Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
bobosmitor
5476 Followers
bobosmitor
5476 Followers
Eric Smith
981 Followers
Eric Smith
981 Followers
Sheryl Hodge
784 Followers
Sheryl Hodge
784 Followers
globolerAug 13, 2010
What a truly awesome discovery if those are his bones.
3nder99Aug 14, 2010
Considering most "Holy Relics" were frauds perpetrated to garner more donations, I think we can assume these aren't his bones.
5urr3al5amAug 14, 2010
I'd really like to see relics like 0bama's grades and his birth cert... oh never mind we're just not going to hold him to the same standard as other presidents I guessComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drekorAug 14, 2010
Penguins have an organ above their eyes that converts salt water to fresh water
goldiegillsAug 13, 2010
No. Next question.
anomaly100Aug 14, 2010
Why not?
citriconionAug 14, 2010
Because fictional characters don't have bones.
thepartystarAug 14, 2010
LMAO John the Baptist was not a fictional character you stooge.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
Because there is absolutely no possible way to ever factually prove they are his bones.
rain12913Aug 14, 2010
@Anomaly100: Um, did you even read the article? The only evidence for these being the bones of John the Baptist is that the monastary that formerly stood on the island was dedicated to him and there's a biblical reference on the box that has to do with him. Are you serious?
cubicledroneAug 14, 2010
Thank God, the.. scientists are here.
rain12913Aug 14, 2010
As opposed to the scientists who use "the bones are in a monastery dedicated to John the Baptist" as evidence that these are his bones?
mpenetrabletacoAug 13, 2010
Probably tasted like chicken.
hirophant0Aug 14, 2010
You know if you want to be an atheist you can still accept the existence of Jesus and other persons from the Bible. Some people on Digg have a warped view of religion. Call me a pessimist, but I see no end to it so long as humans exist, so lets not get hot and bothered over some bones.
/apathetic agnostic
kageryuAug 14, 2010
Most humans are too weak-minded to face the fact that there is NO answer to what happens after we die. Therefore, we have to trick ourselves using religion that there is a Heaven to which all "moral" people go to, and there is a God, and Jesus will rise from the dead, etc., which ended up giving massive power to a few people AKA the Pedophile-protecting Nazi Pope.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
misterymeatAug 14, 2010
What's even more amazing to me is that a lot of Christians now are willing to accept evolution as a reality, yet believe that we can go to heaven while all other species simply disappear.
jnismeAug 14, 2010
Don't forget the necessity of you guys to try to take other people's hope away. Because it would be terrible for you to let people believe what they want, if that makes them feel better. You aren't satisfied with not having any sort of belief system for yourself, you need to make sure that nobody does. And that makes you a jerk. Why not try just accepting that some people will believe things that you don't agree with?
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
We know exactly what happens when you die - there are no surprises there.
That YOU do not accept the knowledge we have accrued about death, is YOUR problem - not mine.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
heavyj1970Aug 14, 2010
to assume that you know what happens when you die is both arrogant and naive, however "jnisme" is right, it's funny how people who don't believe have to make sure those who do are made to look ignorant, it seems like a waste of time to me, worrying about other peoples beliefs, but then again what would digg be without you guys
flip2tripAug 14, 2010
"Most humans are too weak-minded to face the fact that there is NO answer to what happens after we die."
Maybe you're the one who is weak-minded since you seem to have concluded that there is no answer. By the way, how arrogant do you have to be to call that a "fact" when it is nothing but a belief.
drekorAug 14, 2010
Militant atheists are more obnoxious than the religious sects who send people to knock on your door. I don't have to answer the door, but every damn thread that's even remotely related to religion has these atheist douches riding in on their white horses to make sure nobody is wrong on the internet.
hirophant0Aug 14, 2010
Look, all I'm trying to do is save a few people from falling into the militant atheism I see all over the web. The first hint of religion that pops up tends stir them up like angry hornets. I admit, in my youth I did the same, but if anyone reading this can try and take a little criticism I say to them: Chill out. Go have a beer and f**k you girlfriend/boyfriend/hand. The world will go on. I admire your passion, but ranting on digg is not winning the lost.
/ironic rant about not ranting.
5urr3al5amAug 14, 2010
but it makes them feel self righteous
jftitanAug 14, 2010
@Hirophant0
I can and do believe the people in the Bible existed... but not according to the timeline the Bible says they existed and for the reasons to teach us what 'God' wanted us to learn. Like the Jews, I don't believe Jesus was the messiah. I believe he was one of many people who were able to pull off enough magic tricks that Religion inherited him as a messiah.
Truth be told, countless others were able to do what Jesus did, but were never noted the amount of publicity as Jesus was given. Other cultures had people who were put through similar ordeals as Jesus.
When it comes down to whether any of the 'Bible' people existed, I'll even admit some existed but not in the ways or context the bible puts them.
The thing I love about science is, eventually we find out the answers/truth. In many cases we'll solve the puzzle and be able to put all the pieces together and have a true story to understand once we get there.
Otherwise, just taking things on faith isn't going to cut it. (not for me anyways)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hirophant0Aug 14, 2010
Do you not take the axioms of science on faith? For example, how does one scientifically prove that all being is intelligible through the scientific method?
jftitanAug 14, 2010
@Hirophant0
Faith in Science... Well that is basically saying, I would put my money to science to give me an answer eventually. as our techniques and technologies improve we will sooner or later gleam an answer. Through the scientific process. Theory, then test, then adjust, then test again, and then... hopefully proof. (this method is more reliable than religion's point of view)
Faith in Theology... Well that is saying, The bible says so, so thus it must be true because God invented the Bible. Wheres my answer about Space? where is my answer about the origins of life? Many and MANY more questions will never be answered by the faithful if they solely rely on the answer "God Did it First!" How is that an answer to the in-between questions.
The Bible has changed over the centuries, but the changes were FORCED because civilization gained more knowledge through science. Newton? and many other scientists and philosophers were deemed heretics because they went against what the 'Bible' said was so.
Low and behold religion has to modify itself based on what science, and culture has accepted. The world isn't flat, the sun doesn't revolve around us, Space is not Carpet in the sky we shoot rockets at.
If religion is left to interpretations, that is one reason why we have extremists in all various forms of religion. Christians that bomb 'planned parenthood centers', Muslims that bomb trade centers, and so forth. Yet we also have extremists in science as well. medical experimentation in history shows a lot of wrong was done in order to further our understandings about our biology. However today we can credit much of our understanding and advancements in life saving techniques to science. Ethical or not. (The bible... well... voodoo magic and praying isn't going to save a person with late stage cancer) Giving the doctor who will perform a miracle your full confidence and absolute trust in his/her's skill and abilities, can make things happen.
flip2tripAug 14, 2010
"Newton? and many other scientists and philosophers were deemed heretics because they went against what the 'Bible' said was so."
Most of what "what went against what the Bible said was so" was a matter of incorrect exegesis of the Bible. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
5urr3al5amAug 14, 2010
@jftitan -- I'm not sure that you can point to any place where the Bible has changed over time. Scholars can go back to the original language manuscripts. When a company or person decides to produce a new 'version' they go back to those manuscripts and use their own words, it be like you take a letter from a friend who speaks/writes Korean and translating it versus me translating it-- it'd be different but the meaning would be the same, assuming that we were both adept language translators.
Now if you're talking about the Church's beliefs, Protestant or Catholic, or the Church as a whole, I'd have to agree with you that they've changed some beliefs. For example, homosexuals/lesbians in many cases aren't driven out of churches with pitch forks anymore. This is a belief that's slowly changing. Something like that would be attributed to cultural changes and a re-examination of what's actually in the Bible -- not changes to the Bible itself.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
You know, if you're religious, you can still use science to investigate whether some old bones belonged to so-and-so, and still deny the science that backs evolution and the fossil record.
antdudeAug 15, 2010
Yes, I am a Christian and still loves science. I even studied science in a Christian university.
zombiesocietyAug 14, 2010
I believe Jesus existed. I just don't believe he was a magic zombie.
5urr3al5amAug 14, 2010
Christians don't believe he was a magic zombie either douche bag
4ndr01dAug 14, 2010
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
co0p3rAug 14, 2010
These are not the bones you are looking for. Move along.
suite307Aug 14, 2010
We found the bones of someone in the bible!! Ok... what next ?
nick535iAug 14, 2010
Were they found in yonder heap?
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
Is this a news organization?
rain12913Aug 14, 2010
For those who didn't read the article: the only evidence for their claim that these are his bones is that there used to be a monastary dedicated to him where they were found and that there's an inscription on the box that's a biblical reference to him.
To those who read the article and are still convinced that there is good reason to believe these are his bones: you're an idiot.
pennsylvaniaAug 14, 2010
I'm far from convinced, but it's plausible. "It seems rather logical to suggest the founders of the monastery did their best to bring relics of its patron saint."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rain12913Aug 14, 2010
Are you serious? Please tell me you're joking.
Again, the only evidence that they have of this being him is that it was found near a monastery dedicated to him. Do you have any idea how many monasteries/churches around the world are dedicated to various famous people? Should any human remains found in each of these places be suspected to be those of the person they're dedicated to?
rusty11Aug 14, 2010
you'd be surprised how many archeology discoveries are confirmed to be someone, even thought there's little evidence such as the Vergina tombs, it took nearly 30 years for the discoveries to be confirmed
stempAug 14, 2010
It could be, John the Baptist was really special, he had at least 3 heads. One is in Saint-Jean-d'Angély, another one in Amiens and the third one in Damascus.
basalcellbosskAug 14, 2010
Not very plausible. The bones don't derive from a 1st Century Judean site, but from a much later Christian one. Is there any line of evidence to trace them back to Palestine? No.
How likely is it that the bones of a Jewish mystic ascetic who only really had significance in context of intertestimental period Jewish religious practice would be preserved for 480 years for a specific Christian church in Bulgaria? Not likely at all.
1st Century Jewish burial practice would determine what happened to the remains of John the Baptist. But if he was executed by the Romans, what guarantee do we have that the body was returned to his followers? If it was, the body would be put in a tomb and later his bones placed in an ossuary.
Would 1st Century Jews have venerated the remains of this mystic as a cultic object in a reliquary? Absolutely not, human remains were deemed ritually unclean and would have been interred. It would also be a grave violation of the memory of the person to treat his remains in this manner. It would be the vilest heresy.
Christian cultists would have to know where to dig up this ossuary. Seems pretty unlikely.
These are just the bones of some dead nobody, used by the Bulgarian Church as pilgrim-attractions.
cfuseAug 14, 2010
Is this forest of splinters all part of the one true cross?
/s
Why do people madly crave props for their religions?
co0p3rAug 14, 2010
Great, now lets use carbon dating to verify the findings. Oh, wait a minute...
ssomu007Aug 14, 2010
Hi
Analyze and observe before submitting! is it science or religion based fact? Don't mix.
twobluedayAug 14, 2010
More religious/superstitious hooey.
slochewieAug 14, 2010
fictional characters have real bones?
firewall1Aug 14, 2010
"We knew we could find a reliquary there and our expectations came true,"
Typical christian zealot reasoning. Create some random hypothesis, and go find something (anything) that proves it.
The exact opposite of scientific discovery.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
Are These the Bones of John the Baptist?
No...
I'll repeat that for anyone who thinks it is - NO. Fantasies don't have bones!
In case you are still not convinced, consult this picture:
http://bit.ly/gv3i6
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
flip2tripAug 14, 2010
"Fantasies don't have bones!"
I have no problem with anyone questioning the validity of any religion, but when you run around putting your fingers in your ears denying the existence of historical figures...well it just makes you look silly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
esb82Aug 14, 2010
I'm not aware of any primary sources documenting his existence, so calling him a historical figure is unfounded. The gospels were most likely not written at the time they purport to describe, which should be obvious to anyone reading them. The reference of him traditionally attributed to Josephus (like those of Jesus) is very contentious. Unless you have something reliable, the most we can say about him is that he served as a literary device in Christian scriptures, but he lacks historicity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
flip2tripAug 15, 2010
"I'm not aware of any primary sources documenting his existence, so calling him a historical figure is unfounded."
What do you think the Gospels are but primary sources?
From your link: Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.[1]
"Unless you have something reliable, the most we can say about him is that he served as a literary device in Christian scriptures, but he lacks historicity."
Why are you saying the Gospels are unreliable? Because of the miracles? If you remove the miracles attributed to Jesus and just go with the text of events a majority of the accounts of the New Testament have been verified through archaeological and historical finds.
In addition, as far as historical documents go, the Gospels of the New Testament were written closer to the actual events than any other historical documents we have in our possession; and yet, you discount these documents and accept other historical records written hundreds of years past the events recorded as being factually correct.
esb82Aug 16, 2010
Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of historical methods, you're also demonstrating ignorance of the gospels, yet you're talking about both of them.
When "primary source" is used in the context of historical research, it refers to a record written at the time of the event it describes. Read a bit further in the Wikipedia article, not simply stopping where it's convenient, and you'd see that. Take even an introductory course on historigraphy, and it's the first thing you'll learn. Saying that the gospels were written closest to the times they purport to describe is just another way of saying that, chronologically, they are the least unreliable of a long chain of unreliable documents.
Yes, the miracles should set off your bulls**t detector. Generally, when a source shows signs of bias, such as inventiong violations of the laws of physics and attributing them to a culture-bound idea of the supernatural, you don't get to play arbiter and cherry-pick the reliable bits. One bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Besides, focusing on the sayings attributed to Jesus cannot be taken as evidence of Jesus's existence any more than the sayings attributed to Yahweh or Zeus can be taken as evidence of Yahweh or Zeus's existence.
When you say, if the miracles were magic tricks, "then the Gospels are completely reliable as the writers were merely reporting what they saw," you show you haven't even read the gospels. They make it clear that no single author could have witnessed many of the events they describe. Which of Jesus's followers witnessed the described events before his birth and after his death? Who was recorded his words when he was tempted in the wilderness? Who took notes when he was in the garden of Gethseneme and all his followers had fallen asleep? And do you truly want to argue that walking on water, raising the dead with mourning family standing by, feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves, and ascending into heaven were all magic tricks that some first-century huxter could perform without getting caught, rather than literary inventions? That seems a plausible interpretation to you? Really? Try to think critically.
Look, you're either working for the source, or it's working for you, and the gospels are extremely lazy and extremely unreliable. You need to prune so much away, and put so much scaffolding around the rest, that what's left has no significance at all. You can cut up your Bible like Thomas Jefferson, leaving nothing but Wise Old Sayings, but that just gets you Wise Old Sayings. It doesn't provide reason to believe that someone named Jesus spoke them, or tell you anything about him.
Btw, wtf "other historical records written hundreds of years past the events recorded" do you assume I'm accepting?
buymagicfishAug 14, 2010
In munich there is a castle that already has the skull of John the Baptist (1 of 400 of course) they made it up nice though!
http://bit.ly/cVC2I2
volfie99Aug 14, 2010
Or in other words, "No, they're not."
rujtuAug 14, 2010
CNN, constantly reporting s**t that isn't really news. 24/7 news channels was a god damned terrible idea.
neville007Aug 14, 2010
No, they're not. I can tell because... I have the real bones of John the Baptist!
And let me tell you that, they make great soup.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
There's no way to prove it either way.
furburgerhelperAug 14, 2010
If the head is missing, it might be his.
cubicledroneAug 14, 2010
Let's play science-worshipper mad libs!
Do you really believe this is the (noun) of a (adjective)(adjective) noun who lived in a (noun) (number) years ago and we've just now discovered the (adjective) (noun) of the (noun) in a (adjective) (noun) somewhere in (proper name)?
The only evidence for their claim is a (adjective) (noun) they say is a (adjective) (noun) found in an (adjective) (noun) dedicated to (proper name).
Isn't this fun?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
noneatallAug 14, 2010
Are These Realy the BONES of Rudolph the Red Nosed Rein Deer?
phramusAug 15, 2010
Who boned a reindeer?
aikomikoAug 14, 2010
Sweet. I wanna make a bong from the skull.
billidAug 14, 2010
John the Baptist is known as Prophet Yahya in Arabic. According to what I've seen, his bones (or some of them) are buried in a well in the court of a (evil) King in Damascus, Syria. The site is visited by many Muslims and Christians as it is important to both of them.
phramusAug 15, 2010
No. They are the bones of Quinn the Eskimo.