In “Bone fragments confirmed to be Saint Paul”, the Telegraph reported on 29 June 2009 that “scientific tests confirmed shards found in the underground chamber … were from the apostle.”
It makes you wonder. Did they have some DNA of his laying around to compare with? No, just purple linen laminated with gold. The best they could do is Carbon 14 testing, revealing it was an individual from the 1st or 2nd century.
Of course, the article also says that “Saint Paul was said to have been buried with Saint Peter”. Despite Vatican claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that Peter ever travelled to Rome.
The “Simon” in Rome was not Simon Peter, but it was actually “Simon Magnus” who tried to purchase the ability to pass on the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Ac 8:17-24). He then went on to start his own religion, a mixture of paganism and Christianity that eventually persecuted and tried to extinguish true Christianity.
In addition, COGWriter Robert Thiel points out in “Pope Claims Paul’s Bones In Rome” that there is a tradition that Paul was buried in Britain. However, he quotes a Catholic source rather than the ones I’ve been exposed to, making it seem much more likely than a burial in Rome.
On 28 June 2009, it was also reported that the “‘Oldest’ image of St Paul discovered”. It is a fresco dating back to the 4th century.
A photograph of the icon shows the thin face of a bearded man with large eyes, sunken nose and face on a red background surrounded with a yellow circle – the classic image of St Paul.
The yellow circle, similar to a halo, is, of course, a symbol of the sun god. That alone casts a shadow upon the find, as well as it is unlikely anyone would have known what he looked like 300 years later.