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.