Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Recent Archaeology Find of Alleged Remains of Saint John the Baptist Causes Controversy

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Recent Archaeology Find of Alleged Remains of Saint John the Baptist Causes Controversy


www.balkantravellers.com

The relics, consisting of parts of bones from the arm and leg, as well as a tooth and a facial bone, were discovered last week in a sealed relic urn by the archaeological team of Professor Kazimir Popkonstantinov.

the recent archaeological discovery of remains that were almost immediately announced to have belonged to Saint John the Baptist.

In addition, the hurried announcement has caused tension in Bulgaria’s archaeological circles.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
religion.blogs.cnn.com
paper.standartnews.com
www.bbc.co.uk




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Wow. If this turns out to be true than it would be a huge gain for Christianity. One of the original founders of Christianities bones being discovered at this place would turn the church they are housed in into a over night beacon for Christians world wide, especially since it claims to also house a piece of the Cross. I remain extremely sceptical about the find for now, as it is really too early to state with any certainty whether these are the bones of St. John the Baptist but it is an interesting story that I will be following. There is a lot of scepticism amongst the archaeological community in Bulgaria as well, as mentioned by the article...

The archaeologists explain this, as well as other announcements of sensational finds from recent years, with the fact that it is much easier to find additional finances if you discover something unique and big. As the debates were going on, Dnevnik reported that Popkonstantinov’s team announced that a part of the saint’s heel was discovered in the remains.




www.balkantravellers.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-8-2010 by GAOTU789]

edit on 8-9-2010 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



edit on 8-9-2010 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



edit on 8-9-2010 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



edit on 8-9-2010 by GAOTU789 because: playing with the font



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
How on earth are they going to be able to prove that these are the bones of John the Baptist ?

Seems like a ruse just to draw up some attention to the religion and the church, unfortunately people will believe what they're told to believe though



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
and they are St. John the Baptist's bones because..........the church said so.

I think it would be great to know for sure that this is indeed the case, but knowing that there can never be any certainty to this, just seems so.....hocus pocus like. I can take a lot on faith, but I refuse to blindly believe whatever I am told just because of who said it.

I do appreciate the significance of a brother mason posting this information.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Well I will have to remain skeptical...The Body and the head were separated as you recall, the head being presented as a gift to Herods wife( or some such regent) after being spurned by John....so a tooth doesnt make sense to me. Im quite sure after his beheading they werent interested in reconnecting the head with the body after presenting it to ol whats her name during dinner. Oh and then somehow body and head find their way to Bulgaria?...mmmm no I think not



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I have a grilled cheese sandwich which looks like its bleeding....
ooops ..sorry, my bad....it's ketchup
never mind.
Carry on.

I had a fundie tell me the other day that they had so proven Jesus existed.
I said prove it....

*sigh*
Im glad I never let him borrow any of my good tools.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Ummm... don't want to break anyone's bubble but...
Firstly

On the day of their discovery, before having seen them, the Bulgarian minister without portfolio, former head of the National History Museum and Sozopol-native, Bozhidar Dimitrov, declared publicly that the remains are authentic and that they belonged to Saint John the Baptist


This is not a proper archaeological process lol for declaring such a find.

Also

More extensive tests on the fragments will be conducted, but Popkonstantinov is convinced the relics belong to John the Baptist because of a Greek inscription on the reliquary. The inscription including the date of June 24 which is when Christians celebrate John the Baptist’s birth.
"Sveti Ivan" means "St. John" in Bulgarian and other Slavic languages. Popkonstantinov said it is possible an 11th century basilica also on the island was also dedicated to the saint.

www.allvoices.com...

Seems like the process for determining authenticity was very poor and unscientific and perhaps even a mockery of archaeology.

Looks like just a way to spark tourism?

Also look what happened just 2 days ago


Bulgaria’s economy is stable and the end of the crisis is near, Economy, Energy and Tourism Minister, Traicho Traikov, believes.

Regarding tourism, the Minister pointed out the priority is to make Bulgaria a year-round destination. By 2013, the Bulgarian tourism will receive BGN 63 M from the EU “Regional Development” program, according to Traikov.

www.novinite.com...


It seems that Bulgaria is having some economic trouble and tourism is what the country's main focal point for coming back up.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I am afraid that there is no known way to prove that the remains belong to St. John. Even if there are church records that state the remains are Johns, these would not be 100 precent proof. Like most things dealing with history of that era, it has to be taken on faith.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by lost in the midwest]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   


How on earth are they going to be able to prove that these are the bones of John the Baptist ?

There was another thread about this find recently, and the logic being used in the quoted article was;
a) These are relics of some kind, because they were kept in a reliquary.
b) But the church is dedicated to John the Baptist
c) Therefore the relics are those of John the Baptist.

But the only thing they're really proving on the argument is that the relics were probably claimed to be those of John the Baptist when the church was originally dedicated.
Which is not the same thing.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
But the only thing they're really proving on the argument is that the relics were probably claimed to be those of John the Baptist when the church was originally dedicated.
Which is not the same thing.
[edit on 4-8-2010 by DISRAELI]


Not a uncommon thing for that time. It can be said that enough pieces of the cross could be found in churches during that time to build a chruch. The sale of relics was big busisness and the Chruch required a relic of a saint to be in every new chruch that was built.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I know that this will never be conclusively decided that it is or isn't St. John the Baptist's remains. There is really no clear way to make that decision. I also now why it was announced the way it was. That much is pretty clear, even to a casual observer.

I do like the thought of it though. It would be rather interesting for history if they ever could make that determination. And really, there are many who will believe these remains to be his, regardless of the obvious fact that there is no way to tell.

Just an in interesting story I came across and thought I would share.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by GAOTU789]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I just recently discovered God's tooth in my backyard. I have faith that this is true AND the added knowledge that its REEEEALY OLD!

I thought that relic's and reliquaries were a thing of the past.

Oh well.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


Wake up and smell the grass
nooo dont smoke it moron!
On a serious note ragardless of weather or not
this is a legitimate find it will be debunked by
TPTB. From this time on christianity will begin
to decrease and become a minority. Be strong
christians for the testing time is nigh. By the
way felonius its probably one of your womans
teeth, lol.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost in the midwest
I am afraid that there is no known way to prove that the remains belong to St. John. Even if there are church records that state the remains are Johns, these would not be 100 precent proof. Like most things dealing with history of that era, it has to be taken on faith.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by lost in the midwest]


That might not be entirely true.

If there were DNA in the remains, and there are known family of his line - him directly or brothers - then you could at least put the remains into a pool of potentially being his remains if there were also other supporting information.

edit to add: Since Jesus and John were maternal cousins, they possibly could be confirmed via mtDNA. John is purported to be the descendant of Aaron on both sides, so he could also possibly be identified by DNA to Aaron's descendants.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2010/8/4 by Aeons]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Personally I find this to be very interesting. Of course the odds are against these bones having actually originated from the Churches namesake but that doesn't detract from their worth as a historical relic. The reliquary trade was dubious, at best, but it is still a very interesting subject.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I have a feeling this is going to remain an "unsolved" case that can never be conclusively proven "yes" or "no"...much like Jack the Ripper.

Which is unfortunate, I'm not religious in the least, but I'll admit, I would find it exciting to find out that these people really existed.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Discotech
 


Well he was beheaded.

That would be something to look for...

reply to post by Danbones
 


Like I said in previous posts, you can prove Jesus existed from the various claims of him. Ranging from early break off groups that wrote about him, to Josephus. And yes Josephus is a credible source because the so-claimed bad translation actually turned out to be pretty much the same thing as he said.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


As yes. The dead shall rise. Doesn't necessasily mean what you thought it would.

I think the blood oaths of the Illuminati are drunk from the skull of John the Baptist.

See, the thing about John, was that he gave the people a concrete visible remedy to extract themselves from the oaths of secret societies. Wash off the cooties! Go public that you are coming clean from the secret brotherhood! People were (and still are) very superstitious. And therefore they needed a washing ritual to discharge them from the dirt they became engaged in through these oaths.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
This would be absolutely crazy if true, but I have some serious doubts. From what I've been told, nothing draws more false alarms than archaeology which is seeking out religious figures.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

I still don't think I'm going to get my wrenches back.
the grill cheese tasted pretty good though.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by Danbones]





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join