Archaeologists claimed to have found the bones of John the Baptist

archaeologists claimed to have found the bones of John the Baptist

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

When archaeologists claimed to have found the bones of John the Baptist amid the ruins of an ancient Bulgarian monastery experts were understandably sceptical.

But carbon dating tests carried out at Oxford University have provided scientific evidence to support the extraordinary claim.

A knucklebone has been dated to the 1st Century AD - a time when the revered Jewish prophet is believed to have lived.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

The reliquary box thought to have been used to carry the bones to the island. The exterior has inscriptions written in ancient Greek mentioning John the Baptist and his feast day

The scientific analysis of the relics undertaken by Tom Higham and Christopher Ramsey at Oxford, and their colleagues in Copenhagen was supported by the National Geographic Society.

The documentary Head of John the Baptist, featuring the scientists' work is due to be shown on the National Geographic Channel at 8pm on 17 June 2012.

Of course there is no way of knowing if this is absolutely true but it is interesting.

Professor Higham said: ‘We were surprised when the radiocarbon dating produced this very early age. We had suspected that the bones may have been more recent than this, perhaps from the third or fourth centuries.

‘However, the result from the metacarpal hand bone is clearly consistent with someone who lived in the early first century AD. Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will.

DNA tests at the University of Copenhagen on three bones confirmed they were from the same person and probably from someone of Middle East origin - where John the Baptist came from.

They also established they were probably from a man.

The marble sarcophagus, which contained a collection of human and animal bones, was found directly beneath the church altar

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

I found some bones in an old church. therefore john the baptist! This article is nothing more than religious propaganda lol

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
I found some bones in an old church. therefore john the baptist! This article is nothing more than religious propaganda lol

How so, exactly?

Did you even bother to read the article? The real-life existence of John is not in any dispute that I'm aware of, and the article provides information as to why these are thought to be his remains, although it cannot be proven.

You just another with an anti-religious chip on his shoulder, so you need to spout off for no good reason?

What a bunch of crapolla

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
What a bunch of crapolla

I wonder if people in the future might think the same thing if they believe they ever found your remains, for different reasons?

If you have nothing else to add and no respectable thoughts on the matter one way or the other, it wouldn't surprise me at all..

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?

Originally posted by PeterWiggin

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
What a bunch of crapolla

I wonder if people in the future might think the same thing if they believe they ever found your remains, for different reasons?

If you have nothing else to add and no respectable thoughts on the matter one way or the other, it wouldn't surprise me at all..

Not interested in surprising you or impressing you. I read the article; the material and the heading is completely misleading. Which is why its all crap. You want to tell me how I am wrong.


Right back at yea thin skin

Would this have any relation to the article?

I think this is a Holy Relic of sorts with a mention of John The Baptist.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno

Not interested in surprising you or impressing you. I read the article; the material and the heading is completely misleading. Which is why its all crap. You want to tell me how I am wrong.

Well first off, the heading and the material seem to be pretty much NOT misleading - archeologists, according to the article, claimed to have found the bones of John, Oxford researchers verified they date to the correct period and are from a male, likely of middle-eastern descent, and other artifacts found with them - and indeed the island itself - are directly associated with John.

Which would lead one to logically assume that the person or people who gathered them there ALSO thought they were associated with John, whether or not that's correct, but the details fit the possibility.

So, where's the crap exactly?

Right back at yea thin skin

Ooh, burn! You got me!

I just really wish that if people didn't have anything intelligent to add to threads, agree or disagree - they just wouldn't add anything at all. It's just...a waste of time and energy for all parties involved. I could care less about the opinion, as long as it's sincere and respectful (and hence, worthwhile).

reply to post by jtap66

Notice a trend here?

Yeah, people keep adding crap comments to the thread.

Yours at least adds something, although I disagree with the conclusion (barring further findings on this specific instance). Thanks for that.

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?

Well, I agree that the discovered ossuary was not the remains of the actual St. James. Why? Because the name Jesus is not unique in that time. Just like many muslims name their kid mohammed, so did many Jews name their kid "Jesus". But it wasn't Jesus, it was Yehoshua (hebrew), Yeshua (Aramaic/Arabic). Jesus of Nazareth is who the box was supposedly related to, and this is false. But the remains were in fact those of a James (common name which in Hebrew is Ya'akov, or, Jacob). This Jacob was related to a Jesus and both were sons of a man named Joseph. I suppose every Mohammed who is the son of an Abdallah running around Arabia are fakes too, simply because they share similar names and relation to each other?

Either way, Dr. Randy Ingermanson does a great statistical analysis of the James Ossuary: www.ingermanson.com...\

It should also be noted that the Church never gave any credit to the James Ossuary because it doesn't follow with known Catholic practice of Reliquary/Relic protocol.

The Shroud of Turin is actually unproven to be fake and more evidence has since come out since the erroneous carbon dating done in the 80's (they actually tested a portion known to not be original as it was a replacement patch after a fire). I personally believe the Shroud is real. Check out the website for the Shroud of Turin Center in Colorado Springs, CO. Dr. Jackson led the expeditionary team in the 70's and is one of the few scientists in the world who has had first access and consistent understanding of the data found since by others.
www.shroudofturin.com...

The Noah's Ark remnants are also not claimed by the Church as anything real, because the understanding of the passage related to where the Ark came to rest is a modern fallacy. It doesn't say Mount Ararat in the text, it says the Mountains of Ararat. If, thousands of years later, some place in China is called Plymouth Rock, did the pilgrim's land there? Hardly. Same thing with the mountain in Turkey. It makes much more sense for the Ark to have been landing somewhere around Iran or Armenia, both of which make more sense based on the geographical names and understanding of the time.

But this find actually fits with the Catholic practice of relics, which the Eastern Orthodox retain as well. Furthermore, the fact that it was placed under the altar means the church had documentation that these were St. John's relics. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox take this stuff very seriously, and the time period of this reliquary and the relics of St. John were before the split, meaning, there was no reason or way to fake such a thing because proof would have been demanded as proof is still today demanded.

To compare this find to the James Ossuary, Noah's Ark claims, or even the Shroud of Turin is completely ignorant of all things Catholic and the procedure for relics and their use/determination of authenticity.

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

Not interested in surprising you or impressing you. I read the article; the material and the heading is completely misleading. Which is why its all crap. You want to tell me how I am wrong.

Well first off, the heading and the material seem to be pretty much NOT misleading - archeologists, according to the article, claimed to have found the bones of John, Oxford researchers verified they date to the correct period and are from a male, likely of middle-eastern descent, and other artifacts found with them - and indeed the island itself - are directly associated with John.

Which would lead one to logically assume that the person or people who gathered them there ALSO thought they were associated with John, whether or not that's correct, but the details fit the possibility.

So, where's the crap exactly?

Right back at yea thin skin

Ooh, burn! You got me!

I just really wish that if people didn't have anything intelligent to add to threads, agree or disagree - they just wouldn't add anything at all. It's just...a waste of time and energy for all parties involved. I could care less about the opinion, as long as it's sincere and respectful (and hence, worthwhile).

How would they know its John's or luke's or LadyGaGa's bones? Because of the correct period? Really? Was he the only middle eastern male on this land area(an island)?? Really??

How is all this directly associated with John. Do you even have proof john existed?
Just curious. Feel free to surprise me with your "assuming logic".

And sorry those details do not ,in now way shape or form produce a logical possibility. A crappy possibility yes,,which is why I posted CRAPOLLA.


And your last paragraph is weak. You "wish"?? There's 42million members on ATS. Are you kidding me. Grow some thick skin ferry friend.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno

How would they know its John's or luke's or LadyGaGa's bones? Because of the correct period? Really? Was he the only middle eastern male on this land area(an island)?? Really??

They DON'T know, which you would be aware of had you read the article, but they *infer that it's possible* given the nature of the remains themselves, in addition to the inscriptions and location associated with them.

As to if he was the only middle-eastern first-century male associated with John the Baptist whose remains were carried to an Island in Bulgaria...probably so?

How is all this directly associated with John.

Read the article for explanation if my posts haven't been enough, brighteyes.

Do you even have proof john existed?
Just curious. Feel free to surprise me with your "assuming logic".

I believe historians and academics in general are more than satisfied with the historicity of sections of Josephus' histories that deal with John, among other accounts and indications.

And sorry those details do not ,in now way shape or form produce a logical possibility. A crappy possibility yes,,which is why I posted CRAPOLLA.

Then please, elucidate how exactly they don't produce a logical possibility? It's easy to spout crap, not so easy to substantiate opinion - which is all I'd like to see here.

And your last paragraph is weak. You "wish"?? There's 42million members on ATS. Are you kidding me. Grow some thick skin ferry friend.

You're right. The vast majority of people are ignorant and unclassy, so I know I expect too much. I don't really see what my desires and annoyance have to do with the thickness of my skin, though, as you're the one who seems to be getting riled up here?

The information presented in the article offers a lot of circumstantial evidence making a compelling case for the authenticity of the relics. However throughout the middle ages and into the modern age there has been a market for the sale of holy relics. With the market for these object comes the unscrupulous purveyors of such objects that flood the market with fakes and forgeries.

This article goes into the trade of holy relics:
www.forbes.com...

With this case it appears on the surface to be authentic based on the amount of evidence but if this were a court case you only can prove this was a man of middle-eastern decent from around the time of John the Baptist, the rest is up to personal faith.

Maybe we can look into any miracles that took place in this church throughout the history of it while the relic was housed there? There is a belief with faithful that these relics do have healing powers, still this will only prove the authenticity to the believers.

For all those who feel that this is faked, I have no problem with that, just explain yourself. A one line response stating "it's crap" doesn't contribute anything of value to this thread.

reply to post by PeterWiggin


Man don't respond to every post, sounds like some of these guys are just trying to get a rise out of you. It's like playing wack-a-mole, as soon as you respond to one another shows his head, it ain't worth it.

Originally posted by bphi1908
reply to post by PeterWiggin

 

Man don't respond to every post, sounds like some of these guys are just trying to get a rise out of you. It's like playing wack-a-mole, as soon as you respond to one another shows his head, it ain't worth it.

It's OK, I'm enjoying myself with it so far. When it gets wearisome I'll find other entertainments.

You have my thanks for the concern, though. And thanks for your other post, as you sum it up well. The claims in the article prove nothing beyond what they prove, take it or leave it, just *contribute* one way or the other and don't simply try to score points with ATS users who lean to either side.

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

How would they know its John's or luke's or LadyGaGa's bones? Because of the correct period? Really? Was he the only middle eastern male on this land area(an island)?? Really??

They DON'T know, which you would be aware of had you read the article, but they *infer that it's possible* given the nature of the remains themselves, in addition to the inscriptions and location associated with them.

As to if he was the only middle-eastern first-century male associated with John the Baptist whose remains were carried to an Island in Bulgaria...probably so?

How is all this directly associated with John.

Read the article for explanation if my posts haven't been enough, brighteyes.

Do you even have proof john existed?
Just curious. Feel free to surprise me with your "assuming logic".

I believe historians and academics in general are more than satisfied with the historicity of sections of Josephus' histories that deal with John, among other accounts and indications.

And sorry those details do not ,in now way shape or form produce a logical possibility. A crappy possibility yes,,which is why I posted CRAPOLLA.

Then please, elucidate how exactly they don't produce a logical possibility? It's easy to spout crap, not so easy to substantiate opinion - which is all I'd like to see here.

And your last paragraph is weak. You "wish"?? There's 42million members on ATS. Are you kidding me. Grow some thick skin ferry friend.

You're right. The vast majority of people are ignorant and unclassy, so I know I expect too much. I don't really see what my desires and annoyance have to do with the thickness of my skin, though, as you're the one who seems to be getting riled up here?

Exactly ,they don't know ,its all based on speculation theoretical nonsense. 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. Am I debating here with a Tool? Jesus!

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

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

The burial-place of John the Baptist was at Sebaste in Samaria, and mention is made of his relics being honored there around the middle of the 4th century. The historians Rufinus and Theodoretus record that the shrine was desecrated under Julian the Apostate around 362, the bones being partly burned. A portion of the rescued relics were carried to Jerusalem, then to Alexandria, where on May 27, 395, they were laid in the basilica that was newly dedicated to the Forerunner on the former site of the temple of Serapis. The tomb at Sebaste continued, nevertheless, to be visited by pious pilgrims, and St. Jerome bears witness to miracles being worked there.

Wiki

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Brilliant, now people will start gathering around it expecting to cure their arthritis, lesions, tumors and financial troubles. My issue with so-called Biblical archaeology, other than the amount of relics which are obviously fake, is that the moment something is confirmed as legitimate a whole bunch of supernatural stipulations are attached to it by the faithful.

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.