Bones of St. Paul confirmed

Anon: What does "plausibility" have to do with the dictionary definition of "occult" you cited?

RJohnson,

Good evening. Long time no se. Hope you are well. Per usual, you give me much to chew on.

"Such is the nature of faith, Gerard. Once we have evidence, we no longer need faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God, so is it reasonable for him to provide us evidence?"

While there is much truth in what you say, I offer the following to temper a too much reliance on faith. With the incarnation, God dramatically ratcheted up his signs designed to instill belief. There is a place for the miraculous, and for confirming Scriptural texts.

Imagine that 2,000 years from now, much of our knowledge and record of Western Civilization having been lost in a catastrophe similar to the burning of the library at Alexandria, our descendants question whether Abraham Lincoln actually existed. Was the Civil War real? The Emancipation Proclamation? Gettysburg Address? All of which have come down through the remnants of a people who still believe in the antiquated notion of democracy and representative government. Some textual critics doubt the historicity of such documentation, the originals of which cannot be accounted for after so long.

The stories about the burial of Lincoln, the disappearance of the body, retrieval, identification decades after his death and final burial under tons of concrete and metal all seem to be an elaborate construct of a legend that is highly suspect.

Then archeologists unearth a body from the reputed burial site, from under tons of concrete and metal, and carbon dating establishes the bones to date to the 19th or 20th centuries. Further, the bones are of a male of the same height as reported by the disciples of this man who stood for the dignity of the individual-a concept in tatters two millennia later. Would this not electrify the community of believers in the historical reality of Abraham Lincoln, and add one buttress to the body of literature ascribed to him? Sure it isn't a DVD, but momentous in light of the withering scepticism. No?

Well, that's my 2 cents worth for the day. Be Well.

Hepzibah July 24, 2009 3:01 PM "Saint" Paul is not a Roman Catholic saint. Paul was a Jew and I find it such hypocrisy by the Catholic Church that they would revere Peter's, Paul's or any other remains from the members of the first church yet hold the Inquistion against their possible descendants. I am still asking myself - so whose DNA did the church compare the DNA of these bones - the Pontiff's? Yes Paul is a Roman Catholic Saint first, as all people beleaving in Jesus were all catholic in the time in question. As in today from city to city there were lots of different understanding’s and caused divistions. As the letters of Paul showed us so clearly. Still there had been, no decisive church splits until 300 years later. As per the Jews they were killing the catholics of that time. Paul himself was murdering Catholics of that time. Before his convertion. The larger testamonil here is the proven line of unbroken apostalic sucsession. That is needed with transtanistion of the holy eucherist. The funny thing here is man is always telling God how he is willing to worship, instead of serendering to HIS teaching. Hence the splits of the Church. Other reasons have brought devisions lines of comunication broken, war’s, greed, power. All leading to the cause of political take over of different clurgy. Streching over time of many millinea. Trace able yes very requires a lot of reading and study time. However it is better that having so many questions. History and tradition combined with testing leads to the path of truth. I believe these are St Pauls remains. And He is a St to all yet Catholic first.