Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Archaeologists claimed to have found the bones of John the Baptist

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Sure it's morbid, but then we're talking about a religion based upon the crucifixion and death of an innocent man and who practice a ritual where they pretend to drink his blood and eat his flesh.




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by PeterWiggin
 


Yeah but you see how many are blindly accepting them as johns remains just because they said they "might" be. It's just a way for them to make the discovery of some old bones in a box seem important. They will never prove whether they are or not but if enough people start blindly believing they are they may get a chance to sell them. Its sad really.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I agree with some of the other posters, many of the historical accounts in the Bible have been proven to be true by archeologist, leave aside the supernatural, and don't through the baby out with the bath water.

Example
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


It's true. Although, Hebrews enslaved by Egyptians, the existence of Jesus, and creation stories just aren't among them.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

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?

Yes, a trend.
An attempt to prove the validity of the Bible with Archaeology and align the stories with historical events. That way the end will surely come true for them.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The mental gymnastics some people will perform to make facts fit their superstitious fantasies...



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
The mental gymnastics some people will perform to make facts fit their superstitious fantasies...

I would resort to the superstitious fantasies held by Christians here, but that would be off topic, wouldn't it now? So, I will hold my tongue, for now.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by jtap66
The mental gymnastics some people will perform to make facts fit their superstitious fantasies...

I would resort to the superstitious fantasies held by Christians here, but that would be off topic, wouldn't it now? So, I will hold my tongue, for now.


Nothing like belittling something you don't believe, that always work



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Augustine62

You mean to say that science can prove the origin of all life? Really? How unscientific of you.


Eventually ? maybe, hopefully. Though I expect it will be a long road with many currently unsuspected factors.

Even if it does not, the quest for "how?" is always a valid one.

More pertinent is your immediate denial of anything contradictory to the worldview you prefer. Which reinforces the initial thrust of this exchange.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River

Nothing like belittling something you don't believe, that always work


Naw, I just ignore cretins.

Btw "Evidence" not "Evidance"



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular

Originally posted by Jordan River

Nothing like belittling something you don't believe, that always work


Naw, I just ignore cretins.

Btw "Evidence" not "Evidance"


Cretins? btw, by the time i caught onto the typo i wasn't able to change the thread.

So basically, your point of view is superior because?

I at least try to find some commonality before trumping up and down screaming like a toddler yelling "my way"

So this low brow point of view is by far lower than any atheist or theist imho. You can call all those who have a spiritual background a cretin, but honestly the day for you to find some commonality between two people is the day the heavens open.
edit on 17-6-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


So you base YOUR belief (and thus place faith) into that which is unseen, unproven and merely possible to hope for based on the evidence of progression thus far? OK. So, I stand by my statement: unscientific.

My worldview is not challenged if this isn't St. John's relics being discovered. I'm just explaining that the folks here spouting off are doing so without understanding the Orthodox and Catholic method of preserving and documenting relics. Since this discovery is from around the 6th century, it still must be explored as this method is based in the 1st century and should be explored from that angle as that is the angle of the claim.

It's not rocket science, but then again, your view isn't science at all.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Without furthering the flame-war that always develops in topics like this, I wish to make clear that there's a difference between science and expediency. So many comments seem more concerned with the latter concept than the former, especially if something isn't expediently t-f, then it must not be scientific. Anyone who thinks in that manner has nothing to do with the scientific method. The scientific method is a corrective process through time. Science is the body of this methodology's success.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular


Nothing like belittling something you don't believe, that always work


Naw, I just ignore cretins.

Btw "Evidence" not "Evidance"



Originally posted by Jordan River
Cretins? btw, by the time i caught onto the typo i wasn't able to change the thread.


Evidence" not "Evidance" is in your signature not the thread replies.



Originally posted by Jordan River
So basically, your point of view is superior because?


I'm demonstrably a hell of a lot smarter than you. Which isn't making much of a proclamation, btw.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Augustine62
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


So you base YOUR belief (and thus place faith) into that which is unseen, unproven and merely possible to hope for based on the evidence of progression thus far? OK. So, I stand by my statement: unscientific.

My worldview is not challenged if this isn't St. John's relics being discovered. I'm just explaining that the folks here spouting off are doing so without understanding the Orthodox and Catholic method of preserving and documenting relics. Since this discovery is from around the 6th century, it still must be explored as this method is based in the 1st century and should be explored from that angle as that is the angle of the claim.

It's not rocket science, but then again, your view isn't science at all.


How does:
"Eventually ? maybe, hopefully. Though I expect it will be a long road with many currently unsuspected factors."

Become faith and belief ?

It is an expressed opinion with no conviction of certainty of outcome.

It is an acknowledgment of the fact that science is the pursuit of truth, even if said truth is contrary to personal hopes.

It is the search for "how?"

You labor hard to point at the poster, while attempting to twist the meaning of the post. Bad form sir.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 

Not really, nothing like belitting someone to feel better than yoruself.

oops was that a typo



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 

Not really, nothing like belitting someone to feel better than yoruself.

oops was that a typo






top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join