Faith

Do These Ancient ‘Biblical’ Bones Belong to John the Baptist?

It’s not uncommon for archaeologists to uncover Biblical elements in their work. Recently, we told you about a 2,700-year-old seal featuring Jesus’ birthplace and some ancient tools that were uncovered. Among the most notable recent developments, some are claiming that a handful of bones found in an ancient church in Bulgaria may belong to John the Baptist, the man who baptized Jesus Christ.

While some are embracing the idea, others will likely scoff at it. After all, there’s no sure-fire way to prove that the bones are, indeed, John the Baptist’s, as there’s nothing to compare them to for analysis. However, the suspicion that they may belong to him is hinged upon a number of circumstantial facts.

Archeologists May Have Uncovered John the Baptists Bones

The bones that are said to come from John the Baptist (Image Credit: Oxford University)

To begin, the sarcophagus of bone fragments was found near another box, which reads, “St. John” and has the date June 24 on it (this is a holy day associated with John the Baptist). While compelling, this, of course, falls short of proving that the bones belong to the Biblical figure.

LiveScience continues, providing more information about how the discovery came to fruition:

The bones were found in 2010 by Romanian archaeologists Kazimir Popkonstantinov and Rossina Kostova while excavating an old church site on the island of Sveti Ivan, which translates to St. John. The church was constructed in two periods in the fifth and sixth centuries.

Beneath the altar, the archaeologists found a small marble sarcophagus, about 6 inches long. Inside were six human bones and three animal bones. The next day, the researchers found a second box just 20 inches away. This one was made of volcanic rock called tuff. On it, an inscription read, “Dear Lord, please help your servant Thomas” along with St. John the Baptist’s name and official church feast day.

With little ability to triangulate the details, scientists set out to radiocarbon date the collagen present in one of the bones. The conclusion? It likely came from a man in the early first century. Additionally, University of Oxford researcher Thomas Higham claims that the bones probably belonged to someone from the Near or Middle East, the area where John the Baptist resided.

Archeologists May Have Uncovered John the Baptists Bones

The box that John the Baptist's alleged bones were found in

“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,” Higham said. “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.”

The human bones in the box are diverse: a knucklebone, tooth, part of the cranium, a rip and an ulna (arm bone). In the end, researchers were only able to date the knucklebone, as organic material is the basis for radiocarbon dating and the bone was the only one with enough collagen for analysis purposes. However, DNA sequences were constructed for all of the bones though, determining that they did, indeed, belong to the same individual.

You can read more about the research here.

Comments (147)

1 2
  • Passerby
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:53pm

    Many scholars think John the Baptist was an Essene. The guys that some claim wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls (not). Tough call, since only Josephus and Philo mention them, the New Testament and Talmud and everything else never mentions them.

    Could be a Samaritan. They are big on “living water” and all that light stuff associated with John the Baptist, in GJohn1 and the Mandaean Canonical Prayer Book. And Jesus is very closely associated with the Samaritans in the New Testament. The only leper that thanked him, Jesus staying with the Samaritans and them accepting his message in the Gospel of John (different John for sure). The Good Samaritan. And Jesus even being accused of being a Samaritan himself. Etc.

    Genetics? If not Hebrew (Samaritan, Jew, and to a lesser extent, Mandaean), probably rules it out. But plenty of Hebrew bones from the first century available, so if it is, it’s still a long shot.

    Report Post » Passerby  
  • Passerby
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:38pm

    The Mandaeans claim John wasn’t killed by Herod. That they disagree on. If anyone’s curious…
    http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/gnostic_john_baptist/index.htm
    Hard to say how close it is to actual history, there’s a wide disagreement among scholars. We do know the Mandaeans have been there, in Iraq and Iran for 1700 years for sure, no doubt longer, very little evidence for anything that far back.

    All the translations are old like that, before they caught on we were snooping. Despite being Jewelers, Lawyers, Doctors, and Bridgebuilders typically, no Mandaean has ever translated one.

    Report Post » Passerby  
    • chips1
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 11:31pm

      Maybe it said “St. John the Belushi, June 24, 6 B.C.”

      Report Post »  
  • Passerby
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:26pm

    And John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus, of course. Describes the Mandaeans pretty accurately, the baptism not being for remission of sin, but to come in contact with “living water”, to come in contact with the Holy Spirt/Great Life.

    The Samaritans have the same thing, hence the “living water” at the well, with Jesus and the Samaritan woman.

    So, anyway, you look at the Mandaean parallels to Jesus, and it’s pretty clear what part of it comes from John and which part comes from Jesus. The clever sayings come from Jesus, the light stuff comes from John.

    Report Post » Passerby  
  • Passerby
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:20pm

    The original followers of John the Baptist are still around, the Mandaeans/Sabians. It’s the third group, along with Christians and Jews that the Muslims aren’t supposed to kill outright, as People of the Book.

    They have a completely independent history of John the Baptist and to a lesser extent, Jesus. Some of their literature has parallels to the sayings of the historical Jesus found no where else. They agree Jesus was a disciple/baptised by John, but they are sore at him for blabbing their secrets. They don’t allow converts for any reason whatsoever. They have their own written language with a unique alphabet so very few scholars can read it, and since their holy books are secret, it’s far from sure we have a good copy. None are newer than about a century, since they caught on we were snooping.

    They survived in Iraq and Iran for 2000 years until Saddam Hussein slaughtered them, and very few remain. Iran, they’ve lost their “People of the Book” status and can’t have any normal job. Can’t touch food, can’t build their bridges (expert bridge builders of all things). And are being exterminated there too. Something’s gone terribly wrong with Islam lately. Saddam, the Shiites that replaced him, the Shiites in Iran, all exterminating them.

    Report Post » Passerby  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 2:50am

      No way? That makes them around 2000 something years old, how are they holding up?

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • cr0ak
      Posted on June 17, 2012 at 1:41pm

      I’m curious as to how you came by all this information. Is there a particular book or books?

      Report Post »  
  • Searchingforthelight
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:08pm

    Couldn’t you match them with those who belong to DNA sites and work back word from their genealogy and see where you get? You‘d be done in less than two weeks I’d guess depending on your resources.

    Report Post »  
  • oh_yeah
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 8:21pm

    First John Four.

    Report Post »  
  • John Burwell
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 3:46pm

    @Dismayed Veteran My disgust is not for Catholics but for Catholicism, they usurp the place of Christ the mass is a perpetual offering of the alleged actual blood and flesh of Christ and even though this assertion is false, to do so is to fit this description: Hebrews 10:28,29 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
    029: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    as well as this : Hebrews, 6:6: If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    To say that Christ must be offered over and over is reducing His sacrifice to the same level as those beasts which had to be offered continually.

    Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 6:26pm

      @JOHN BURWELL – In 1 Cor 11:26 Paul teaches us,

      1 Cor 11:26
      “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”

      Paul is very clear that WHENEVER we do this we proclaim the Lords death until he comes again. Do reject Pauls teaching that doing this proclaims the Lords death until He comes again?

      1 Cor 11:27-30
      “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord”

      Paul is very clear that anyone who does this in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. Do you reject Pauls teaching here?

      1 Cor 11:28
      “A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

      Here Paul warns that anyone who eats the bread and drinks the cup without RECOGNIZING the BODY OF THE LORD eats and drinks JUDGEMENT on himself. Do you reject Pauls teaching here? Do deny that it is the BODY OF THE LORD?

      1 Cor 11:30
      “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you are dieing”

      Peace in Christ,

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • TimothyDuerr
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 7:41pm

      Good answers SnoopPie! First of all, Most people talking against the Catholic Church do not have a clue as to what they are talking about. They push out inaccuracies and falsehoods. The bottom line, as Ameicans we all have the freedom to practice our different Faith as free men. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As long as we worship peacefully, we are free to worship freely. Even Farakan has this basic human right and freedom. BTW, Catholics worship only one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit – no other gods. We respect the saints and holy people that went before us. Since we believe that they are in heaven and with God, we ask that they plead our case for us sinners in order to help us as we believe we are one body in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We do not worship them or no others except God the Trinity!

      Report Post »  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:10pm

      @SNOOP1E Paul was not teaching that it was the actual flesh and blood of Christ, in the it is taught that it is actual flesh and blood and of course only the RCC priests have the mojo to change bread and wine into blood and water. Paul is teaching us to remember the Lord’s death until he comes and to discern His blood and body in the bread and wine which are mere symbols. THe RCC teaches that this offering is needed for remission of sin, and that paying to have the mass performed will shorten by an unknown amount the time a person spends in purgatory a place and state which does not exist. They teach Christ must be offered over and over reducing His sacrifice to the same potency as that of beasts which were offered under the law.

      Report Post »  
    • 3monkeysmomma
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:55pm

      Well the bigots sure are out in force tonight on the Blaze.

      Sometimes I look around at (some of) my fellow “conservatives” and just want to cry.

      Report Post » 3monkeysmomma  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 12:42am

      JOHN BURWELL – Your argument isn‘t with me John it’s with God brother, I didn’t tell Paul what to say the Holy Spirit did. Are you an Apostle? A Prophet? A Church Father? Are you infallible? Are you capable of being wrong when it comes to interpreting scripture? Lets be honest here, even in light of Paul’s explicit words you refuse to accept what Paul is saying because it conflicts with what you want to believe. Even if I showed you a verse with Jesus himself saying “my body is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink” you wouldn’t accept it. St Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle and wrote the following in 110 AD. “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes”

      So John, should i listen to you or a disciple of John the Apostle? When we combine Paul’s words with Jesus words in John 6

      “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”

      your argument completely self destructs. God Bless.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 4:57am

      @JOHN BURNWELL – You wrote “To say that Christ must be offered over and over is reducing His sacrifice to the same level as those beasts which had to be offered continually”

      In Malachi 1:10-12 God chastises Israel and tells them because of their disrespect and contempt for offering him blemished animals for sacrifice He will no longer accept their sacrifices and instead from the rising of the sun to it’s setting, in every place in every nation the Gentiles will bring God incense and PURE OFFERINGS. God also warns that some will profane the Lord’s table saying it is defiled and its food is contemptible and a burden!’ and they will sniff at it contemptuously.

      Malachi 1:10-11
      “I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands. My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty” “But you profane it by saying of the Lord’s table, ‘It is defiled,’ and of its food, ‘It is contemptible.’ And you say, ‘What a burden!’ and you sniff at it contemptuously,” says the Lord Almighty”

      Please tell me what is this “PURE OFFERING” that is being brought to God from sunrise to sunset in every place in every nation and who is offering it? Also who are the people who are saying the Lords table is defiled and contemptible and a

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 6:44am

      @JOHN BURNWELL – You wrote “Paul is teaching us……to discern His blood and body in the bread and wine which are mere symbols” Paul never says any such thing. If Jesus told you to bring Him a REAL fish to eat would you give him a rubber fish and say “I thought you wanted a symbol of a fish? Did God give our forefathers a symbol of manna in the desert or did God give them real manna that they could eat and live?

      John 6:48-58
      “I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I AM THE LIVING BREAD that came down from heaven. IF ANYONE EATS THIS BREAD, he will live forever. THIS BREAD IS MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world.”Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”….. “I tell you the truth, UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD YOU HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU. Whoever EATS MY FLESH and DRINKS MY BLOOD has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My FLESH IS REAL FOOD and My BLOOD IS REAL DRINK. Whoever EATS MY FLESH and DRINKS MY BLOOD remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who FEEDS ON ME will live because of me. THIS IS THE BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. Your forefathers ATE MANNA and died, but he who FEEDS ON THIS BREAD will live forever”

      God Bles

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 10:01am

      @SNOOOP1E Jesus also said He was the door, is He then actually a door? He said He was the vine, he said He was the sheepfold, John Baptists said Jesus was the lamb of God, Paul said Jesus was the passover lamb is He really a lamb, or are all of these mere examples?
      When Jesus told his disciples to take and eat his flesh and blood how was it his flesh and blood when he had not yet offered either? These are all types.
      Am I infallible? NO neither is any man save the man Christ Jesus, the apostles were not infallible men and certainly Ignatius was not infallible. The pope is fallible, Peter was fallible, even Paul had to withstand Peter for his sin when refused to eat with the gentiles becasue he feared men sent from James. Galatians 2:11 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” also Barnabas was a partaker in this hypocrisy.
      SNOOOP1E you are part of a an Antichrist Religion which fabricates purgatory, sells indulgences, tells people that loved ones suffering in purgatory can be released early if masses are performed for them for$$$$ they can’t say how much earlier. Your magicians (priests) claim to change bread to human flesh and wine into human blood, they deny sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice and replace it with ritual, ceremony, and the flames of purgatory. Trusting in these you will die in your sin

      Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE

      Report Post »  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 10:13am

      @SNOOOP1E Tell me do your magicians turn the bread into the flesh of the crucified Christ or the risen Christ?
      There is no “apostolic succession” demonstrated by the RCC Popes. THe things you are trusting in are not of God.
      Compulsory Celibacy for priesthood is contrary to the teaching of Paul and Christ certainly didn’t teach it. Perhaps this is a partial cause of all the pedophilia among your “holy men”.
      In fact no such priesthood is found in NT teaching except , no holy places, no holy garments, no hierarchy, no rituals, no worshiping relics, no confessional booths, no repetitious prayers (except among the heathen), no man with authority to forgive sin, no pope, no nuns, no holy water, no infant baptism, no statues to worship, no dead saints to worship,no murder of “heretics imagined or real. o extermination of entire villages, no crusades against the infidels, BTW in this passage “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
      For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
      But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:27-29 is Jesus saying that He will drink His own blood with us in the Kingdom?

      Report Post »  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 10:35am

      @TIMOTHY the saints do not hear your prayers nor do they answer them, they do not intercede for you they are not mediators for you and wearing their lucky charms or hanging them in your car gives no benefit. 1 Timothy, 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
      That’s weird the Holy Ghost forgot to mention the Pope and Mary and the saints, oh well that’s alright because RCC tradition supersedes scriptures. Mary to mother of Jesus had other children after Jesus was born the scriptures plainly declare it , but the Pope says not so. Why is that? BTW you guys need to do some reading in scripture about this queen of heaven you worship. Look in Jeremiah. The RCC is a pagan usurpation of Christ.

      Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 1:20pm

      @JOHN BURNWELL – Thank you John. Jesus doesn’t say Truly Truly I am a “REAL” Vine and He doesn’t say Truly Truly I am a “REAL” Door so your “theory” lacks any coherence. The word REAL is what separates metaphor from literal John. What you are saying is you know that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because he repeatedly uses the word REAL in John 6. That reasoning is illogical and self defeating. Both of the Principle reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in the real presence (Trans/Con) which utterly destroys your position. In 1520 Zwingli argued that the word “est” (This is my body) should be understood to mean “significat” (This signifies my body) and this led to a break between him and Luther–the first major split within the Protestant movement. The simple fact that Zwingli had to “argue” against the Real Presence means that the belief was currently held by all Christians. So Zwingli’s idea was just that, HIS idea. If you insist on stating that the Lords Supper is defiled and contemptible (as predicted in Malachi 1:10-11) that is your decision, after all you are a “PROTEST-ANT” So you can ignore 1520 years of historical facts and rest on your own insight and trust in Zwingli or you can accept the facts and trust in Jesus. As for me and mine, like the Apostles and St Ignatius and all Christians until 1520 we will trust in Jesus, we will not walk away and we will not call the Lords Supper defiled and contemptible. God Bless

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • Thun
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 2:08pm

      Truly truly I say to you, this is only a metaphor. As a teacher why didn’t he explain it was meant figuratively? It would have been an obligation to clarify it. Yet, he reiterates that offensive statement, not once, not twice but four times. First he says, Truly truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Again he says in the next verse, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. Third time, for my flesh is food indeed and my blood id drink indeed. And a fourth time, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. How did the disciples react? They‘re not saying we don’t understand it, they‘re saying we don’t want to hear that. What does Jesus say? Do you take offense to this? Of course he knows they do. He could have explained it was only a metaphor but he doesn’t, he goes on to talk about the son of man ascending where he was before and the Holy Spirit giving life. It’s only when Jesus Christ ascends and gives us the Holy Spirit that his flesh and blood will be made available to us in this transforming matter. Jesus turns to the twelve and asks, do you also want to turn away? Jesus will not compromise the truth, especially the truth of the Holy Eucharist. Lord, to whom shall we go?

      Report Post »  
    • Thun
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 3:51pm

      Chapter 6, verse 4, we read that it was the time of Passover when Jesus was giving this bread of life discourse. He‘s discussing how he’s the living bread and true manna that comes down from Heaven. He’s linking himself in the most essential way to the Passover. Back in Chapter 1, John the Baptist says twice, behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. So one of John’s principle emphasis is on Jesus, as the Lamb and Passover sacrifice. When Israel was in bondage back in the Old Testament, and the tenth plague was about to descend, the law was clear. God stipulated through Moses, you must take an unblemished male lamb, slaughter him, sprinkle his blood on your doorpost, roast that lamb and eat it. What do you suppose would happen to a family that didn’t eat that lamb? They would have found their firstborn son dead the next day, And if Jesus is coming to perfect the OT types, which he does, then he really is the Passover Lamb. He is slain, his blood is sprinkled, but if he is the sacrificial Lamb of the new covenant Passover, it’s not enough for the Lamb to die, it’s not enough for his blood to be shed, we have to eat the Lamb. We have to consume sacrifice for communion to be reached.

      Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 4:15pm

      @THUN – Also, at Passover under the blood of the Old Covenant the Jews were REQUIRED to consume the Paschal Lamb. Jesus is the New Covenant Paschal Lamb, the unblemished PERFECT offering. Under the New Covenant Christ’ followers must consume the Paschal Lamb. But how is this possible? How can we eat Jesus flesh? Jesus Christ told the unbelievers, “the flesh is of no avail, the words I speak are spirit and life” Protestants say that Jesus is saying HIS flesh is of no avail. That’s utter blasphemy, Jesus is saying OUR flesh is of no avail, only the spirit can comprehend His words. Jesus told Peter “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in Heaven” You see when you just take Jesus at His word the scriptures are woven together in a miraculously beautiful way that only God can weave them. At the same time if we take just one verse and twist it out of context the entire fabric becomes distorted and nothing makes any sense. It either all makes perfect sense or none of it makes sense. When you twist Jesus words to the point that you actually say HIS flesh is of no avail you are rejecting the entire Gospel message, we are saved by ONE FLESH and that is the FLESH of the unblemished and PERFECT Paschal Lamb our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The manna in the desert was a foreshadow of the true manna yet to come. The entire Old Testament is a foreshadow of the NEW and PERFECT Covenant to come. Jesus did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Am

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 7:28pm

      @SNOOOP1E John 6:35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

      Tell me SNOOOP1E have you ever hungered or thirsted since you first partook of the mass?

      John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. Tell me SNOOOP1E can a man loose his eternal life after he has partaken of the elements given by the priest? This verse seems to say no.

      Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 9:26pm

      @JOHN BURWELL
      You ask me “Tell me SNOOOP1E have you ever hungered or thirsted since you first partook of the mass?”

      I Answer – Are you familiar with the term “straw man”? Without realizing it you have proven my point for me. You are applying the rule of Sola Scriptura to the Catholic faith and then asking me to defend it. It’s not possible to defend Sola Scriptura and that is why I am Catholic : ). You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life (John 5:39). You struggle with scripture because sola scriptura forces you to rely solely on your own subjective interpretation and you have no objective way of knowing if your interpretation is correct (other than a burning in your bosom) This has resulted in much division (and confusion) within Protstantism. Conversely I rely on the pillar and bulwark of truth (2 Tim 3:15) to guide me and not my personal, subjective, fallible interpretation of scripture. I have Jesus assurance that the Holy Spirit will guide His Church to ALL truth and the gates of Hell will not prevail against Her. Sadly anyone outside of His Church does not have this assurance and is in danger of being tossed about by every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14) I don’t have to wonder deep down inside if my interpretation is correct. I trust in Jesus and the Church that He promised would guide us into ALL truth. Hell will not prevail. I hope this helps. You can have that same assurance John. God Bless.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 17, 2012 at 12:09am

      @JOHN BURWELL – John, you wrote “BTW in this passage “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:27-29 is Jesus saying that He will drink His own blood with us in the Kingdom?”

      Sounds pretty crazy doesn’t it? Let me ask you something John, why do you keep asking me why Jesus said the things He said as if it’s my fault? I didn’t tell Jesus what to say. Again, your beef is with Jesus not with me. Christ is my Lord and Savior I’m not His speech writer, cut me some slack brother. Relax and pray on it.

      Lastly, Jesus is the God of the universe, He created EVERYTHING that exists out of nothing. Surely we agree He has the power to turn Bread and Wine into His Body and Blood (at least I think we agree on that) so the question isn’t COULD He do it but WOULD He do it and according to you He WOULD NOT. Which raises the question John, how do presume to know what Almighty God WOULD or WOULD NOT do? I’m just saying…. seems a little presumptuous don’t you think?….God Bless

      Report Post » snooop1e  
  • mcsledge
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 2:44pm

    That would be a ‘NO’! John the Baptist has already resurrected and been seen by man (i.e., Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery). The concept of resurrection implies that the remains of an individual are reconstituted into a body of flesh and bone (not flesh and blood) in an immortal state.

    Christ’s resurrection demonstrated this. Individuals resurrected at the time of Christ in Jerusalem demonstrated this. And, other witnesses have so confirmed.

    ****
    Also, what is this 2700 years? Is this a typo. How does one have evidence of Christ dating back 2700 years, when Christ lived but a little over 2000 years ago?

    Report Post » mcsledge  
  • John Burwell
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:43pm

    @VRW from Websters Worship: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
    venerate: : 1 to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
    2: to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion
    Synonyms: adore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, worship
    Like I said catholics worship dead bodies, and yes there are some similarities between muslims and catholics, converting with the sword and worshiping dead stuff would be two similarities and denying the work of Christ would be a third.

    Report Post »  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:07pm

      @snooo1E you may notice that no where in the NT testament writings are people flocking to the shrine of the hanky to venerate/worship it.

      Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 3:39am

      @JOHN BURWELL – I think the distinction is in the word “worship” Don‘t take this the wrong way but you don’t seem to know what the Catholic church actually teaches. You might not necessarily think that a Cross is anything special but you would not stomp on one or spit on it would you?. You might not hold Jesus mother Mary in high regard but would you kick a statue of her or desecrate it?. In the same way I do not worship my Grandmother but I hold her in very high regard as the Matriarch of our family (she raised us to love and obey God) so we have a picture of her in our home and I would not spit on it or step on it. I touch and kiss her picture occasionally because I love her and miss her terribly. If I kiss her picture and she is someone who taught me about Jesus am I “worshiping” her? When I kiss her picture does that anger God? We respect “venerate” relics of the saints the same way that Christians have throughout the centuries (some simple research on Christian relics will validate this) When a man gets down on one knee and proposes to a woman saying “I am nothing without you, you are everything to me, let me give my life to you” Does this anger God? Why is it okay to love your fiance that much but not a Saint? Do you truly love those who have gone before you in Christ? Why do you think that kissing an image of someone you love in Christ angers God? John 15:12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. It’s all about love brother… G

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 5:19am

      Correct, they were bringing the “Hanky” to the people so they could venerate it : ) minor detail.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
  • John Burwell
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:37pm

    @VRW “More dead stuff for the catholics to worship”, but yes it is worthless even worse than worthless it is not just that there is zero spiritual benefit to the practice, but it is spiritually detrimental. Christ’s people do not worship or venerate (synonym for worship) dead things whether they be of stone, wood, gold, silver, or the dead bones of another disciple of Christ. It is pagan.

    Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 6:42pm

      @ JOHN BURWELL – It sounds like you have never seen ACTS 19:11-16 so i wated to pass this along. Peace in Christ.

      ACTS 19:11-16
      “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:13pm

      @snooop1E no one was worshiping a man, dead of alive nor was anyone worshiping a relic. They weren’t worshiping a hanky. If the Roman Catholics had that hanky they would be using to get healed , get salvation and get out of purgatory early, a purgatory which does not exist.

      Report Post »  
  • BlessedONE333
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:33pm

    “However, DNA sequences were constructed for all of the bones though, determining that they did, indeed, belong to the same individual.”

    this is not Good – now the evil illuminati have access to the DNA of a saint – yet again

    Report Post » BlessedONE333  
  • Mr Sanders
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:13pm

    @VWR Conspirator
    Thanks for more insights. I’m just diving into the history of this. Someone once told me not to take anything at face value, don’t trust what I say – find out the truth for yourself no matter where it takes you. I am so really tired of lies & spin being made truth. Thankfully, my radar is working a lot better than it was 8 years ago. Eventually, I decided that I will not keep my pew warm any longer; physically or mentally. Nor enjoy my Doritos whilst the House collapses around me. [ hmm? Doritos -sounds good!]

    God, being at the core of a life being constructed, in humblist terms possible, I’m asking, I’m seeking, I need to know the truth. I want to dig deep to find the original foundation(s), bring it forward, then hopefully gain understanding, soak up some Wisdom along The Way, and move up to a new level in my faith, and live a life that, hopefully, will allow me to reach The Mark.

    Just got a copy of the Apocryphia and going to dive into that. I’ve heard about The book of Adam… girdding myself for that read. I think about a man that had a direct line, in spirit/physical, to the Lord God Himself and then he’s cut off. Your the first Man, perfect in every detail, given choice, then bouts of mourning upon mourning for maybe the remaining 800 years. Thankfully he lived in an oxygen-rich environment! ;-)

    Anyway… bable, bable, blaudy, blaudy – enough story about new journeys – thanks for the input & encouragement.

    Report Post » Mr Sanders  
    • corbecket
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 9:31pm

      Enjoy the Apocrypha. I’ve read through them, but it’s been some time. My impression, at the time, was that it was pretty obvious why the Council of Nicea did what they did.

      Though I wasn’t terribly impressed with with most of the rejected work, I think a literate Christian would be silly not to read this stuff. If you have a brain, and an education, most folks are strengthened in their belief after reviewing the Apocrypha. It’s interesting stuff, but it’s certainly not the Gospels.

      Report Post » corbecket  
  • thetruthshallmakeyoufree
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 12:46pm

    Defiinitely not John the Baptist – he appeard as a resurrected being to Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery on the banksof the Susquehanna river in Pennsylvania in may of 1829 as recorded thus:

    72 The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called bJohn the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of cPeter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first dElder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized. (Pearl of Great Price; Joseph Smith – History 1:72)

    Many will say this is ludicrous. Here is the challenge:

    Give it some thought. Ponder about it. Decide if it is true or not true. Then pray & ask God if you have concluded correctly. God is not a liar. If this actually occured, it would be under the direction of God. If it did not accur, God would not tell you that it did.

    Report Post »  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:44pm

      I have often wondered that when we are resurrected what we will look like. I wonder how old John the Baptist looked to Joseph Smith?

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • jocko
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:46pm

      If the truth shall make you free, then you should consider the truth of the Bible and not ramblings of a single man, alone in a cave.
      The Bible is 66 books written by 40 authors over a period of 1000s of years. It is a unified message of satan and mankind‘s fall from grace and God’s plan for redemption through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. What is more the text is codified across the different books http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/102/. Impossible even with today’s computers. The probability of the fulfillment of the number of prophecies that has occurred is beyond astronomical.
      The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (that there is only one God in all existence, Jesus is divine, God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 4:1-5), and Jesus rose from the dead physically (1 John 2:19; Luke 24:39), the gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, 1 Cor. 15:1-4), Mormonism denies three of them: how many gods there are, the God of Christianity, and His work of salvation.
      “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2 Pet 2:1-2

      Report Post » jocko  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 3:34pm

      jocko – a single man in a cave? Twelve men witnessed the plates from which The Book of Mormon was translated. Four of them (Joseph Smith included) had the plates revealed to them by an angel of God. None of them changed their testimony of this event.

      John the Beloved prophecied of an angel with the everlasting gospel to be preached to all mankind. Isaiah prophecied about the very skepticism of man when presented with additional scripture from God in the last days. Ezekiel prophecied of the joining of the Stick of Judah with the Stick of Joseph as a witness for God before man. The Book of Mormon is fulfillment to these prophecies.

      Christ taught that there would be false prophets in Matthew 7 and then revealed how one can know the difference (meaning there would also be true prophets).

      As for authority to act in the name of God, sorry Charlie. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Christ leads a living Prophet today by divine revelation. Christ leads the Church that bears His name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

      Report Post » mcsledge  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 6:49pm

      @Dismayed Veteran – Joseph Smith wondered the same thing P.S. God did not start out as a human being and Jesus is not Lucifers brother. Peace in Christ.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 6:55pm

      @mcsledge – Almighty God did not start out as a human being, Jesus is not Lucifers brother and we are not going to become Gods and get our own planets with people who will worship US. Mormons are very nice devout people but that doesn‘t mean God was once a human being and it doesn’t mean that you are going to become God some day. Peace in Christ.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 8:47pm

      @SNOOOP1E –

      First off, there is absolutely no official doctrine in any of our scripture that states that God was once a man. However, who created us? God. Thus we are His children. If we are His Children then why would we not have the potential to one day grow to be like Him? Do chicks grow to be dogs? Does a calf grow to be a bird? God has created everything to grow to become what it came from. Thus, if you truly believe that God is our Father in Heaven, then naturally, we have the potential to grow to become like Him. I’ve never understood why this is so confusing to anyone. If anything, it should be an honor to know that we are each royalty and should treat one another as such.

      Anyhow, long story short, it is foolish to tell someone they are wrong when one does not know what is right… one cannot know what is wrong unless they know what is right.

      You say “Almighty God did not start out as a human being”… well then… where did He “start out”?

      You say “Jesus is not Lucifers brother”… well then… who created Jesus? who created Lucifer? If they are created by the same God, are they not brothers? (spirit brothers – just as you and I)

      You say “we are not going to become Gods and get our own planets”… well then… where will we go? Heaven? Where is that? Another planet or in the clouds?

      I’m not challenging your beliefs but rather challenging you to at least consider a proposed answer to something no one else can answer.

      …

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 12:46am

      Sorry P8triot I dozed for a sec, what did you say? I lost you after you started explaining how Jesus is Lucifers brother……

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 18, 2012 at 11:32am

      @SNOOOP1E

      Your lack of an answer is, in fact, your answer.

      Report Post » P8riot  
  • davecorkery
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:38am

    Funny how carbon dating is 100% correct if it validates a christians’ claim, but completely wrong when it invalidates another. Silly christians.

    Report Post »  
    • Dan_o
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 12:51pm

      If you bother reading the other comments, you‘ll find your’s is not accurate. Some have posted they do believe carbon dating is accurate, and others that they don‘t and it’s not relevant to their faith.

      Report Post » Dan_o  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:04pm

      carbon dating is not reliable because it relies on several assumptions, numerous experiments have shown that it gives wrong dates on objects for which the date is known, plus dates with wide variances have been obtained from the same specimen, the proposed dates of these bones does nothing to prove or disprove the christian faith.

      Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 6:29pm

      @JOCKO – Where is the list of “essential doctrines” that you speak of?

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 12:56am

      @BROTHER_ED – I used to be a Protestant, a virulently anti-Catholic Protestant at that. God in his mercy brought me to my knees and when I came back up instead of being blinded I was convinced. I read my way into the Church that Jesus Christ founded and all that I want now is for people to receive Jesus body and blood and experience the true peace and joy of knowing and obeying our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I fall short at times (most times) but I am trying. Hey did you hear about Jason Stellam? God Bless.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 8:34am

      @SNOOP1E

      I assume you meant Stellman…

      I hadn’t, but looked him up.

      Sounds like an interesting guy. I’ll have to read more about him when I get time.

      Thanks. Have a great Father’s Day.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 1:40pm

      @BROTHER_ED, Roger that. Same to you.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 1:52pm

      @BROTHER_ED – Yes, sorry about that I meant Stellman. If you are interested in ecclesiology you might find the links below interesting. Have a great weekend.

      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-33.0.html

      http://www.creedcodecult.com/2012/06/heartfelt-farewell-to-pca.html

      http://www.calledtocommunion.com/

      http://chnetwork.org/2012/02/a-protestant-historian-discovers-the-catholic-church-conversion-story-of-a-david-anders-ph-d/

      Report Post » snooop1e  
  • barbaricblog
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:57am

    St. John? There were only about a million Johns back then. Why not John the disciple?

    I doubt highly it’s John the Baptist since he was beheaded. They probably threw him to the dogs.

    Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:11am

      Exactly. Not to mention, it is “unclean” for Jews to touch a dead body. I don’t think they would have been hauling his body around Europe. The apostle John was exiled and likely died in the isles of Patmos which is at least closer to Bulgaria. And like you said, John was a very popular name back then. And today still!

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • PROUD2BWHITE-PREACHER
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:14pm

      SquidVetOhio, have you studied history? There is a distinct difference between “Jews” and Christians. Jews were the ones who crucified Jesus, Christians are the ones who accepted Jesus. Christians didn’t adhere to Jewish traditions and were known for keeping the bones of deceased Christians and the Saints and holding them in reverence. Also Christians used to pass around peices of Pauls clothing and things of Pauls and people would touch them and be healed. Research it. Peace

      Report Post »  
  • John Burwell
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:12am

    @VRW you need to read that quote from the catholic encyclopedia more carefully it is stating that people like me who say it is useless to worship or venerate relics are to be condemned as they always have and many put to death by the pope.

    “so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them”
    very much like the muslims condemn those who don’t honor their superstitions

    Report Post »  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:31am

      Love how you skipped everything else in the post and the one before it….

      “venerated and honoued” … not worshipped… I will repeat… the Church clearly states that the HOLY SPIRIT was present in the relic and that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit performs or gives any benefit from the relic. the relic is honored because of its closeness to Jesus and the Power of God (Holy Spirit) not because of who or what the relic was in reality.

      every religion has places of pilgrimage and relics whom the faithful use as a way to draw closer to their deity or practice their faith.

      i am not talking about the “punishment” the Church used to protect against desecration of a relic or location or any other matter used to stop what at the time would have been viewed as heresy or blasphemy.

      you originally made a comment about this being another “worthless relic for Catholics to worship” I believe was your wording. That was the point…the relic is not “worshipped” it is honored and venerated BECAUSE it once was in contact with or actually had the Power of God within it. The relic is simply a focal point for a believer to use to draw closer in their personal relationship to God and Jesus Christ. We do not worship the relic or the person who produced the relic nor do we worship their statue, picture, or image. It is like keeping a watch your father gave you upon his death, it is a focal point of his love for you, not him.

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:42am

      The Catholic Church was establish in 800 ad… by agreement of the First Pope, Leo… and the Emperor of the new Holy Roman Empire (Western version)… as opposed to Eastern Roman Empire… where this not about Christ nor about the Gospels. It is about POWER!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:05am

      @LUKERW

      A Catholic would say the first Pope was Peter.

      There are several instances of power struggles the Catholic church was involved in during the Middle Ages, both within it’s ranks and with the ruling powers. There are volumes of books written which would fill an entire library, so to get involved in a blog dispute would be senseless.

      Though I may disagree with some of their doctrines, I will not try to discredit them by bearing false witness against them.

      Why someone feels the need to disparage another’s religion is beyond me. The answer is always, “I’m just telling the truth”, but in reality they are just being hateful.

      I agree with many things you say on here, but this is not one of them.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:16am

      @Luke…no..you are wrong on the 800 AD part… take a look

      http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/churchhistory.html

      You are right that the Pope’s name was Leo but it was Leo I not Leo III. The first recorded man to have the title of Pope was in 452 AD. Up until that time the Roman Catholic Church…has roots in 313 AD when Constantine made Christianity the official ROMAN religion..the Church of Rome. The term Catholic was added later, catholic meaning UNIVERSAL, once the Roman Empire began to break apart and the Church started to fracture. That fracture was not completed until 1009. There was a consistant and constant stream of men with the title of Pope from 452 until 1009. The main cause of the schism was the Eastern practice of Iconoclasm. The bishops of the East often fought over practice and ideas with the Papacy in Rome.

      that is why today we have the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church. We also have an Ethopian Catholic Church, a Greek Orthodox, and a Russian Orthodox (now pretty much the same as the Eastern).

      Pope John Paul II spent his life as Pope trying to reunite these factions with the Anglicans and made HUGE progress even to the point where the Church Fathers of these factions attended and spoke at his funeral attesting to the greatest of the man and his holiness and closeness to Christ. 1500 years of strife cured by the FAITH of one man…God is good!

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:18am

      Of course Peter was married. This would disqualify him from being a Pope today. I thought the catholic church started with Constantine……

      I wouldn‘t say people are trying to disparage someone’s religion. It’s a debate. I‘m confident in what I believe and I don’t feel disparaged if someone challenges it. I offer my arguements with fact and details and they can offer theirs. It’s not an insignificant topic. Truth and fact has no agenda and it does not care who’s feelings are hurt by it.

      “..Let God be true and every man a liar” -Romans 3:4

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • proliance
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 12:58pm

      @SquidVetOhio: Peter would not be disqualified from being Pope today. The only qualifications are being a baptized, Catholic male. Maybe you are not aware that there are married Catholic priests.

      Secondly, the Catholic Church did not start with Constantine. Like so many other easily discredited stories, I have to wonder if there is some organization that propagates these bizarre “facts” and passes them to Protestants to create divisiveness.

      Report Post » proliance  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:10pm

      @VRW the Holy Spirit is not in the relic neither God or the Spirit affords the worshiper of the relic of the venerate of the relic any benefit at all and your encyclopedia goes on to say that I am condemned by God for denying that there is benefit received for worshiping/venerating the relic, it is paganism, period.

      Report Post »  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:22pm

      Catholics do worship statues I have seen it; they bow to them, pray to them make offering to them,kiss them of course the shrines to the catholic mary (queen of heaven, Jeremiah chapters 7 and 44) receive the most worship and are said to afford the greatest benefit. It is pagan idolatry bowing,praying, kissing, leaving offerings to etc. that is worship. That is why you never see any example or teaching in the scriptures that do anything but condemn such behavior. You are part of a pagan anit-christ cult my friend. The RCC is not any more Christian than Mormonism. The RCC exterminated many thousands of Christians, they still persecute Christians. The RCC was forever murdering “heretics” this Jesus did not do neither did His disciples. The RCC is not of Christ the pope is a type of Antichrist “vicarious (instead of) Christ” The worshiping of John the baptists bones has no more benefit than the worshiping the guinea bones of the African witch doctor

      Report Post »  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 2:05pm

      @John

      I can understand why a person could choose not to be Catholic since we are tied to so much to scripture and works. But are we really anti-christ adherents? I have a profound belief that Jesus Christ is my Savior. In fact, I say so out loud every morning. I also find comfort in the Mass. You seem to have disgust for Catholics. Do you really believe that I am going to hell?

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 3:28pm

      @SQUIDVETOHIO

      Why do people who say “I don’t disparade your religion” always say why they think another religion is wrong?

      Stick to telling me what you believe, not what others believe.

      I can say “I believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are 3 separate beings.“ Or I can say ”People who believe in the Trinity are wrong”. Which statement is correct? Apparently both say the same thing, but one style is more ‘disparaging’ than the other.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 7:10pm

      @BROTHERED – Luke 22:24-

      “24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them,,,,,,,,,,,,28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

      When Jesus saw the Apostles arguing over who was greatest among them Jesus interrupts them and in front of all of them He singles out Peter saying “Simon Simon, Satan asked to sift you (plural) But I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” Jesus did this in front of the other Apostles and made it clear that He had prayed for Peter. Jesus prayed that Peters faith would not fail and that Peter would strengthen his brethren. You can twist this a thousand ways but Jesus made a point of saying this in front of all of the Apostles at the exact moment that they were arguing over who was greater among them. Lastly, Jesus prayers do not go unanswered. Jesus also gave the keys to Peter and Peter alone. The Catholic Church didn’t single out Peter, Jesus singled out Peter. Peace in Christ.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 7:47pm

      @SNOOP1E

      Great post! I hadn‘t ever put that story in the context of today’s disputations amongst the various Christian sects. I am grateful for your insight.

      Christ did indeed give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter.

      Your comments on faith and works are spot on as well.

      Thanks, again.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 1:00am

      @SQUIDVETOHIO – It is a fact of life that man is most often wrong in what he denies and correct in what he affirms………..who wrote that?

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • by faith
      Posted on June 18, 2012 at 11:26am

      St. Ignatius of Antioch and the “Katholikos” Church
      The second Bishop of Antioch, Syria, this disciple of the beloved Disciple John was consecrated Bishop around the year 69 by the Apostle Peter, the first Pope. A holy man who was deeply loved by the Christian faithful, he always made it his special care to defend “orthodoxy” (right teaching) and “orthopraxy” (right practice) among the early Christians.
      In 107, during the reign of the brutal Emperor Trajan, this holy Bishop was wrongfully sentenced to death because he refused to renounce the Christian faith. He was taken under guard to Rome where he was to be brutally devoured by wild beasts in a public spectacle.
      It was Bishop Ignatius who first used the term “catholic” to describe the whole Church. His letters connect us to the early Church and the unbroken, clear teaching of the Apostles which was given to them directly by Jesus Christ.
      It is from the word katholikos (“according to the whole”) that the word catholic comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the 1st century.
      That’s hundreds of years before Constantien or any other Chick publication false theory

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on June 18, 2012 at 12:17pm

      Roman Catholic Church?

      It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the “Roman Catholic Church,” but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
      Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.

      We are the Catholic Church. The succesor of Peter sits in the Vatican.
      All those in union with the Pope are part of the Catholic Church.

      Report Post » by faith  
  • Tepeyac
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:54am

    What’s the big deal one way or the other? These guys need to get a real job!!

    Report Post »  
  • Mr Sanders
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:50am

    The head was separate and in the presence of many for a hours. The body was dealt with forthwith. I think, in their excitement, archeologists get a little over-excited or rush to make comments to save their grants? I think they need to reserve comments until facts are real.

    Example: Mt. Sinai, the mountain where God spoke to Moses. Supposedly the mount is located near St Catherine’s Monestery on the northern part of the Pennensula. As Christians, if we are seeking, then we are continually testing and being tested. Why can’t we believe in the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea? God does use natural events, actions, or forces to His ends.

    http://archive.org/details/The_Search_for_the_Real_Mt_Sinai

    After you see this you have to wonder why is the site completely fenced off, guarded and no one is allowed to enter this area, except certain Saudi gov’t officials or special clerics? Christians & Jews especially – why? Example of overshadowing or taking over a place – Dome of the Rock [ a discusson for another Day ]

    We seek our roots and validity, its only natural; we are a curious race by design. But, we can‘t just say that’s the answer; end of discussion, and move on. In the case of John the Baptist the events and his preparation for The Way and completion of the first words of God through Yeshua takes precedence…. if we find his resting place, great, but lets remember there’s lots of land to cover out there of old Biblical times.

    Report Post » Mr Sanders  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:09am

      The real Mt. Sinai is in Saudia Arabia. It’s current name is Jabel -el -lawz or “Mountain of the Laws” in english. It is located in ancient Midian (where moses lived with his father in law Jethro). The apostle Paul even states in the New Testament that it is located “in Arabia” Galations 4:25. The Red Sea Crossing happened at Gulf of Aquaba where Egyptian chariot wheels have been discovered at the bottom of the gulf. Also a column inscribed by Solomon has been found there commemorating the exodus. Mt. Sinai is NOT in the Sinai Penninsula!

      http://www.ancientexodus.com/topics/index/mount-sinai-and-the-apostle-paul/

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • PROUD2BWHITE-PREACHER
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:22pm

      squidvet here is an interesting factoid for you, calvin and luther both believed and taugh that Jesus mother was a virgin her entire life (for those of you who are slow that means she didn’t have any other kids) i myself was surprised to learn this, while i don’t hold to all of calvin or luthers beleifs i find that intriguing. lots of confusion in christianity.

      Report Post »  
  • SexyHeathen
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:33am

    I‘m just waiting for somebody to claim that carbon dating can’t be trusted.

    Report Post »  
    • Dan_o
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:56am

      I don’t believe that it can. Even those who do think it‘s accurate say it can’t date something that recent and certainly not within + or – 2000 years.

      “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.”
      (Matthew 12:38-39 ESV)

      Report Post » Dan_o  
    • BeenSetFree
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:07am

      Carbon dating can’t be trusted. Okay, there it is but its true just the same. Stick your head in the sand if you must, but its been proven to be inaccurate using objects of known origin date. An the older the stuff is, the more inaccurate the results.

      Report Post »  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:16am

      Dan_O… Carbon dating for older fossils have a range of 2000 years…but that is when we are talking about things tha are a couple of hundred thousand years old….

      Modern fossils…things within the 6000-8000 year range of History are actually dated through a “relative” dating process where the percent of Carbon 14 in the fossil is calculated using the Half-Life formulas for radioactive materials. Once the original percentage of Carbon 14 is known, the percentage is compared to a table of values of KNOWN samples, like pottery or tree bark which have been dated using other methods. This type of Carbon dating is HIGHLY accurate because with our knowledge of climate change (not global warming crap) and biological life cycles and Geology we can place Carbon 14 levels not just in a timeline but also by location on the planet. So we can tell which geographic region something came from or originated in and within which century it was from.

      This form of Carbon dating is HIGHLY accurate, dating a 80-100,000 skeleton not so much. The further you go back in time, the greater the inaccuracy becomes until you have to switch to another radio-isotope for accuracy. They could easily date these bones to a 50-100 year time period. Saying that these bones were from someone in the later 1st century AD (CE is you want to be atheistic) is easy with today’s technology.

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:34am

      @BeenSetFree
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

      Report Post » Pontiac  
    • Dan_o
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:37am

      VRW CONSPIRATOR said: “Once the original percentage of Carbon 14 is known,”

      And this figure is “known” how? This is the crux of the problem, but not really relevant in either case. It does not matter if those bones belonged to John the Baptist, Herod, the apostle Paul, etc. I just saw the troll’s call as an opportunity to point out what scripture says about holding such discoveries in high regard.

      Report Post » Dan_o  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:47am

      @SEXYHEATHEN

      Welcome to the Blaze.

      Now we know where the CNN audience has fled to.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • Temporal
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:53am

      And how many decades was the windchill forumla accepted as scientific fact, only for it to be found in error and revised?

      More so, the windchill forumla is/was based on immutable physical laws whereas carbon dating starts with assumptions, namely the rate of radioactive absorption thousands or millions of years ago.

      Given how radically scientists say our climate can change today, it’s very possible that other factors could have resulted in a different rate of absorption, thereby skewing the carbon dating results.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:25am

      Even the top evolutionists (which I’m definitely no member of) will tell you that they go by the imaginary “geologic column” and not carbon dating or potassium arg dating because of the obvious flaws in it.

      It is only accurate for the past 4000 years or so since we have a good idea that carbon levels were likely the same. I believe the oldest living tree is near 4000 yrs old which gives us a measuring stick.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:31am

      @Temporal

      Radio-carbon dating can not work past a half a million years of so…the half life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years. The percent of Carbon 14 in a living or formally living entity is in the low single percentages to start with, about 1.5-2% of the Carbon in a human being currently. So within 5 half lifes you are down to 1/32 of the original amount, which is less than 30,000 years old. If you go out to 10 half lifes you are down to 1/1024 of the original amount, which would less than 573,000 years old.

      After the 1/2 million year age, use the Potassium or Uranium or some other radio isotope…not Carbon… anyone that tries to use Carbon past 100,000 years is an idiot of a scientist, at least if you only use Carbon. A real scientist would use MULTIPLE types of radio isotopes and compare the date ranges to come of with as exact an age as possible.

      But then again we have other problems..the Carbon content of the atmosphere and environment is not a constant and varies over time as does the amount of Carbon 14 in the environment. So in times of tropics, like the dinosaur eras, higher carbon…in ice ages…less. You have to have a reference sample from the time period in order for the dating method to hold validity and that samply can not be fossilized because that would interfer with the samply percentages.

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • jocko
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:36am

      Ok… it can’t be trusted because it is based on faulty assumptions that everything is constant. Science is continuosly revising itself on previously believed constants. Like the speed of light is no longer believed to be a constant.
      Radio carbon dating makes several assumptions that several things being constant over millenia: 1. that C-14 decay rates are constant, 2. the rate of C-14 formation has been constant, 3. that C-14 to C-12 ratios in the atmosphere have been constant, 4. that C-14 has been produced equally with C-12 over time. However, the industrial revolution and atomic testing have greatly changed that. Also, other scientists have calculated that since C-14 starts decaying as soon as it is formed, making the present ratios inaccurate for the claimed age of the earth. And, 5. that all organic materials have constant C-12:C-14 ratios. Living Hawaiian mollusks’ shells were tested and indicated they were over 2000 years old.
      So, there are valid scientific challenges to the accuracy of radioactive carbon dating. Claiming that it is accurate takes a big act of faith in the unproven.

      Report Post » jocko  
    • SexyHeathen
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:43pm

      I don’t think many of you science-deniers realize that carbon 14 dating has been extremely useful in identifying the age of things that we already know the age of. You know, stuff that died over 4000 years ago that we have already dated using historical methods. While it is true that there are inaccuracies, we know the range that those inaccuracies tend to be in, and it’s usually not far off from the actual date.

      http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/libby.htm

      While I know that many of you will continue to deny the overwhelming evidence for the accuracy of radiometric over very long periods of time, you should at least accept that we can use radiometric dating to date things that are as late in our history as the New Testament is.

      Report Post »  
    • Dan_o
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 5:22pm

      Sexyheathen, I don’t deny science when it is in fact science. Lumping experimental science in with forensics or historical science is a bad habit done mostly by people with an agenda.

      If there is no control data, it is not science. At best it is theory, but hey, you and the other science faithful just keep repeating it until it’s fact. It’s worked so far with things like evolution and “climate change”. The past is the key to the present, not the other way around.

      Report Post » Dan_o  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:25am

    Listen, the whole matter of faith comes to this:

    There are those who believe without needing to see the evidence with their own eyes; and those who want to see it first hand before they believe.

    Jesus told unto the Apostle Thomas that “it is better for a man to believe and not have seen; than to see and then beleive.”

    Faith of and in God and Jesus is LIVED and EXPERIENCED by his people. This is why it is called a living experiment, we are the ones who have our lives reshaped and made into a new being, that of the likeness of the character of Christ by all we go through in life in this world.

    For a explanation in our daily life, consider gravity and electricity; we trust in gravity to do as it always has, even though we cannot see it, we experiene it and live with it.

    With electricity, we expect the lights to turn on with the turning of a switch; even though we cannot see the flow of power itself.

    Thus we have faith in what is not seen by us, yet is experienced and a part of our lives.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Caremom
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:35am

      “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” Antoine de Saint – Exupéry, “Le Petit Prince”

      Report Post » Caremom  
    • revitup
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:52am

      Snow,you have what I have and I love seeing your posts.I am going through something in NC now involving alot of faith.I can’t stop although some have deemed me as “dreaming”.Only problem is the facts are real.It involves Simermeyer’s of NY,DC, and Indian genealogies and records.I am the grandson of Enoch Emanuel and Jonah Emanuel.I am driven to ask you to agree with me in prayer.Randy Scott Davis.

      Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:40am

      @CareMom: excellent.

      @Revitup: will do. God blessings be with you and on your endeavor.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Mr Sanders
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:24pm

      Hazzah – yes!

      Report Post » Mr Sanders  
  • John Burwell
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:18am

    it was not the followers of John the baptist who called Jesus a drunk Luke 7:30-34

    Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:37am

      And… you reject the implication of Comparison… and infer that the two sets of Followers were alike and not in opposition?

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:47am

      there was a comparison made. Jesus compared the reaction of the Scribes and Pharisees to John to the reaction they had to Jesus. The followers of John did not make those statements. John who fasted and took no wine was said to have a devil, Jesus who ate and drank was called a drunk these assessments were made by the Scribes and Pharisees, not the followers of John.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:34am

      And… Christ is cited as saying… I will give you a Baptism better than that of John the Baptist… a Baptism of the Holy Spirit. No opposition? No implication of contradiction?

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • EDiAnnH
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:48am

      That’s odd, I thought Jesus was talking to His followers about the Publicans in that passage, John‘s follower’s had left and Jesus had turned His discussion to the people who went out to see John and did not accept John’s baptism….Try using the 20/20 rule for a verse (read 20 verses before and 20 verses after to put a single verse in context)

      Report Post »  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:55am

      @LUKERW

      Jesus was baptized by John, what’s good enough for Jesus is good enough for me.

      John the Baptist had the authority to baptize with water.

      However, Jesus had more authority than John the Baptist, and was able to give the complimentary baptism of the Holy Ghost, which is a baptism of fire.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:07am

      @BROTHER…
      So… John = Christ… and you Serve Two Masters?

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:30pm

      @ LUKERW actually John that Jesus’ baptism was greater and that Jesus himself was also greater, Jesus said of John that he was the greatest prophet born of woman.
      Matthew 3:11 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” ~ John The Baptist

      Luke 7:28 “For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” ~ Jesus The Christ

      Report Post »  
    • PROUD2BWHITE-PREACHER
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:35pm

      brothered , john the baptist baptised in the name of Jesus but Jesus baptizm is supposed to be in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit, those were Jesus command on the hill to the apostles. johns baptizm was a shadow of the true baptizm that Jesus instituted.

      Report Post »  
  • rfycom
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:12am

    Hum. Looks like the stuff Beck’s brain is made from to me.

     
  • John Burwell
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:05am

    more dead stuff for the Roman Catholics to worship

     
    • saranda
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:14am

      GB, John Burwell would like to buy a clue.

      Report Post »  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:32am

      buy a clue for what?

      Report Post »  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:36am

      The teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the veneration of relics is summed up in a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins on bishops and other pastors to instruct their flocks that “the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ—which bodies were the living members of Christ and ‘the temple of the Holy Ghost’ (1 Corinthians 6:19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men, so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them.”

      Report Post »  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:38am

      Relics are not things that are worshipped. They were saved, preserved, and venerated because they belonged to men that were closest to God. Why did the Jews keep the bones of Joseph for 500 years and carry them out of Egypt? Why did the Jews keep the fragments of the tablets Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai? Why do Muslims still travel to the burial site of Mohammed? Why do they gather at Mecca?

      People of faith…any faith…gather around, travel to, and preserve relics from special events, places, and people of their faith. Not just Roman Catholics! But seeing as Roman Catholics are the ONLY denomination with DIRECT connection to and arising from the Christian communities from the time of Jesus’ death until 300 AD, they tend to have MORE of these relics preserved. And please don’t bring up any of the Calvinist garbage about the Catholic church somehow being an agent of the anti-Christ, you just make yourself sound ignorant and idiotic.

      All Protestant denominations should pay attention to John Wesley, he had no problem with and rebuked other Christians that badmouthed the Roman Catholics. He understood that we might disagree about certain practices and rituals but that we were all part of the Body of Christ.

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • qpwillie
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:54am

      @VRW Conspirator
      The bones of Joseph were kept because he had requested that they eventually be buried in the land of his ancestors. I‘m sure they weren’t put on display.

      They stone tablets were kept for pretty much the same reason people keep their Bibles. They had stuff written on them. ….Duh!

      Report Post » qpwillie  
    • John Burwell
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:00am

      Worship: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
      venerate: : 1 to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
      2: to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion
      Synonyms: adore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, worship
      Like I said catholics worship dead bodies, and yes there are some similarities between muslims and catholics, converting with the sword and worshiping dead stuff would be two similarities and denying the work of Christ would be a third.

      Report Post »  
    • Tigress1
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:00am

      Catholics don’t worship “stuff”. When you say the “Pledge of Allegiance” (to the flag) are you worshipping or pledging allegiance to the piece of red, white and blue fabric, or are you merely respecting the symbol of the flag and what it represents? Catholics are capable of looking BEYOND the physical object. The symbol itself only helps maintain focus.

      Report Post » Tigress1  
    • SonOfThunder
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:03am

      Yes JB……the list is long for Catholics. The wafer, saints, Mary, pictures of Jesus, the fake shroud …. All idol worship and breaks the first and second commandment. Catholics even changed the 10 commandents by taking out the second comandment because it says not to worship graven images and spliting up the coveting commandment into two comandments. Being a ex catholic of 46 years , 12 years of cathecism brain washing in catholic school, and practicing Catholicism most of my life, they are being duped and lied too. You can’t find a bible in a catholic church. It is a works based religion like Mormonism.
      Sorry it is faith alone and Jesus alone to get to heaven.
      “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2 8:9
      The answer for Catholics Mormons, Muslims , and everyone who want to go to heaven.
      Repent and put your trust in Jesus alone!
      Good day to all and God bless.

      Report Post »  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:03am

      @John
      your passage speaks for itself…“venerated” not worshipped….venerated means to honor and respect…and even in the same passage it states….

      “so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them”

      the Roman Catholic Church is EXPLICITLY telling people that any benefit, any miacle, any power received through the honor and veneration of a relic is NOT due to the relic but the HOLY SPIRIT and God and the power of Christ…basically telling people just as Jesus did “your faith has healed you” not the worship or praying too or veneration of any relic. The relic is simply acting as a vessel for the power of the Holy Spirit and a connection between Jesus and His followers and a way for them to still connect with him after hundreds and thousands of years.

      And before you babble about anything else…the Church also EXPLICITLY tells people that only through a PERSONAL relationship with Christ can you be saved, healed, or anything else. Jesus lives IN us and we are to act as such and BE His light to the world, letting HIS power and might flow through us, just as it did with those relics of Saints.

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • Tigress1
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:26am

      @Sonofthunder, Catholicism is not a works based religion – alone. Faith plays a very strong role IN ADDITION to works, good deeds, how you live your life, etc. Faith alone won’t get you to heaven, otherwise you could do whatever the hell you wanted, rape, pillage, murder… but if you believe… by golly you are going to heaven! If you think this is all you need/should do then go right ahead. (Personally, I think God expects a little more from us, and has a little higher standard than the lowest common denominator.) I hope you are correct for your own sake.

      Report Post » Tigress1  
    • Mr Sanders
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:35am

      It is noteworthy to comment that the course for our bible was altered forever at the Council of Nicea in 325AD and ‘bargains were struck’ between the newly formed church ‘powers-that-be’ [for lack of a better term] and the roman emperor Constantine. Constantine‘s Christianity is questionable but I’m sure he met the Maker.

      This meeting set in stone a lot of what ‘we think’ or should I say ‘how’ to think, be told, believe, act, ‘how’ church is to be, what to celebrate, etc. Over the centuries that followed, Christianity changed, formed new offshoots in similar kinds, but all kept the same overall canon; that Christ, Yeshua, was the Son of God [ El Elohim ], gave His teachings, completing His Word, and died for our sins. [ thank you! thank you! thank you! ] But little does anybody know, or even understand the true nature of the Christian walk called The Way.

      One Example of ‘bargains’ made – Is Sunday the true Day of Rest; Sabbath? We are told in the first five books of the Word, The Torah, of The Ten Commandments. #4 [Summated] Keep the Sabbith Day Holy – The Day of Rest was made for man – not the otherway around. Jesus, Yeshua, list this commandment out of 4 that are the most important to help us lead a godly life. Well, its Saturday not Sunday. The rest…. you investigate.

      I am of The Way. I am a Christian seeking deeper, real understanding in history, Word, Holy Spirit, and discovering the truths we cling to are not what they seem. Pray. Seek His pres

      Report Post » Mr Sanders  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:41am

      QP

      the bones of Joseph were kept so they could be transported back to Canaan but they were venerated and honored and placed in a place of worship, just like a relic would have been.

      the tablets were destroyed, read your Bible…Moses came down the first time and saw the idol worship of the Israelites and destroyed the tablets…went back up to ask God to forgive them and get another set…came back down…Moses instructed that an Ark be built to keep them in and the Israelites be forced to carry them…the second set was also broken eventually and the fragments carried. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible or dictated them to be written down anyway. He didn’t write them in stone, they were written on papyrus or sheepskin probably. The Ten Commandments were included in those writings. The tablets were kept because they were a DIVINE item, a relic, something touched by the Power and Hand of God.

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:59am

      @Mr. Sanders – always strive for a deeper understanding of faith..it is our duty in getting to know our God and Savior…and you are right about the Council of Nicea. The Canon Books of the Bible were decided by the Church Fathers at the time from all over the Meditteranian area. Some thing were left out like the Gnostic Gospels, some Essine teachings, Gospel of Thomas and such….but those writings were not “blacklisted” just said to not have a direct link to one of the 12 and Jesus directly.

      The Catholic Bible had the Apocryphal books included in it until the King James Version was released in 1611, King James had the Bible edited to fit what he wanted when the Anglican’s split from the Catholics over the issue of divorce. A true Catholic Bible still has those books included, I know, I have several copies and several other books that include just the New Testament (those cut by King James) and Old Testament (those cut by Nicea) Apocryphal books.

      @Son
      “Faith without works is dead” … James speaks about this in length…if you have Faith but do not SHOW it in your daily works…then you might be “saved” but you will not “profit” or be “blessed” by God and Christ. I can show my Faith in my Works, as James states, and receive both salvation and blessing. So which is better to do? Say you believe and then act sinful or act as Jesus instructed and let His light shine through..“You will know them by the fruit of their tree”

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • RedDirtTexas
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:29am

      J B, I too have a hard time with Catholicism. Praying by rote. Calling a priest “father”, calling the pope “holy father”, asking another man forgiveness for sin, the whole Roman jacking of the early church, the inquisition, the ties to Naziism during WW II and now with Benedict IVI. I wish ALL Christians could just cut all the glitter and make it about Christ. Old bones can’t get anyone to heaven.

      Report Post » RedDirtTexas  
    • qpwillie
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:47am

      Constantine badly needed something to adhere the peoples of the empire. There was a different religion on every proverbial street corner. one night, he got an idea. He came out the next day and declared
      “I dreamed I saw a burning cross (That was before there was a KKK) and that means that everybody has to become a Christian. You don’t have to change much. You can still keep your holidays but we’ll apply them to “Christian” things. You sun worshipers can still have your services on December 25 and apply them to the birth of Yahshua (Who will hereafter be known as “Ghe Zeus – Greek: earth Zeus – Latin: Jesus). You worshipers of Ishtar (pronounced easter) can still have your fertility symbols (colored eggs, rabbits, etc.)……

      We will ignore the fact that scripture clearly states that Paul is the apostle to the gentiles and there is no scriptural record of Peter ever even visiting Rome. We will now believe that Peter is leader of our new church.

      Report Post » qpwillie  
    • SonOfThunder
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 12:31pm

      @vrw,
      You are wrong on Catholics did not split on divorce. It was on indulgences. You had to pay for your salvation. You could pray and pay for dead to get them to heaven. By the way purgatory does not exist and is not in the Bible. Oh yeah you had to pay to get a divorce. Thispractice stills exist today. Pay pay pay for wedding marriage, confirmation, communion, pay indulgences on old souls day.
      The big split is typically considered as happening on Oct 31, 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses (questions and statements) to a church door for public consideration in Wittenberg, Germany. The Catholic church, of which he was a member, had been conducting heretical practices outside of what the Bible taught , the foremost being the “selling of indulgences.” In this, the church extorted money from rich and poor alike by promising to quicken the rescue of friends, relatives and loved-ones from purgatory if they would give to the Catholic church. Specifically the Catholic church was fixing up St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome and needed money to do it Luther was the most outspoken and effective of the catholic theologians who were increasingly aware of corruption in the Church.
      @tigress
      James was talking about doing works because you are changed by Holy Spirit and saved. And those works will be judged by God on judgement day. You don’t do good works to get saved. You do them because you are saved. You can not earn your way to heaven. Your works are like dirty rags.

      Report Post »  
    • PROUD2BWHITE-PREACHER
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:31pm

      SonOfThunder whatever you might think all who believe in Jesus are Christians and Jesus warned about judging fellow believers in matt 5;22 i quote “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell” making fun of fellow believers and calling them foolish puts you in danger of the fire of hell, think about it. peace

      Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 7:25pm

      @VRW – First the Original 1611 King James Bible actually had the “Apochrypha” in it. Those 7 books are from the Septuagint which is the “Bible” that Jesus and the Apostles had in their day. Second, the church was “built” by Jesus Christ when he said “You are Peter and on this rock I will BUILD my church” pretty straight forward. Lastly you wrote “if you have Faith but do not SHOW it in your daily works…then you might be “saved” but that’s totally unbiblical, God tells us explicitly in James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” Peace in Christ.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 16, 2012 at 11:51pm

      @MR SANDERS – Judas also “struck a deal” but would you leave Peter and Paul because of Judas? Something to think about. Jesus never said that every single person in His Church would be without sin, He only promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the CHURCH to all truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail. It’s easy to get distracted by the failures and shortcoming of individuals. That is one thing I love about the Catholic Church. No matter where you go in the world, every day of the week the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of how Liberal or nutty the Pastor might be, he cannot change the rubrics of the Mass. The Pastors preaching is secondary in importance to the reading of Gods Holy Word and Jesus Body and Blood. Some Pastors (Priests) are Orthodox and not that good at preaching and some are Liberal and great at preaching but I am not going to Mass for because of the Pastor and his preaching. I am not going to be entertained. I am going to humble myself before God and thank Him for all He has done for me. I am going to worship Almighty God and receive the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ The Pastor’s preaching is not the central focus, Jesus Christ is. Praise God Alleluia!!!

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on June 17, 2012 at 12:28am

      @SUNOFTHUNDER – I am a Catholic revert. like you I was raised in the faith, altar boy, went to parochial school my entire life and never once cracked a Bible and was convinced that the only way I was getting to Heaven was by being a good guy. I left the Catholic faith and was pretty much Evangelical for about 25 years and utterly convinced (and when I say utterly I mean utterly) that the Catholic church had so anathamatized herself that she might even be a tool of Satan. Care to open a dialogue? Would love to discuss the errors of Catholicism with you brother. Peace in Christ.

      Report Post » snooop1e  
  • jcldwl
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 8:51am

    Sorry not John the Baptist…it plainly says there is part of a cranum. John the Baptist was beheaded. Of course they could have buried the head with the body but the fact there is part of a cranuim there I would say it isn’t him.

    Report Post » jcldwl  
    • copatriots
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:32am

      Was my first thought, JC. John the Baptist‘s head was severed at the request of Herodia’s daughter. Also, I seriously doubt he would have been referred to as “St. John” at the time of his burial.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:40am

      And the June 24th date is just plum silly since the Jews would have used their own calendar in the first century. It would have been their month of Tamuz or Sivan.

      Report Post »  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 9:53am

      well…two things to consider….and I am not saying that this is John the Baptist…

      1 – Jewish tradition.. (Herod was a Jew after all)… requires that a body be buried with all pieces of on Resurrection Day the person will not have a body for his soul to reenter when he goes into Heaven. So, Herod would probably have obseved the tradition and buried John’s head with his body. He after all liked John on some level but was tricked due to his lust for Salome into killing John. Herod actually didn‘t want to kill him just shut him up because he feared rebellion from John’s followers. So, John’s head would probably have been buried with his body since those involved were all Jews.

      2 – The church was not built until the 5th or 6th century. It was tradition to consecrate the church with a relic of some sort from a person or place in the Holy Land, something associated with whom the church was named after. If this church actually was for John the Baptist and not John the Apostle, writer of the Gospel and Revelation or some other St. John is unknown. But even by the 5th century there were nearly half a dozen St. John’s already. So, whomever it was WOULD be referred to as St. John but usually there would have been more to the name like a city or other disclaimer like “St. John the Baptist“ or ”St. John the Apostle”… kinda hard to know which John without the identifier.

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • copatriots
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:05am

      Interesting points, VRW. I also thought of John who received the Revelation but, as you said, by the 5th or 6th century there would likely have been numerous St. John’s. I agree there would have been more of a qualifier of which “John” which confirms my belief this is likely not John the Baptist.

      Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on June 15, 2012 at 8:49am

    Whom cares? The followers of John the Baptist thought that Christ was a DRUNK! So, they must have been echoing his words… not those of a True Prophet!

    lukerw  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 12:26pm

      Considering that John the Baptist, while still in womb, was the first person outside of his immediate family to recocgnize Jesus as the Messiah, show a little respect. There are still billions that don’t.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • PROUD2BWHITE-PREACHER
      Posted on June 15, 2012 at 1:49pm

      gonzo same goes for mary, she held God in her womb but many disrespect her, probably becuz they dont like catholics but whethther you are with rome or geneva or constantinople Jesus said if they are not against us they are for us. it‘s not what we disagree on that brings us together it’s what we agree on, we all agree Jesus is Lord, we should focus on that, otherwise we are just fighting and not doing Gods work, this is why many don’t belief….peace

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love