9 replies to this topic

[galvatron prime]

Is this the earliest image of St Paul? 'Sensational' 1,600-year-old icon of saint found in a Roman tomb

http://www.dailymail...Roman-tomb.html
This faded face, with a pointed beard and furrowed brow, is believed to be the oldest image in existence of St Paul the Apostle.

Vatican archaeologists uncovered the fresco in a catacomb beneath Rome with the help of a laser, which cleared away centuries of grime, clay and limestone.

The image was created in the 4th century, according to Barbara Mazzei, the director of work at the catacomb.

It was easy to see that it was Saint Paul because the style matched the iconography that we know existed at around the 4th Century - that is the thin face and the dark beard,' she said.

'It is a sensational discovery and is of tremendous significance.'

The discovery was made at the Catacomb of Saint Thekla, who was a follower of St Paul and who was put to death under the Emperor Diocletian at the beginning of the 4th Century.

It was first uncovered on June 19 but was kept secret until yesterday to mark today's religious holiday for the Feasts of St Peter and St Paul.

St Paul was a Roman Jew, born in Tarsus in modern-day Turkey, who started out persecuting Christians but later became one of the greatest influences in the Church.

He did not know Jesus in life but converted to Christianity after seeing a light on the road to Damascus and spent much of his life travelling and preaching.

He was executed for his beliefs around AD 65.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's cultural minister, said: 'This is a fascinating discovery and is testimony to the early Christian Church of nearly 2,000 years ago.

[William O'Chee]

Here is the image:

[savoy6]

could very well be ......though i have never understood the whole obsession with "Paulinism" by the church...personally i think he's a wusss to some extent...lol...since, instead of being martyred like peter and the other christians of the time, he chose the easy way out by invoking his rights of roman citizenship and was beheaded...

[William O'Chee]

I must admit that St Paul is a complex and interesting theological figure.

If you look at the liturgy of the Ctholic and Orthodox churches, he is actually "bigger" than any of the other Apostles, since the is always a reading from the Epistles, but the Gospels get roughly a quarter as much reading.

This is in spite of the fact he was not one of the original Apostles, and did not actually know Jesus. I am not an expert on Pauline theology, but I guess that his Apostolicity derives from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The other interesting thing about him is his injection of Greek philosophical trends into Christianity, and the significant contribution he made to governance of the Church, and ultimately to positive as well as canon law.

[Wayne]

I must admit that St Paul is a complex and interesting theological figure.

If you look at the liturgy of the Ctholic and Orthodox churches, he is actually "bigger" than any of the other Apostles, since the is always a reading from the Epistles, but the Gospels get roughly a quarter as much reading.

This is in spite of the fact he was not one of the original Apostles, and did not actually know Jesus. I am not an expert on Pauline theology, but I guess that his Apostolicity derives from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The other interesting thing about him is his injection of Greek philosophical trends into Christianity, and the significant contribution he made to governance of the Church, and ultimately to positive as well as canon law.

I was telling a friend yesterday that I think Paul leans closer to Confucius (they are both 'organizational' in preference, and are so concerned with men's roles and duties in society; both are conservatives), while Jesus leans more towards Buddha (they are both ascetics of some sort, and both are radical), I mean, thinking in terms of their respective teachings.

[William O'Chee]

I was telling a friend yesterday that I think Paul leans closer to Confucius (they are both 'organizational' in preference, and are so concerned with men's roles and duties in society; both are conservatives), while Jesus leans more towards Buddha (they are both ascetics of some sort, and both are radical), I mean, thinking in terms of their respective teachings.

If one ignores the actual theological teachings, and concentrates on the philosophical themes, then this may well be true. It is certainly a most interesting thought.

Having pondered long on Christ's actual political message, I can find very little other than his famous admonition to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's" but even then this is not very clear. At one level it could be seen as a suggestion that Christians must abide by secular authority. On another level, it could be taken as meaning that secular authority must be accepted except when it conflicts with adherence to divine law.

There is also the exchange with Pontius Pilate where Christ seems to eschew any interest in secular matters when he says "My kingdom is not of this world..."

Paul certainly does seem very "Confucian", but that is because he had to deal with real issues concerning the governance of a fast growing Church. These were not issues Christ had to address.

Was Jesus like Buddha? I am not sure. Was Christ really an ascetic? If he was, why was his first miracle to turn water into wine? Why did he make breakfast for the disciples at the edge of the Lake after his resurrection? Why did he ask his disciples to take bread and wine in his remembrance? On the other hand, he it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

I will think this concept over, and see what others have to say in the meantime.

[changsham]

"Render unto Caeser which is Caeser's and render unto God's which is God's". He could have expanded on this by adding " And Caeser's do not take what is God's and God(or earthly representatives) do not take what is Caeser's". Then it would have been more clearer, meaningful and helpful to humanity.



The Christ quotes from William to me suggest some seperation of church and state but also acknowledges legitimacy to an all powerful Caeser on this Earth. But did he really say those quotes or is it spin attributed to him by to help make Christianity more compatible with the power structure of the Roman Empire? I understand that the first synoptic gospels that contain these quotes were likely written in Rome 60-70 years after Christ's death.


A religious figure saying something like that in the modern world would sound like "Sucking up".

Edited by changsham, 29 June 2009 - 07:33 PM.

[William O'Chee]

"Render unto Caeser which is Caeser's and render unto God's which is God's". He could have expanded on this by adding " And Caeser's do not take what is God's and God(or earthly representatives) do not take what is Caeser's". Then it would have been more clearer, meaningful and helpful to humanity.



The Christ quotes from William to me suggest some seperation of church and state but also acknowledges legitimacy to an all powerful Caeser on this Earth. But did he really say those quotes or is it spin attributed to him by to help make Christianity more compatible with the power structure of the Roman Empire? I understand that the first synoptic gospels that contain these quotes were likely written in Rome 60-70 years after Christ's death.


A religious figure saying something like that in the modern world would sound like "Sucking up".

Ahh, a very good question. This goes right to the origins of the Gospels themselves. If you accept the mainstream view of the Gospels, then the synoptic Gospels may rely on the Q source, which would necessarily predate them. But it is not possible to know when that document was written, nor what it contained. An alternative view, proposed by Carsten Peter Thiede in "The Jesus Papurus" is that the Gospel of Matthew predates the Fall of Jerusalem, in which case it would have been written by an eyewitness.

As for your expansion on Matthew 22:21, that is not a bad take on the problem! Perhaps, though, Jesus wanted us to figure out the rest for ourselves. After all, that is what makes Christianity a true faith, as opposed to a series of rules for observance.

[changsham]

Ahh, a very good question. This goes right to the origins of the Gospels themselves. If you accept the mainstream view of the Gospels, then the synoptic Gospels may rely on the Q source, which would necessarily predate them. But it is not possible to know when that document was written, nor what it contained. An alternative view, proposed by Carsten Peter Thiede in "The Jesus Papurus" is that the Gospel of Matthew predates the Fall of Jerusalem, in which case it would have been written by an eyewitness.

As for your expansion on Matthew 22:21, that is not a bad take on the problem! Perhaps, though, Jesus wanted us to figure out the rest for ourselves. After all, that is what makes Christianity a true faith, as opposed to a series of rules for observance.

Another point on the Caeser quote. He acknowledges two powers, that of God and Caeser. He does not mention the Hebrew kings, their laws or other worldly rulers. Sounds very Roman centric as if he is speaking directly from a PC Roman point of view. Which may be unusual considering he was a Jew claimed to be the Messiah living under occupation.

Otherwise we have to interpret "Caeser" as meaning any ruler of no paricular domain.

Edited by changsham, 30 June 2009 - 01:59 AM.

[William O'Chee]

The exact version of Matthew in Greek is: “Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ” so the word used is actually the Greek for emperor. Of course the lating for this is caesar.

Naturally, the issue has to be taken in context, which is being asked a question about paying tax to Rome, not paying tax to the Sanhedrin. The allegation that Christ was not sufficiently "Jewish" to be the Messiah was of course levelled at the time, but the point of Christ's mission was to offer redemption to gentiles as well as the Jews. That is why he ushered in the New Covenant.

Changing the focuc slightly, I forgot to mention Tertullian's take on the Matthew 22:21 verse, which is that the coin is made in the image of Caesar, but that Man was made in the image of God, and therefore one should devote oneself to God. This does not actually require a renuncuation of secular authority though.