Archaeologists claimed to have found the bones of John the Baptist

reply to post by Augustine62


I'd lend more credence to the Shroud being real if the Jesus depicted on it actually looked Middle Eastern, instead of looking like the unrealistic Jesus portrayed in European art.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno

Exactly ,they don't know ,its all based on speculation theoretical nonsense.

No, it's based on circumstantial evidence and (inferred) testimony - court convictions and matters of life and death have been decided on the same. You can definitely DISAGREE with the interpretation of the evidence, but for meaningful discussion - which is what I'd like here - please provide reasons and support for such disagreement instead of just worthless fly-by posts of dismissiveness. Otherwise the post adds nothing and is just annoying.

Have you ever heard of fabrication or forgery; Josephus was excellent at it. So why have an article in the first place talking about people that NO ONE has no clue nor evidence that they existed.

And Josephus is also utilized as a valuable historical record, with no reason to fabricate the baptist, and to my knowledge, there is no substantial claim that the sections on John - disagreeing with the christian bible as they do - were induced by later authors with intent to deceive.

And I'm not aware of any reason to write an article about such as you mention here, unless it has some historical bearing otherwise. Yet this instance has a historical bearing on John the Baptist, via the circumstantial evidence mentioned in the article.

Am I debating here with a Tool? Jesus!

I guess that depends on what I'm being utilized for at the moment, but I suppose you could call me a tool for some purposes.

And my Crapolla comment is what riled you up . I read the article and pee'd on it.

I wouldn't say it riled me up. I'm just tired of seeing so many similar worthless posts here on ATS. It's useless clutter.

And you are not even the OP..weird..the article is crap,just like all people that have blind-faith in jesus,islam,aliens or the government. You ,"sensitive one" has a great deal of blind faith. I suggest you stop surfing the net,avoid wikipedia and read a great book called "Forged" by Bart D. Ehrman. You might learn something.

Thanks for the recommendation, I've got it bookmarked and will look into it at some point. But based on my responses here, what exactly do I have so much blind faith in? I've merely been commenting on the worthlessness of some responses here and the actual intent of the article itself. I don't believe I've made any claims to anything of faith one way or the other, so my personal views have no bearing on the matter here either way.

But why on earth would I stop surfing the net, as it's more or less the accumulated knowledge and consciousness of humanity at this point (granted, with much good and bad to sort through and filter out), or stay away from Wikipedia when I can validate its sources as weighty and worthwhile at times? I want to deny ignorance, not shut myself off from input and content myself with it.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Anyway I doubt this is John the Baptist, it could be anyone who lived in the 1st Century. There were no shortage of crusades into the Holy Land and no shortage of presumed sacred relics discovered or brought back during that time.

BINGO! That's all the article proves (or seems to). Star for you.

I would suggest these people get the FBI to examine the DNA from the bones.

If they can get the names of the 9/11 highjackers from the DNA left on the steering wheel of a rented car, they can surely tell them who's bones these are.

Maybe even give us his last address and girl friend's name.

didnt it say that in the last days that John would Rise from the Dead.,
the coffin does match the ,,ARK cover,,4 horns un touched by iron,,yada,yada,

ergo John has risen from the dead. and it is the last days.

reply to post by BobAthome
I'm not aware of anything like that being said about John...I know St. Malachy's prophecy supposedly says that we've got one more Pope before the end, and that will be Peter of Rome (possible resurrection/reincarnation of the apostle Peter, supposed first pope?).

Is that what you're thinking of?

Picture this, There was a man named John, he had a large following, they took great care in the preservation of his remains down through history they passed through many mens hands, eventually ending up in the hands of

This,
Archaeological and written records suggest that these reliquaries were first developed and used at Constantinople by the city’s ruling elite at around the time that the relics of John the Baptist are said to have arrived there.
Dr Kazan said: 'My research suggests that during the fifth or early sixth century, the monastery of Sveti Ivan may well have received a significant portion of St John the Baptist’s relics, as well as a prestige reliquary in the shape of a sarcophagus, from a member of Constantinople’s elite.
'This gift could have been to dedicate or rededicate the church and the monastery to St John, which the patron or patrons may have supported financially.'

It could happen.

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

Exactly ,they don't know ,its all based on speculation theoretical nonsense.

No, it's based on circumstantial evidence and (inferred) testimony - court convictions and matters of life and death have been decided on the same. You can definitely DISAGREE with the interpretation of the evidence, but for meaningful discussion - which is what I'd like here - please provide reasons and support for such disagreement instead of just worthless fly-by posts of dismissiveness. Otherwise the post adds nothing and is just annoying.

Have you ever heard of fabrication or forgery; Josephus was excellent at it. So why have an article in the first place talking about people that NO ONE has no clue nor evidence that they existed.

And Josephus is also utilized as a valuable historical record, with no reason to fabricate the baptist, and to my knowledge, there is no substantial claim that the sections on John - disagreeing with the christian bible as they do - were induced by later authors with intent to deceive.

And I'm not aware of any reason to write an article about such as you mention here, unless it has some historical bearing otherwise. Yet this instance has a historical bearing on John the Baptist, via the circumstantial evidence mentioned in the article.

Am I debating here with a Tool? Jesus!

I guess that depends on what I'm being utilized for at the moment, but I suppose you could call me a tool for some purposes.

And my Crapolla comment is what riled you up . I read the article and pee'd on it.

I wouldn't say it riled me up. I'm just tired of seeing so many similar worthless posts here on ATS. It's useless clutter.

And you are not even the OP..weird..the article is crap,just like all people that have blind-faith in jesus,islam,aliens or the government. You ,"sensitive one" has a great deal of blind faith. I suggest you stop surfing the net,avoid wikipedia and read a great book called "Forged" by Bart D. Ehrman. You might learn something.

Thanks for the recommendation, I've got it bookmarked and will look into it at some point. But based on my responses here, what exactly do I have so much blind faith in? I've merely been commenting on the worthlessness of some responses here and the actual intent of the article itself. I don't believe I've made any claims to anything of faith one way or the other, so my personal views have no bearing on the matter here either way.

But why on earth would I stop surfing the net, as it's more or less the accumulated knowledge and consciousness of humanity at this point (granted, with much good and bad to sort through and filter out), or stay away from Wikipedia when I can validate its sources as weighty and worthwhile at times? I want to deny ignorance, not shut myself off from input and content myself with it.

Let see,,, blind faith on: the article, the assumption of circumstantial evidence, dating equipment, testimonies, in josephus and naively believing the belief that man will never have the motive to alter history.

That's just a couple to name. My friend you think too highly of your own history. Your problem is ,you have history on such a high pedestal. Most of it is crap.

Although I believe that Giodano's complaints and comments are ridiculous and without merit, I do have to wonder why this thread is in Conspiracies in Religion.

What exactly is the conspiracy here?

Eric

reply to post by GiodanoBruno

Let see,,, blind faith on: the article, the assumption of circumstantial evidence, dating equipment, testimonies, in josephus and naively believing the belief that man will never have the motive to alter history.

That's just a couple to name. My friend you think too highly of your own history. Your problem is ,you have history on such a high pedestal. Most of it is crap.

WHOA there...that was actually fairly well said, although it assumes incorrectly of me. Don't mistake me, I absolutely believe in conspiracy and that lots of people have lots of motives to alter lots of history.

However, as regards this case specifically, I see no reason to suspect Josephus (or later people altering his work to aid christianity, as they would not do so by way of disagreement with the christian story in the gospels) being complicit in indirectly aiding christianity by substantiating the existing of John, albeit by conflicting information.

As to the article, what blind faith should I not be exhibiting? I should assume the whole story is made up, and a fraud? If so, we'll find out in short order, no harm/foul.

Circumstantial evidence? Well, as said, unless the article is flat-out false, the circumstantial evidence is there. Granted, it proves nothing solid about these actually being the remains of John one way or the other. As another poster pointed out, it's entirely likely that they aren't. But it's also *possible* that they are. We'll likely never know either way.

Dating equipment/methods? Wow - usually I'm the one catching flack for calling radiometric dating into question, given our (currently scientifically-accepted) necessary assumptions about the consistency of decay rates, the correct amount of the isotopes and elements originally in the sample, and the integrity of the samples not allowing for any addition to or leaching out of the isotopes.

Testimonies - well, that just falls back to tie into the circumstantial evidence and the association of the place and items with John the Baptist - which, as with pretty much any and all other relics and holy sites - proves nothing one way or the other in itself.

As to Josephus - I would say I only have as much blind faith in him as assorted historians and academics do. I know some of his writings are questionable and possibly spurious, as I would assume that some are likely also genuine and somewhat-accurate accounts (now, you want REAL fun in historical reporting, check into Herodotus sometimes - that guy is AWESOME).

So...where exactly am I erring in my assumptions, here? Could they be incorrect?: possibly. Is it likely that they are? I doubt it, in this case at least.

If you have some reason to doubt that these alleged bones in fact come from a likely first-century palestinian who was - rightly or no - associated with John the Baptist by the people at this site for whatever reason, please, share it with us.

As I've claimed nothing beyond this, however...if not, exactly what do you keep arguing with me about?

There’s no sure-fire way to prove that the bones are, indeed, John the Baptist’s, as there’s nothing to compare them to for analysis.
The the sarcophagus of bones were found near another box, which reads, “St. John”..And is dated June 24 this is a holy day associated with John the Baptist so to me its not proving that the bones belong to John the Baptist’s..
So there claims are a bit on the wild side but still a very interesting article..peace,sugarcookie1

reply to post by sugarcookie1


True sugar, it will never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Originally posted by jtap66
Reminds me of the people who supposedly found a burial box for someone related to Jesus. Can't remember who, exactly. All these fictional characters run together.

Anyway, it was bunk. Just like the Shroud of Turin is bunk. Just like the supposed remains of Noah's Ark were bunk.

Notice a trend here?

Bones that could be anyones- bs- tick
Shorud of Turin- bs- tick
Noahs Ark- bs- tick.

Duly noted- tick.

reply to post by lifecitizen


I think there is a little more to it with the dates and DNA testing, the names and the circumstances, guess I will have to watch the show.

What about this though, how does a legend of these bones said to belong to John the Baptist, just happen to come from the right date in time, interesting.

Originally posted by samsamm9
The Umayyad Mosque in Syria claims to have in their possession John the Baptist's head.

It sure looks like him!

Actually, there is simply no way in hell anybody could prove that it was or wasn't "John the Baptist," even if he was a real person. Carbon dating might be able to narrow down the century, but it's not as if there weren't a few other million people around at the time.

Relics. They're good for business.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by samsamm9
The Umayyad Mosque in Syria claims to have in their possession John the Baptist's head.

It sure looks like him!

Actually, there is simply no way in hell anybody could prove that it was or wasn't "John the Baptist," even if he was a real person. Carbon dating might be able to narrow down the century, but it's not as if there weren't a few other million people around at the time.

Relics. They're good for business.

True, Blue, I just wonder if it could be possible they kept track of his remains, think about it this way, how about mummys?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Despite all the mud slinging and negativity. This is still a great find OP ! Good look'in out and thanks for posting. SnF.

Blueshift

Actually, there is simply no way in hell anybody could prove that it was or wasn't "John the Baptist," even if he was a real person. Carbon dating might be able to narrow down the century, but it's not as if there weren't a few other million people around at the time.

What about dental records ? I'm kidding sorrry.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
True, Blue, I just wonder if it could be possible they kept track of his remains, think about it this way, how about mummys?

Maybe. But you're talking about mighty kings and pharoahs. If he existed at all, John the Baptist was just another of the thousands of crazy prophets at the time, even though he apparently had a relatively large following. And if you believe the story of his death, getting his head lopped off because Salome asked for it (and per Jesus's machinations), then the natural conclusion of his earthly existence would have probably been thrown in a pile of dead bodies along with all the other petty criminals casually executed during the time. Sure, he became important later, but at the time? Just another guy who pushed his luck and paid the price.

I have my own take on the whole John the Baptist story, derived by reading between the lines of the various canonical and gnostic Gospels.

reply to post by randyvs



Thanks Randy, you know someday we may be able too determine the authenticity of these finds.
That would be fun.

reply to post by Blue Shift

But you're talking about mighty kings and pharoahs

I understand, but ya never know, if those people were as crazy as you say they are, maybe they did keep track.
Can you think of anything that has been handed down through the centuries?