ROME, Italy (CNN) – Scientific tests prove bones housed in the Basilica of St. Paul in Rome are those of the apostle St. Paul himself, according to Pope Benedict XVI.
“Tiny fragments of bone” in the sarcophagus were subjected to carbon dating, showing they “belong to someone who lived in the first or second century,” the pope said in a homily carried on Italian television.
“This seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul,” Benedict said in Sunday’s announcement.
Pope Benedict has openly spoken about the harmony of science and the Bible. This absolutely baffles me. How can a flawed book of ancient myths be compatible with science? Here are Pope Benedict’s thoughts on the first biblical man, Adam:
“Christ stresses that the gift received in him far surpasses Adam’s sin and its consequent effects on humanity”
–Pope Benedict, Paul VI Audience Hall, December 2008
Many apologetics explain that the creation story in Genesis is an allegory or metaphor to illustrate the fall of man to sin. But Genesis presents Adam and Eve as actual persons and narrates important events in their lives and their children’s lives. Even Jesus referred to Adam & Eve as the first literal “male and female,” making their physical union the basis of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6).
Adam and Eve were considered literal, historical people until science proved the creation story to be preposterous. Denoting every impossible story in the Bible as an allegory does not make the book more credible. I’ll stick with carbon dating rather than fictional stories that date the earth to be 6,000 years old.
Tags: Adam, Apostle, Bible, Bones, Carbon Dating, Creation, Eve, Evolution, Genesis, Paul, Pope Benedict, Science
June 30, 2009 at 11:05 pm |
You seem to like Albert Einstein, what do you think of this quotation of him:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
June 30, 2009 at 11:33 pm |
Christians love to use that quote. Unfortunately Einstein was not a Christian. He was born into a Jewish family, but proclaimed himself a pantheist or essentially an agnostic. He didn’t deny there may be a god, but certainly didn’t prescribe to your version of god.
A few more quotes from Einstein:
July 1, 2009 at 12:06 am |
To be honest I just find it, but I’ll probably be reading something from him soon, I though he only wrote about physics… my mistake, Any recommendation?
BTW, I also find this one:
“It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in so doing you bring everything to the realm of possibility”
Sounds a great statement for me… what do you think?
July 1, 2009 at 8:36 am
“It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in so doing you bring everything to the realm of possibility”
I think it is a very stupid statement, so that I hope Einstein didn’t really say it, because that would diminish my respect for him. Believing in something does not make it true, and does not make it possible.
And once again, you have quoted out of context, which is a from of bearing false witness.
July 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Believing in something doesn’t mean believing in the Biblical God any more than bones from someone from the first or second century proves that they belonged to Paul.
I believe in a lot. I believe in my fellow man, I believe in myself, I believe that love exists and that it is precious, I believe that people should strive to do what they can to better themselves and mankind, to name a few things.
My belief in all of those things is completely independent of a belief in anything supernatural. Why should I bog myself down with an imaginary friend to base it on? I’m firm enough in beliefs that I feel like they stand on their own pretty well.
Besides which, why are you hiding behind what Albert Einstein said? Just because he was an intelligent person doesn’t make him the final word on whether God exists or not and what you should believe. That’s even presuming you could even do such a thing. Albert Einstein’s quotes can be used to claim that he believed in God, multiple gods, no god, or just a general supernatural force. The fact is, though, you could appeal to any number of authorities who have the full gamut of religious beliefs and prove nothing.
Your beliefs should be based on what works for you and how you see the world, not your interpretation of how someone else saw it.
July 1, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Probably except when there’s a mountain of contradicting evidence to it.
July 1, 2009 at 12:13 am |
Sorry, the quoted is also from Einstein, and really, its nothing personal, I love arguing.
Nothing to do with your personal view of God but of the ideas you expressed… and what might be the Truth, if there is only one.
July 2, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
Actually, I think you are right that Einstein was an agnostic, something that some atheists might look at more seriously. Einstein of course realized the truth, the the existence of God is not knowable, thus it is rather stupid to claim that there is no God.
July 1, 2009 at 8:31 am |
You seem to like Albert Einstein, what do you think of this quotation of him:…
I think you are quoting out of context. You should find the context of that quote and read the full essay. Then you should come back here and tell us:
1) Which definition of “religion” was Einsein using? and
2) Why you didn’t tell us that in the same essay, Einstein argued against theism?
Also, you should stop bearing false witness by quoting out of context.
July 1, 2009 at 8:49 am |
And I’m so often ridiculed for pulling things out of context even when I haven’t. Here is the context and closing statement in this essay this quote is pulled from:
Science was Einstein’s religion.
July 1, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
@ Janus Grayden,
That was exactly the point I was trying to made. Everyone can use
@Reginald Selkirk,
Thanks a lot for the link, I’ve just read the easy and I liked very much, I agree with a lot of that arguments, indeed some of those, were in my mind already… even being a catholic I find hard to believe in a personal god. Nevertheless, I do not leave my religion because of some of his arguments, such as:
“The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition.”
@theBEattitude
I’m sorry, (no bad intentions) but it really feels that you take a little out of context some quotes, I took this one from the link of Reginald:
“The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.”
or maybe the text on the link is mistaken… you tell me… because something do not match…
I have to apologize because the first quotes placed before were taken from a “quotes page” on google, therefore I didn’t know the context at all or where are they from… (Well now I know that the first one is real… thanks Reginald)
July 1, 2009 at 9:50 pm
My favorite Einstein quote (with source attribution):
July 2, 2009 at 7:36 am |
The paragraph from which the Einstein “lame and blind” quote was ripped, point by point:
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other,
Are they? Then why does almost every religion ever invented cross that line?
nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.
Some religions learn more than others. Some very popular religions today seem determined to stand stalwart against science.
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.
False. Some very productive scientists have been nonreligious.
To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
This need not spring from religion, and it is not “faith.” That the natural world follows natural laws is a reasonable conclusion which can be drawn from centuries of scientific advancement.
The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
The sound bite. Since I do not accept the premises, I do no accept the conclusion.
July 2, 2009 at 8:11 am
Einstein seems to be ceding the field of values and meaning to “religion,” which indicates some philosophical naivety, since there is a branch of philosophy dedicated to this, aesthetics.
July 2, 2009 at 8:51 am
What year is that from? Maybe he was afraid “they” were going to ship him back to Germany or something. There was a lot of “Einstein is an infidel” crap going on in his day.
July 2, 2009 at 11:50 am
1941, if I read it right. There are other essays at the link dating from 1930 to 1948.
July 2, 2009 at 3:54 pm
@Reginald Selkirk,
So first I was “bearing false witness by quoting out of context” and now it’s that I was right but you don’t agree with me nor with Einstein “ripped” quotation?
Are you angry with Christians? with believers? with religion? can’t you admit the possibility of the existence of god? and well maybe I’m blind, but maybe there is a possibility, perhaps a tiny possibility that you are “lame”?.. how can you be so sure?
Tell me, do you believe that the universe is eternal? that exist since ever and forever?
July 3, 2009 at 8:36 am
Olendariwin, you sound hysteric. Get a grip on yourself.
Yes, you were bearing false witness by quoting out of context. It is very clear from a longer quote that what Einstein meant by “religion” is not the same thing you and I and most people mean by “religion.” This is just one of the things I disagree with Einstein about.
I get angry with Christians; actually with anybody, who does not meet their own code of conduct. The word for such a person is “hypocrite.” The Ten Commandments, which are supposed to be valued by Christians and Jews, clearly forbid the bearing of false witness. Live with it, or stop calling yourself a believer.
July 3, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@Reginald Selkirk,
You are really fast at judging people… so, I’m Hysteric, and a hypocrite?
mmm, you make your own statements.. and you did supposed that I did meant my religion? I was just quoting. And asking for opinion, I was not giving my opinion…
And I already said that where I first find the quotation there was no context… I do not judge you in any way… I just ask… I find funny how angry some people get with just a few words… you should relax more and take it easy…
just think a second: because Einstein said something you don’t agree with, you directly assumed a “philosophical naivety.” That’s the kind of thing a fundamentalist says… you know that different people can have different opinions and both be right?
or do everybody has to agree with you?
July 3, 2009 at 2:20 pm
just think a second: because Einstein said something you don’t agree with, you directly assumed a “philosophical naivety.”
Just because Einstein said something that demonstrated philosophical naivety, I conclude that he is philosophically naive. What is your problem with that?
you know that different people can have different opinions and both be right?
Sure, on matters of value. I wouldn’t dare tell someone what their favorite flavor of soda was, for instance.
But on matters of fact, such as a field of philosophy which has been in existence for over 2000 years, I expect someone to learn something about it before they write for public consumption. On matters of fact, not all opinions are equally valid.
July 3, 2009 at 3:47 pm
So, Reginald, your opinion is more valid than Einstein’s?
Do you have a blog? I would love to be enlightened by 2000 years of philosophy.
You sound as a professor giving a class to a bunch of high school students… are you?
July 3, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Hey Reginald, I google you, are you the Mad Philosopher?
July 4, 2009 at 11:57 am
So, Reginald, your opinion is more valid than Einstein’s?
The fact that meaning and morality fall under the philosophical area of aesthetics does not depend on my opinion.
You do realize that Einstein was not infallible, don’t you?
July 1, 2009 at 12:58 am |
I do find it funny that the Catholic church has many times refuted carbon dating when it didn’t agree with them. Like the dating of the Shroud of Turin and the dating of the earliest human fossils, but in true hypocritical christian fashion they embrace it the moment it “proves” their point.
And as to the “finding” I have this to say: WOWEEE you found that the bones were 2000 years old. That does not PROVE it is Paul, it just proves that it is someone who died 2000 years ago. The man was martyred by the Romans, buried and then MUCH later he was dug up and moved to the basilica. After all that time I seriously doubt that they got the right man.
July 1, 2009 at 7:15 am |
Even if it is the right man … who cares? It’s just a pile of worthless bones.
July 1, 2009 at 7:36 pm |
Awesome! We finally found a biblical man that ACTUALLY EXISTS!!!
HOORAY!!!
Now what?
Is it just me or is it that this sounds a bit stupid? If you TRULY believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then what’s so surprising about discovering the bones of Paul? You shouldn’t even be surprised even if we discover the bones of Mary/Joseph or something..
July 2, 2009 at 3:02 pm
See, a whole ton of people don’t believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. That doesn’t change that we believe in God. Fundamentalists have apparently so tied the bible to God that sadly even the non-believers think one depends on the other. That is what is so strange about this site. The constant “proving” of the obvious, that the bible is full of contraditions. Most of us have known that, and it’s been in the literature for a couple centuries now. That has little do with why one believes or doesn’t believe in God, or logically at least, shouldn’t.
July 1, 2009 at 8:13 pm |
@Shawn: Agreed. It only proves the age of those bones not the identity. Now, had the bones been in an undisturbed sarcophagus with his name inscribed all over, that might be more convincing.
July 2, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
I agree Shawn. The Vatican seems to like to have it both ways. As to the remark by the Pope. I hope he is misquoted, since dating the bones found to the appropriate century, in no way “proves” them to be Pauls in any case.
I doubt there is any way to prove who the bones belong to.
July 1, 2009 at 10:15 am |
I was excited when I read today’s title. I’d love science and religion to marry and was happy the Pope was on the same page. Then I read the body of your post. Yeah….puzzling. For the uber religious who take the bible literally (such as the Pope?) it seems unlikely that they’d be able to attend any such union.
I am a goldfish jumping into a shark tank here!
But one of my favorite programs of all time is “Joseph Campbell and the Power Of Myth With Bill Moyers”. Joseph discusses many of the bible stories, and many (here comes my dive) are ancient myths that have danced and lived throughout the ages. The names and small details are changed, but the stories are the same. I haven’t watched these interviews in a little over a year, and I don’t remember details enough to give examples or to debate the issue, but if you’re into that sort of thing, it’s well, well worth watching!
When one views the bible stories the way Joseph did…..well that’d be one hell of a wedding party to attend! Little scireliengion babies running around everywhere. Bring on the champagne!!!
“Follow Your Bliss”
July 1, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
Science and religion need not engage in open warfare; but lowering the high standard of evidence that is the hallmark of the scientific method, in order to accommodate religion, is too high a price to pay for peace.
July 1, 2009 at 9:58 pm |
Agreed 100%.
Forrester, I think I’m not understanding your point. Might you elaborate? If bible stories are ancient myths (which I agree that they are), why do we want to lump them in with science, exactly?
July 2, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
You might want to pick up Richard Wright’s latest book, “the Evolution of God.” He starts with hunter-gatherer societies and moves forward. It’s amazing,and enlightening, and challenging for the believer, but in the end, he claims a good outcome is in store. I’ll be reviewing it on my site in a couple of weeks. I’m nearly half way done. Wright is considered one of the better thinkers around. Bill Clinton had one of his books required reading for his entire staff. He’s often on the top 25 books of the year for the NYTimes. Check it out.
J. Campbell’s work is legendary and so very good! Wright echoes a lot of this, and apparently the majority of scholars now believe that the early Isralites were polytheists and that Yahweh was originally in a pantheon of gods.
July 1, 2009 at 11:18 am |
“But Genesis presents Adam and Eve as actual persons and narrates important events in their lives and their children’s lives.”
The creation account in Genesis is probably a Hebrew folk-tale. We know this because it contains a talking snake. God can speak to us in stories and metaphor. Why expect him to be limited to science or reason?
If someone in the far future discovered the story of the Three Little Pigs, would we expect them to conclude that pigs can talk?
The Bible is a collection of literature. It is not science or history.
July 1, 2009 at 11:27 am |
Yes people may actually believe pigs could talk if the story of the “Three Little Pigs” was considered to be the inspired word of God.
Are you trying to convince me ancient Hebrews thought the story of Adam and Eve was a folk-tale? There are a scary number of people today that still believe it’s a true story.
The fact is the Bible is considered history until science proves it otherwise. Then it conveniently becomes a metaphorical story.
July 1, 2009 at 11:54 am |
The creation account is given as a folk tale in the Bible because the origin of the universe and the earth are just not that important to what the Bible deals with. What is important about the creation story? That God created everything that there is (many religions dispute this), that it was all good (not universally accepted in the ancient world) and that mankind is God’s greatest creation.
To get sidetracked by carbon dating, geology, evolution and the sequence of events is to miss the main points.
“Are you trying to convince me ancient Hebrews thought the story of Adam and Eve was a folk-tale?”
Yes. Give them some credit – just becaise the story is very old does not mean people were fools back then. Those who take the Bible literally today are, in my Christian opinion, mistaken.
“The fact is the Bible is considered history until science proves it otherwise. Then it conveniently becomes a metaphorical story.”
I don’t take the Bible as history or science – that is the rationalist view. The Bible contains the word of God and deals only with one subject: how we are reconciled to God in our current state of rebellion against him.
July 1, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I didn’t say the ancient Hebrews were stupid or foolish. They just didn’t know any better. They thought the world was flat, sitting on top of pillars with hell below and the heavens above. They thought the sun was light for the day and the moon was light for the night and the earth was the center of the universe. The blue sky was a dome covering the surface of the flat earth.
They lived in primitive and naive time in history. So yes, of course they believed the story of Adam and Eve was true.
Science has helped us see beyond the need for myths and folklore to explain everything.
July 1, 2009 at 11:33 am |
God can speak to us in stories and metaphor.
OK, so the talking snake story was metaphor. Is that what Jesus H. Christ died on a cross for, a metaphor?
Or maybe the stories of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus were also metaphor. Where does it end?
July 1, 2009 at 11:46 am |
Christ died to reconcile us to God, even in our state of rebellion against him. The cause of our broken relationship with God is described metaphorically, but the story of the crucifixion is real.
This isn’t rocket science. Different kinds of literature are meant to be taken in different ways by the original audience, and that is the proper way to read the Bible. You can’t just call all of it fact because you then have to spend all your time defending the inconsistancies. Better to hear what God is saying.
July 1, 2009 at 1:45 pm
My relationship with God is broken because He doesn’t exist.
It’s not rocket science: You are deciding for yourself which parts of the Bible you think are true, which is indistinguishable from “making shit up.”
July 1, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Or maybe the stories of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus were also metaphor. Where does it end?
Good question, Reginald…And this is one that you’re avoiding like the plague, Paul M.
July 1, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Make Your Own Christianity, then?
July 2, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
You would have to be interested enough in the subject matter of the bible to actually read commentaries on it. Scholars explain all this as various types of literature.
Surely, since we don’t have evidence that snakes speak, we regard that as a means of telling some truths about ourselves as creatures versus God.
The story of Jesus being crucified is a fact, attested to by various writers, not just those contained in the bible.
The virgin birth is a matter of faith, and many Christian denominations don’t adher to it.
Most people accept the resurrection on faith.
If you have no desire to believe anything that can’t be proven, then I daresay you don’t believe in gravity. It has never been proven.
July 2, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
I agree, much of the history is not correct. But still, it remains a valuable means of understanding the historical development of Judaism, early Christianity, and the evolution of God. There is in fact great wisdom to be discerned. Such may be said of many scriptural references, Christian and otherwise.
July 2, 2009 at 10:13 am |
Me too (but don’t ask me what else we agree on).
I believe God *and* what (most) science proves. I believe God knew a lot about science things before modern science discovered it (see Job 36:27,28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Job 26:8; Job 37:11; Ecclesiastes 1:6; Psalm 8:8; Job 38:16; Job 26:7).
For Christians, I think it’s hard to discount something like carbon dating as it’s so tangible. Christians often don’t have a great response to refute the “millions and billions of years” science pulls up. Like, where do the dinosaurs fit in? And what about the “early-man” bones that are found?
For me, it has to do with Genesis. The break between Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
and where it picks up in Genesis 1:2
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Two points to make: (1) In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. (2) The earth was (became) without form and void.
God first created everything. A unspecified/unknown period of time passed (enter dinosaurs, primitive man, etc.) the end of which the earth became without form and void. God then “reset” the earth (aka, the days of creation).
(This makes sense Biblically, as the current world is the “second” heaven and earth with a “new” heaven and earth on the way (See 2 Peter 3 for a quick timeline on all three).)
July 2, 2009 at 11:55 am |
Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists, and YEC is not a prerequisite for Christianity.
Other science God knew before science discovered it: You can breed animals with stripes by putting sticks in their watering trough (Genesis). Rabbits chew their cud, bats are a type of fowl, and insects have four legs (Leviticus).
July 2, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
BEattitude is simply wrong in stating that Adam and Eve were considered real until science proved otherwise. Most mainstream biblical scholars considered the story a myth long before we got into DNA and monochondrial analysis.
Again, if you think that you refute God by refuting sacred writings, then you have as I have alluded to before, a very immature understanding of both faith and Christianity.
July 2, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
BEattitude is simply wrong in stating that Adam and Eve were considered real until science proved otherwise. Most mainstream biblical scholars…
So a majority of Christians, by your standard, have “a very immature understanding” of faith and Christianity. Was BeAttitude talking about scholars when he wrote that, or the great multitude of Christians?
And without the sacred writings, what evidence do you have to show for 1) Jesus and Christianity and 2) God in general?
July 2, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
[...] to Hedi for this hilarious video clip that sums it up [...]
July 2, 2009 at 8:28 pm |
If you haven´t, so far I reckon this is a must !!!
July 2, 2009 at 9:03 pm |
LOL. That was great!