try. But this week will be tough for me to reply to comments.

December 11, 2006

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites