Deseret News | Remains are St. Paul's, pope says

Reader comments
Remains are St. Paul's, pope says

JAYEG | 7:59 a.m. June 29, 2009

'Seem to confirm...'?

Since Paul had no children, and it is unknown if he had any siblings to carry on the family genes for DNA referencing...I wonder what the Catholic Church is basing their claim on.

Cats | 9:01 a.m. June 29, 2009

Jayeg, It's not known whether Paul had children or not. He was a member of the Sanhedrin and, as such, would had to have been married. He may have been widowed which is why he made the statments he did.

However, you are right. I can't imagine how it could possibly be proved that the remains are those of the Apostle Paul. DNA couldn't be of much use unless it could, at least, be proved that it was someone of Jewish descent. However, it is impossible to link some Jewish groups today to each other through DNA, so I don't see how that would be of much use.

It may be Paul, but I don't think it could ever be verified.

Where are the Feds? | 9:23 a.m. June 29, 2009

Grave-robbing is a federal crime, collecting artifacts will get you hauled off at gunpoint.

Comments continue below

CougarKeith | 9:28 a.m. June 29, 2009

How was Paul a member of the Sanhedrin? He was a Roman Citizen, He prosecuted Christians as a Roman, not a Jew, or am I missing something? I agree they cannot use DNA testing to prove it is him. Peter on the other hand we know WAS MARRIED, and thus probably did have children as well. To "Presume" it is Peter's remains is a mistake, MORE TESTING MUST BE DONE! We do know he was killed in Rome, that is pretty reliable.

One thing is for sure, There is only two Christian Churches in the world who have legitimate arguments at laying claim to "Authority" from God, one is the "Catholic" claim, the other is the "Latter-day Saint" claim. All others are invalid, as they are descendants from the "Catholic" church who they themselves claim was "Invalid" and "Apostate" from which they can therefore have NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM ON AUTHORITY!

That much is FACT!

Ed | 9:29 a.m. June 29, 2009

Being a member of the Sanhedrin also required that he be over 30, married and have at least 2 children. He had to be a stable family man.

Ken | 9:43 a.m. June 29, 2009

Now that is a comment that shows a wide view of the world!
The coffin is in the Vatican!
The Vatican is standalone country surrounded by Italy.
"The Feds" have NO authority over there.

Even in the US that particular law only applies to artifices found on government owned land.
If they are on private property they are owned by the property owner.
So if the coffin was in a US Catholic Church, they could still do what they wanted with it and its contents.
They own it.

tj | 12:56 p.m. June 29, 2009

Like the Vatican would EVER say, "Oops, wrong guy buried under the basilica. Our bad."

Brighamite | 1:12 p.m. June 29, 2009

If I remember right, Paul was a Pharisee. He was of Jewish or at least partial Jewish descent but born somewhere inside the roman empire. I think that made him a Roman citizen as would being born in the US to one parent that is a citizen makes you a US citizen.

Indiana LDS | 1:19 p.m. June 29, 2009

Why are we even commenting about and/or doubting this story? How 'up in arms' would we be if a 'good and faithful' Catholic questioned the word and belief of our Prophet? He speaks in faith, and so does the Pope. The Pope is the final authority for the Catholic Church. President Monson is our final authority for our Church. Revalation is given to both. I would never presume to question the beliefs of the Pope unless they are in direct conflict with what I believe to be true as revealed by our Prophets. Let Benedict XVI be the final authority for the Catholic Church.

Hmmmm.... | 1:35 p.m. June 29, 2009

You would think that Paul would have been resurrected by now. If so, who IS in the coffin? I don't know, just a thought...

Rose Marie | 2:07 p.m. June 29, 2009

The New Testament was written for the world--how did Paul become a Roman Catholic???? He was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ--but I never remember seeing anything in the New Testament about Christ or Paul being a Roman Catholic.

Anonymous | 8:55 a.m. June 30, 2009

Paul is often called "The Protestant Apostle."

Andrew | 11:29 a.m. June 30, 2009

Paul would not be resurrected by now since he was not dead at the time of Christ's resurrection which the graves of the righteous who died before Christ were resurrected. The next resurrection will not happen till the beginning of Christ's Second Coming.

TOR | 12:47 p.m. June 30, 2009

Paul's death after Christ's resurrection does not rule out the possibility of his resurrection. Moroni died sometime after 421 AD, yet appeared to Joseph Smith as a resurrected being...

Anonymous | 9:33 a.m. July 1, 2009

Paul was baptized too quickly to be a Catholic

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.