Skip to comments.Is this the hand of John the Baptist?...
Posted on 06/15/2012 6:12:49 AM PDT by C19fan
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
My uncle Sol lived around that time too .. I think it’s him.
What the heck. Let's go ahead and revere it anyway.
That was my first thought. Just because the bone carbon dates to the 1st century, and some unfounded claims by archaeologists about John the Baptist's bones being found in a monastery, we now jump to the conclusion that this may be his bone? Give me a break. It's more likely it's an ancestor of TV's Monk.
Is the scull missing? That would be the first clue I would look for.
Lately, (last 3 or 4 years) it seems there is a lot of reporting, news, articles, essays and et cetera's that have pretty much nothing to do with anything, or is pure speculation about a matter or a person.
This falls into that category.
So what if it IS JTB's hand ... and .. ?
I'm tiring of words that go nowhere or worse ... are intended to go nowhere.
Barrooms are FULL of arguments about nothing or stupid shit.
I don’t know which is sadder, that some people will be all to willing to believe that these are the bones of John the Baptist or that several of the readers who responded to that article believe that dinosaurs can be carbon dated....
It’s the hand of John the Lutheran (LCMS).
Exactly. We're supposed to worship Christ, not some remnant of a human, or a remnant that may have been related to his ministry. Shroud of Turin for instance, the holy grail... Not to mention these ceaseless images of Mary that show up in bagels, pieces of bread, dog turds or wherever. Crying or bleeding statues? Sheesh.
Who preceded Charles the Lutheran (LCMS)...
***Is the skull missing? That would be the first clue I would look for.***
That would probably be in Rome or Venice. When the Crusaders sacked Constantinople they brought back THREE HEADS of John the Baptist.
These relics were the subject of a NatGeo hour long show.
They were found in a box below what would have been an altar in the ruins of an old church (400AD-500AD). Based on that location, some inscriptions found at the site and the carbon dating, there is reason to be comfortable with the theory.
Being placed below the altar at that time would have meant the reliquary was in a place of veneration. I hope it is true..
Wow. Nasty post. And I think you know by now that Catholics do not worship relics.
You’d hate Italy: my favorite relic was the tongue of a saint I came across in either Bologna or Assisi. Long time ago but it raised even my relic-accustomed eyes.
I read the article. There’s nothing beyond speculation that this reliquary and bones came from Jerusalem. In fact, speculation is all we can engage in at this far-removed date, there not being sufficient evidence to go on.
In any event. Even if it were the bone of John the Baptist, it’s nothing to worship. We worship God and His son Jesus Christ. Any other worship is idolatry. It shouldn’t even be revered. Held in respect perhaps as we do our ancestors, honored for what it is, but not revered, and certainly not worshiped.
OK, give me the Catholic bit of dogma that says we must “worship” relics.
The goofball I responded to in my original post wanted to know if the “scull” was missing.
I was in no way nasty. It was an honest response to all this silliness about relics and remnants of Christianity being given such reverence. It detracts, even replaces for many, the true faith in Christ. We focus far to much on such triviality, taking our focus away from our faith and duty to Him who has saved us.
His Word is what sustains us. It is His Word that lives. Not these relics of the past.
No, you show me the post where I referred to Catholics. I never said anything about the Catholic faith. It's you who've brought Catholicism into the discussion.
I write of anyone, of any faith, who places importance to their faith in any of these remnants. It shows how weak their faith really is.
My posts to you speak for themselves. I don't need to add to them. Nor do I need to justify them.
Remnants of Christianity, indeed!
You need to limit your coffee intake. I said nothing nasty, nor dishonest. You fail to understand the difference between honoring those “remnants of Christianity”, and revering/worshiping them as many do (and not just limited to Catholics) who flock to crying or bleeding statues, over zealously “believe” in such things as the shroud of Turin being “miraculous”, and on, and on... And that’s what I’m arguing against.
But then, you seem to take this personally, and that’s your mistake, not mine. I’ve been very clear, and honest in my belief. I’ve not criticized a church, but people who are weak, and fall into idolatry over such things, in order to buttress their weakness. As for me...
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus name.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand.
“When the Crusaders sacked Constantinople they brought back THREE HEADS of John the Baptist.”
JTB had three heads? Wow! He must have looked like the 3-headed giant from Monty Python’s Holy Grail movie. /silly
And since you are the one who has written 2 long paragraphs, followed by a hymn for God's sake, I'd say I'm not the one to take a chill pill, lol.
You’re the one who started the argument with me. That’s all you did was argue, beyond distorting my words and calling me dishonest, while I never made one, single, personal comment about you. So, you’re the one who needs to chill out.
But I’ll admit you did get one thing right. That hymn was for God’s sake.
I stand by my remarks, you don’t like them, or me, too bad. Don’t converse with me in the future.
Read your original post #11 and tell me if that was honest or polite. You actually put the words “Mary” (Mother of God or did you really mean Mary Astor?) and “dog turd” in the same sentence. I found it offensive. Still do. Bye-ee!
You are such a misguided soul. Wearing your feelings on your sleeve as you do, I wonder how you cope with many things discussed on this forum.
My point, since you can’t fathom it, is that those people who jump to conclusions about seeing Mary in bread, bagles, weeping/bleeding statues, yes, even dog turds (don’t think that couldn’t, wouldn’t happen), are the ones defaming Mary, not me. I’m the messenger. My bringing her name up with dog turds in the same sentence was cynicism, showing how irrational these people are, and how they are the ones being irreverent. But that’s too much for your illogical mind to understand.
Was I being honest? Absolutely. It’s what I believe, and have the right to say. I’ll not back away from it nor feel the need to defend it. Was it polite? I see no disrespect in what I wrote. I wasn’t disrespecting Mary, I was disrespecting those who do. So, if I was impolite, they are the ones who should be offended. But then again, maybe that’s why you ARE offended...
A lot of it is code. Secret society groups talking to each other, marking dates or plans, by invoking symbolism they learned down in the crypt by candlelight.
It's pathetic, but they get off on it.
Well, the least they could do is show me the secret handshake or sumthin’
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks cardinal4. Regardless of the age of the bones, the identity of the deceased is indeterminable, short of finding a cache of undisturbed burials (bone boxes) containing the remains of members of his family, or maybe the rest of the man himself.
Well, I for one think it is likely to BE the bones of John the Baptist.
After all, it was ‘found in a box below what would have been an altar in the ruins of an old church (400AD-500AD). Based on that location, some inscriptions found at the site and the carbon dating, there is reason to be comfortable with the theory, Being placed below the altar at that time would have meant the reliquary was in a place of veneration. I hope it is true...”as post #14 said, (Cardinal14).
And since John is said to have foretold the coming of Christ before being beheaded on the orders of King Herod, with his head served up on a plate, and this is revealed to us now, well, it could be a significant message to the flock.
Not saying it is, but I certainly will consider it. When God speaks, people should listen;)
Marvel is a better word. Catholics do not worship relics, but they do marvel at them. IOW, they marvel that something so old, and a remnant of a person who did mighty and holy deeds, is still around. That is not the same thing as worshipping. At least, that is how I see it. It’s like wearing a locket around your neck with a picture of your dead grandmother in it. A reminder.
Yes, they marvel at it, but many also flock to the location, almost like a pilgrimage. That, to me, gets into the realm of reverence and worship.
Therein lies the rub. The only possibility I can think of that may remotely contain Jesus' DNA would be the shroud of Turin, and it is still speculation in terms of being his real shroud. Without confirmed DNA belonging to Jesus or a relative, DNA off the knuckle would be useless.
Wow. John The Baptist had three heads. Who knew?
That must be the origin of the old saying “Why are you looking at me like I have three heads?”. Superstition. Kind of like Muslims hating dogs because one reputedly ran off with Mohammed’s head after decapitation.
You’d think they’d decide to stop decapitating people, but nooooo they’ve hated dogs for centuries instead.
Catholics don’t worship relics. Nor do relics become a substitution for Him. But you knew that..
Well, one of him as a teen, young man and then finally as an old man. Three times the proof it was Jean Baptiste!
I never stated reverence for relics was part of the Catholic faith, or any other Christian faith. I was criticizing those of any faith who need the crutch of relics and icons to buttress their faith.
If you look at the stories of faces of Mary “seen” in all sorts of things, or weeping and bleeding statues of Mary (or Christ), and the people who flock to them, or focus on them, then it’s painfully obvious that some Catholics, as well as some in other Christian beliefs, put a degree of reverence in such things.
This doesn’t reflect negatively on Mary, or Christ, but on those “believers” who need something beyond their belief to bolster their faith. They’re our contemporary “Doubting Thomases.
I stand by what I wrote. I make no claim against a religion or its beliefs. I am highly cynical, however, when I see people make such an issue over things that are relevant of idolatry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.