Replies

"I suppose, but as a Christian, I have never, ever doubted that Paul was a real person, and I bet very few other Christians had doubts that he was either."

Fundamentally, what is the difference between Christianity & Mormonism? Both adherents honestly "believe" that the events in their faith's Scriptures actually occurred. Very few Mormons doubt the historicity of the events in the Book of Mormon.

What's the difference?

One faith has a plethora of historical artifacts, archeology, references in secular history, ancient manuscripts to point to as evidence that these things really, truly happened.

The other does not.

Without suportative evidence like the ones listed, what answer would you have for the person who asks "How do you know the events of the Bible occured as described?" You would be left with something like "Well... I just believe it, etc...) i.e. an appeal to personal experience.

"Faith" in something - an event, a person - is little better than wishful thinking if the event which you have faith in did not actually occur. Anything which confirms the Scripture's testimony regarding the events which are central to our faith is a blessing - to all Christians.

These remains of Paul (if they be authentic) could (and should) be as much a blessing to a thoughtful believer as visiting Israel, seeing Nazareth, the sea of Galilee or viewing a 1900 year old fragment of John's gospel in a museum would be.

I think the point of this article was lost on a great many people. ARCHEOLOGISTS (who happen to work for the Vatican, but why wouldn't they when you consider that a great many sites that have archeological interest in Italy are owned by the Catholic Church) discovered what they believe to be the tomb of the Apostle Paul. The historical belief has always been that Paul was buried on this site, which is one reason that churches have been built there (granted the first real church probably was not built until a couple hundred years after Paul's martyrdom, but we need to remember that Christians had to meet in secret because of Roman persecution -- THEY COULDN'T BUILD "REAL" CHURCHES). So these archeologists (not theologians) believe that this is quite possibly the tomb of Paul, this is a major HISTORICAL discovery that also happens to have religious significance. And as you noted, while we accept things on faith, proof that events we hold to be true really happened makes it more difficult for the naysayers.

There are a great many threads here where it makes logical sense to debate the theological tenets of Catholicism and Protestantism, but why should this be one of them. This is significant for all Christians, Paul's martyrdom in Rome is something upon which there has NEVER BEEN DISAGREEMENT. For some to come into a thread and turn it into a theological debate when the thread HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEOLOGY is both petty and in complete contrast to Christ's command that we love one another.