Archaeologists claimed to have found the bones of John the Baptist

Relics in the Early Church, relic veneration
www.religionfacts.com...
The Protestant church historian Adolf Harnack wrote of the veneration of relics in the early church:

No church doctor of repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The numerous miracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. The Church therefore would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens and besides by the Manichaeans. (History of Dogma, IV, 313).

The earliest surviving mention of relic veneration after the New Testament occurs in a work called The Martyrdom of Polycarp, dated to about 150 AD. In this account of the death of the leader who was believed to have known the Apostle John, his admirers in Smyrna wrote:

We took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom.

St. Jerome eloquently explained the practice this way:

We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are. (Ad Riparium, XXII, 907)

In 787 AD, the Second Council of Nicea met to consider the iconoclastic controversy. The assembled bishops affirmed the veneration of icons, images and relics:

We accept the image of the honorable and life-giving Cross, and the holy relics of the saints; and we receive the holy and venerable images; we accept them and we embrace them, according to the ancient traditions of the Holy Catholic Church of God, that is to say our holy Fathers, who also received these things and established them in all the most holy Churches of God and in every place of His dominion. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol 14, p. 541).

And what about Elijah and Joseph?

Biblical and historical accounts say that John the Baptist, who is referenced as a relative of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and a leading prophet who baptized Jesus, was beheaded by Herod Antipas, likely at the Jordanian citadel Machaerus. The discovery of an ancient Greek inscription on a tuff box referencing John the Baptist and asking God to “help your servant Thomas” led Bulgarian researchers to believe that the relics arrived in Bulgaria from Antioch, where some of the Baptist’s bones were held until the tenth century C.E. The waterproof tuff box, likely carried by this “Thomas,” likely originated in eastern Turkey.

Oxford University’s Georges Kazan explored historical documents for a different account of how the relics may have reached the Sveti Ivan church. According to Kazan, in the fourth century C.E., monks took relics of John the Baptist’s from Jerusalem to Constantinople. In the Oxford report (see link below), Dr. Kazan states “’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.”

The confirmed date of a knucklebone is far from final proof that the Bulgarian bones belonged to John the Baptist. A conclusive association between supposed relics and their Saint is impossible to establish; however, the research conducted by Oxford’s Tom Higham and Christopher Ramsey does prove that the “relics” have a better case for authenticity than previously imagined.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

Oxford university,

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.'

Former Oxford student Dr Hannes Schroeder and Professor Eske Willerslev, both from the University of Copenhagen, also reconstructed the complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequence from three of the human bones to establish that the bones were all from the same individual. Significantly, they identified a family group of genes (mtDNA haplotype) as being a group most commonly found in the Near East, which is better known as the Middle East today - the region where John the Baptist would have originated from. They also established that the bones were probably of a male individual after an analysis of the nuclear DNA from samples.

The Bulgarian researchers believe that the bones probably came to Bulgaria via Antioch, an ancient Turkish city, where the right hand of St John was kept until the tenth century.

The bones cry out.
www.ox.ac.uk...

Wow what an absolute joke, but hey we all know theists will believe anything.

Hey look I found a rock on the ground, it is a certain age so it must be Joe's cause he was on of millions of people to have lived then.
Even that relies on the fact that I know Joe existed.

John the baptist is just a fairy tale character.

Originally posted by jtap66
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'.

#1, The shroud is the equivalent of a negative 3-D photograph, and thus, the image is skewed and only appears as such. Even just reversing the image's color as if to "develop" it won't be right because it's like trying to understand how the earth really looks from looking at a map.

#2, You obviously have no idea how physically diverse the Middle East is. From nearly black to blue eyes and blond hair, it's there. King David, in Jewish tradition, is said to have been what we might modernly call a "ginger". The Israelites were an amalgamation of peoples. A lot of intermarriage with other peoples to produce the lineage of Christ. Even in my Arabic 101 class there were children of Arab immigrants who were trying to make their Arabic more formal and they looked like any white American with dark hair. The Middle East ain't all people looking like Osama Bin Laden or anything. It's pretty diverse.

#3, A personal anecdote about Dr. Jackson's (Shroud of Turin Center) wife. At a presentation I saw, he said the first thing his wife (who is Jewish by birth) said was that the image on the shroud looks like her grandfather did when he was younger. Obviously, her grandfather is Jewish.

reply to post by PeterWiggin


If they have no proof that they are then why are they saying it? Of course its accepted that he was a real individual but just because you find bones doesnt mean you should be able to claim them as some one with no evidence whatsoever.

reply to post by HumanCondition



Maybe, MAYBE NOT.

The religious nutjubs are going to love this one. Remember that shroud of Turin bull# a few years ago? Yeah, I also remember that theres not a shred of evidence of Jesus ever existing.

Of all the historians that lived in the same area and time as Jesus did, not one wrote about a man walking on water, turning water to wine, or any other of the bs miracles.

You know why people have a anti-religious chip on their shoulder? Let's see, I can think of one that comes to mind. Maybe, most death and war has been caused by Religion? Inquisition, crusades, the list goes on and on.

Christians that kill. Not too ironic, but just a little. God hates fags, anything disagrees with Religion is false, anything that you can't explain you go back to God, God created the earth in 6 days, Dinosaurs were put here to test our faith.

46% of people in the US believe in creationism. And we wonder why were the dumbest country on the planet.

IF John the Baptist were a real person...the story says that he was beheaded and that his head was delivered to Herodias on a platter. Are there any texts that state what (supposedly) happened to the head when she tired or admiring it or when it began collecting flies??

The article said that there was a part of a cranium in the box. I'm going to guess (unless there is an ancient text that states otherwise) the head was disposed of and his decapitated body buried somewhere sans head. Are the archaeologists forgetting this tiny detail about John the Baptists life? Since there is a part of a cranium in the box I would surmise the bones belong to someone else anyone other than someone who was decapitated and whose head was known (or so the story goes) to have been removed from his body and given to an enemy.

Relics were a big business in the early centuries; some poor schmuck thought he bought the bones of John the Baptist when he really bought the bones of the neighborhood leper or the village idiot or some traveling nomad. I'm sure every town had an entrepreneur with a collection of bones, cups, wood, etc. that he passed off as the bones of saints, bits of the cross of Christ and the holy grail.

Originally posted by Kang69
The religious nutjubs are going to love this one. Remember that shroud of Turin bull# a few years ago? Yeah, I also remember that theres not a shred of evidence of Jesus ever existing.

Of all the historians that lived in the same area and time as Jesus did, not one wrote about a man walking on water, turning water to wine, or any other of the bs miracles.

You know why people have a anti-religious chip on their shoulder? Let's see, I can think of one that comes to mind. Maybe, most death and war has been caused by Religion? Inquisition, crusades, the list goes on and on.

Christians that kill. Not too ironic, but just a little. God hates fags, anything disagrees with Religion is false, anything that you can't explain you go back to God, God created the earth in 6 days, Dinosaurs were put here to test our faith.
46% of people in the US believe in creationism. And we wonder why were the dumbest country on the planet.

www.agapebiblestudy.com...
THE OLDEST SECULAR ACCOUNTS & HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON THE EXISTANCE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH

Cornelius Tacitus (AD55-120) Roman historian: Most acclaimed works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals cover the period from Augustus Caesar's death in AD14 to the death of the Emperor Nero in AD68, while the Histories begin after Nero's death and proceed to the reign of Domitian in AD96. In the Annals, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome. See Annals XV,44: But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (The misspelling of Christ as "Christus" was a common error made by pagan writers). It is interesting that Pilate is not mentioned in any other pagan document which has survived. It is an irony of history that the only surviving reference to him in a pagan document mentions him because of the sentence of death he passed on Jesus the Messiah.

See the link for the whole shebang

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
reply to post by PeterWiggin

 

If they have no proof that they are then why are they saying it? Of course its accepted that he was a real individual but just because you find bones doesnt mean you should be able to claim them as some one with no evidence whatsoever.

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

Let me clarify this for you since some people here seem to be having a hard time with this - the article IS...NOT...SAYING...THESE...ARE...JOHN's...REMAINS.

What they ARE saying, though, is that there is circumstantial evidence that these are POSSIBLY John's remains. The details fit, but it can likely never be conclusively proven one way or the other.

However - try this on for size: the burial place and presence of George Washington's remains are not in dispute...but can you PROVE to anyone that those are the remains of Washington? No, you couldn't - at best, you could prove they are the remains of someone from his time, who may or may not share certain similarities with what is reported of him - based entirely on circumstantial evidence (granted, a preponderance of it).

Now, are you going to poo-poo the idea that Washinton's remains are in fact his? I doubt it. So please, get off this horse as all we know, based on the reported facts, are that YES, it is indeed possible these are the remains of John - but that cannot be proven one way or the other, barring some likely amazing discovery.

Crikey.

people get so angry about christain archaeology, its as if something supernatural is attempting to belittle or undermine some proof or evidence. Either way, incredible, and I do believe this to be 100% true that it may be JTB, but who knows, who will ever know.

anti-christain nutjobs are just parachuting throughout this thread all ready.


Honestly it is a great relic and something the church should be please

reply to post by samsamm9


By the time I got to this mosque in 2003, Damascus, I think I'd come across a few JTB heads, and bones throughout the Middle east. The mosque is very pretty though

well how many is that since 2000

peter,
mary
john
herod
bunch more im forgetting,,

anyone have a list?
lot of bones comming up ,,, lol

Originally posted by HumanCondition
Wow what an absolute joke, but hey we all know theists will believe anything.

Hey look I found a rock on the ground, it is a certain age so it must be Joe's cause he was on of millions of people to have lived then.
Even that relies on the fact that I know Joe existed.

John the baptist is just a fairy tale character.

Isn't htat a point of view?

reply to post by BobAthome


Jesus likened John the Baptist to Elijah coming before the Messiah (himself). Some people believe that Elijah will be one of the two prophets in the book of Revelation that work miracles and annoy the antichrist for a while. At any rate, Christianity wasn't all that popular at the time. John was killed, the Jesus. The disciples all scattered and then hid. Even after Pentecost, they still had a lot of persecution to deal with.
Even if they did get the body, what is so dramatic or tramatic about having them? I believe the Bible and the historical account. I don't need any 2,000 yr. old bones. Bury the poor fellow and let him rest in peace.
Archeology is interesting. I like knowing how people lived and what they used and their daily routines, etc. But opening graves and messing with peoples bones just isn't anything I want to engage in and definately not something I want to enshire, pray to, or worship.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
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.

Doesn't anyone find the church ritual of keeping of bones and body parts just a tad morbid?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by HumanCondition

 

Maybe, MAYBE NOT.

I have no problem believing he is real if there is evidence to say so.
But there isn't.
And you know this.
And until you can present evidence he is just as real as a Cinderella.

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by HumanCondition

 

Maybe, MAYBE NOT.

I have no problem believing he is real if there is evidence to say so.
But there isn't.
And you know this.
And until you can present evidence he is just as real as a Cinderella.

Plenty of evidence on JTB. You can also say that majority of ancient civilizations didnt exist either. So to you, your great great great great grandfather didn't exist to me, where is the proof that he exist? because you are a testimony of living flesh? Nah, that does not change my point of view at all, because you have 200 year old Birth certifcate too? well, i dont know, maybe your great G pa was a myth

reply to post by jiggerj
A bit, honestly, but not unexpected.

Some people keep urns containing the ashes of their relatives on their mantels, Skull & Bones had the skull of Geronimo. People party/partied like mad at Morrison's grave.

If there weren't prohibitions on it, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see people do much the same thing today as they do with relics - wasn't Napolean's penis auctioned not too long ago for quite a lot of money? Basically the same thing...when people are famous, gross habits with their remains come out of the wood work.

Originally posted by jiggerj
that time.

Doesn't anyone find the church ritual of keeping of bones and body parts just a tad morbid?

You're right we should burn down all our museums too