St. Paul was the only human who lived in the first and second centuries AD

[Malthus]

Unlike most of the other relics, I believe this one has possibility. Unlike many others, it wasn't brought in from the Holy Land 6 or 700 years later by zealous knights. I don't know the history of these bones, but tradition holds Paul was killed in Rome, so it is likely that his followers buried him somewhere nice.

Oh, I agree that these *might* be the bones of St. Paul.  The Pope's apparent assertion that they *are* the bones is what I found amusing.

Actually, that was the guy writing the headline. The Pope himself was more measured:

This seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul...

Which is exactly right - dating the bones to a period that Paul lived in "seems to confirm" the tradition.

Whether that tradition has any basis in fact is of course not proven - it can only be dis proven. If teeth are tested and it is found that the bones belong to a guy born in Germany, that would tend to disprove the tradition.

[grumbler]

Oh, I agree that these *might* be the bones of St. Paul.  The Pope's apparent assertion that they *are* the bones is what I found amusing.

Selective use of science is always amusing.  Especially when it is used to validate "unanimous and undisputed tradition" (i.e. the most popular guess).

they are more likely to be the bones of St Paul than the bones of Frodo baggins, but we knew that already.

[Caliga]

@Malthus: I took the Pope's wording to mean that there was a tradition that these are Paul's remains, and this scientific evidence shows us that the tradition is correct.  Your interpretation is a bit more conservative, but is probably closer to what the Pope truly did mean to say.

I still think it brings up the wider issue I earlier mentioned, which is: why does the Pope care about scientific evidence anyway?  The Church has never required scientific evidence of anything it requests that its adherents believe in before.  There are similar questions raised by the Shroud of Turin, for example.  If tou're going to believe it is the miraculous burial shroud of Jesus because of your Catholic faith, you don't require scientific evidence to support that belief.  You might find supporting evidence to be nice, but it won't change your original conclusion.

[Malthus]

@Malthus: I took the Pope's wording to mean that there was a tradition that these are Paul's remains, and this scientific evidence shows us that the tradition is correct.  Your interpretation is a bit more conservative, but is probably closer to what the Pope truly did mean to say.

I still think it brings up the wider issue I earlier mentioned, which is: why does the Pope care about scientific evidence anyway?  The Church has never required scientific evidence of anything it requests that its adherents believe in before.  There are similar questions raised by the Shroud of Turin, for example.  If tou're going to believe it is the miraculous burial shroud of Jesus because of your Catholic faith, you don't require scientific evidence to support that belief.  You might find supporting evidence to be nice, but it won't change your original conclusion.

Can't answer for Catholics, but there is nothing particularly "miraculous" about Paul. It would be unusual for his remains to be preserved and located, but certainly not impossible, as he was a big bug in the nacient Christian church during his life, so some effort may have been taken to keep his remains segrigated and identified. Of course, medieval habits of multiplying faked relics for profit make it initially more likely this is just another fake - dating it to the first century merely makes that possibility less likely (though it could still be the Roman municipal rat-catcher, of course).

[alfred russel]

Can't answer for Catholics, but there is nothing particularly "miraculous" about Paul.

The whole road to demascus episode, among many others, was fairly miraculous. If you believe the bible, Paul wasn't a stranger to miracles, so I'd say any christian would answer that in the affirmative.

[Neil]

Oh, I agree that these *might* be the bones of St. Paul.  The Pope's apparent assertion that they *are* the bones is what I found amusing.

Selective use of science is always amusing.  Especially when it is used to validate "unanimous and undisputed tradition" (i.e. the most popular guess).

they are more likely to be the bones of St Paul than the bones of Frodo baggins, but we knew that already.

Virtually every interest group out there uses science selectively, in order to advance their agenda.  Things that support their agenda get publicized, things that detract from it are ignored.  It's not really that surprising that in our hands, science is just another PR tool.

[Malthus]

Can't answer for Catholics, but there is nothing particularly "miraculous" about Paul.

The whole road to demascus episode, among many others, was fairly miraculous. If you believe the bible, Paul wasn't a stranger to miracles, so I'd say any christian would answer that in the affirmative.

Paul had a vision (or claimed he did), but that doesn't make his *existence* as a human "miraculous", so that it would require a leap of faith to believe in the literal existence of his bones.

[alfred russel]

Paul had a vision (or claimed he did), but that doesn't make his *existence* as a human "miraculous", so that it would require a leap of faith to believe in the literal existence of his bones.

Why would it require a leap of faith to believe in anyone's bones? I think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine), and would thus have bones (although since he was supposedly raised into heaven they wouldn't be left here--but that is a unique situation).

[Malthus]

Paul had a vision (or claimed he did), but that doesn't make his *existence* as a human "miraculous", so that it would require a leap of faith to believe in the literal existence of his bones.

Why would it require a leap of faith to believe in anyone's bones? I think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine), and would thus have bones (although since he was supposedly raised into heaven they wouldn't be left here--but that is a unique situation).

Some "humans" may be legendary, rather than real, or have lived so long ago (or been so obscure when they died) that actually identifying their remains is improbable; so even finding their remains takes a bit of a leap of faith. For example, I'd be pretty skeptical if someone claims to have found Noah's skull.

Jesus (assuming he existed at all) had only a handful of followers when he died, most of whom renounced him and the rest living on very shakey ground legally, so it is pretty unlikely his remains were saved - and in any event, even according to the legend they disappeared.

Paul is a bit of a borderline case, as he was executed as a criminal *but* there existed at least some sort of organization that revered the man so it isn't totally beyond the pale of possibility that his tomb was actually preserved and marked as special by them.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

The bone fragments were carbon dated to that time period and (I presume) shown to be human, so it seems to me like the Pope says that means the bones must belong to St. Paul.  What am I missing? 

Science hasn't been good to the church the last few centuries. It started with Galileo, then someone counted ribs and discovered that men don't have one less than women, then there was Darwin, and then there was the shroud of turin fiasco.

Let's let the pope have his moment--he is probably just giddy that science didn't disprove him for once.

't would have been funny if the bones were from a woman. :p

or a walrus.

[Valmy]

I think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine)

If Christ was fully divine why would he babble on about how if you have faith in him you will do greater things than he did?  Unless he means we are all divine as much as he was which sort of flies in the face of him being something other than what you and I are.

Christianity: contradicting itself for 2000 years.

[crazy canuck]

I think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine)

Welcome to the debate that vexed Christianity for the better part of 1500 years - maybe longer.

[Caliga]

I think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine)

Welcome to the debate that vexed Christianity for the better part of 1500 years - maybe longer.

The Catholic position is that he is fully both at the same time, correct?

The other positions that I can think of were the Arian, Donatist, Carpocratian, Monophysite, and Monotheletist positions.

I can't remember which is which, but one stated he was fully human and not divine, though still the son of God (Arianism?), one stated he was completely divine and lacked any mortal component... I guess basically making him a ghost (Donatist?), one said he was mostly human but had a unique spark of the divine, one stating he was human, but had a divine soul (Carpocratian?), and I forget what the last one was.

The funny thing is that, for the most part, these differences are superficial, but people were tortured, killed, and even fought wars over them.

[Caliga]

Oh, and I forgot Nestorianism, though I forget what it means too. 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Oh, and I forgot Nestorianism, though I forget what it means too. 

not sure but I think the Cathars had their own view too.