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
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?
edit on 15-6-2012 by PeterWiggin
because: (no reason given)