Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
PS
do you agree with the Forbidden knowledge folks that the teaching of the Holy Trinity is an attempt at mind control ?
How does my DNA relate to the number of heads (skulls) of John the Baptist?
Please note that the OP was not addressed to either Church nor was it intended for members of either Church to defend or deny the others' relics. I assume that after all these centuries these matters have been satisified and that reasonable explanations are available.
My computer does not register holograms. I assume, of course, that these are photographs and not holograms. I also believe it when it is stated, for example concerning the skulls in Amiens and in Rome, that they are complete skulls and not partial skulls. Please expand on the meaning of symbolon and the realtionship of this concept to whole and part.
This is off-topic. However, as a former Mason I highly doubt that any Mason believes that nor is it taught by Freemasonry. There are other, much more bizarre ideas IMO, in Freemasonry. If you have an interest in that topic you may wish to start a thread in the Unorthodox Theology forum.
Check this out (intro page to "The Forbidden Knowledge" site you linked):This domain is dedicated to the teaching of knowledge that was hidden from the human race all through history.
Please note that in the previous post where I linked this site I explained that the skull claimed to be that of John the Baptist by this site has not been verified or authenticated by any Church or other objective source. It is a very recent discovery.
I think this question is probably answered in my OP. The purpose is to answer the questions I posted in reference to the facts that I stated.
If some wish to call those facts into question I am willing to entertain that discussion, as well. Of course, one must admit that it is highly improbable that any person has ever had more than one head, much less at least seven. However, the probability is not in question here.
If I am not mistaken (and I am open to correction) both the Roman and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have not denied the authenticity of the others' relics in this case.
If someone has determined to the satisfaction of either body that some or all of the skulls in question are invalid I am quite interested in seeing the documentation to that effect.
Its from a site you reference as credible. We all have DNA; therefore we all have master numbers -- even John the Baptist ! So check the master numbers in your DNA, and you may likely find there a credible answer to your question supported by the credible site you cite
Thekla; Yeah said:Again, your sarcasm is uncalled for. I sincerely doubt that I am the only person on the face of the earth that has some interest in holy relics.
I agree and understand that a part can easily represent the whole. Thus, there is little doubt that a skull (or any other bone) can represent the entire person.
What we have here, however, is not a part representing John the Baptist, but at least three complete skulls and at least parts of four skulls. The enigma is how so many wholes can make up a symbol.
For example, if an obelisk is used to memorialize a person such as George Washington, many obelisks can be erected (there are at least two for George Washington) to symbolize the man. These are memorials and are not part and parcel of the man, himself. However, if, for example, there is a document such as the Declaration of Independence, of which only one copy was signed by all members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, but of which several copies were made at a later date, there is no problem as long as the others are understood to be copies and not the authentic document. If I were to present an "original" of the Declaration of Independence when most people know that the original is in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. my "original" would be called into question. If I am able to show that my "original" has been fully verified and authenticated and accepted by the proper authorities, then there should be some reasonable explanation at to how two "original" Declarations of Independence exist.
Masonic plot
[/I]Move over DaVinci Code
Yup - that's the "letter" of the thread.
But what is the "spirit" in the letter of your OP; what is your purpose.
Your evident sarcasm surprises me. I have found your previous replies on other threads to be relatively calm and reasoned. As you know, all of the sites I linked contain information which is not germane to this discussion. Wikipedia, for example, is full of information about all sorts of things. I neither agree or disagree with that information, but linked to the areas of these sites which do relate to the OP.
Again, your sarcasm is uncalled for. I sincerely doubt that I am the only person on the face of the earth that has some interest in holy relics.
I agree and understand that a part can easily represent the whole. Thus, there is little doubt that a skull (or any other bone) can represent the entire person.
What we have here, however, is not a part representing John the Baptist, but at least three complete skulls and at least parts of four skulls. The enigma is how so many wholes can make up a symbol.
There are indeed several early copies of the Declaration (one discovered rather recently behind the exhibited picture bought, iirc, because of the appealing frame). The standard for "original" versus "copy" varies from 'first rendering' to 'rendered by hand as opposed to printed on a press'. I am more familiar with the standards for the latter (as refers to books in particular). It can be said, though, that all copies rendered by hand are originals. IIRC, the order of the signatures may vary ... (seems my son mentioned that).For example, if an obelisk is used to memorialize a person such as George Washington, many obelisks can be erected (there are at least two for George Washington) to symbolize the man. These are memorials and are not part and parcel of the man, himself. However, if, for example, there is a document such as the Declaration of Independence, of which only one copy was signed by all members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, but of which several copies were made at a later date, there is no problem as long as the others are understood to be copies and not the authentic document. If I were to present an "original" of the Declaration of Independence when most people know that the original is in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. my "original" would be called into question. If I am able to show that my "original" has been fully verified and authenticated and accepted by the proper authorities, then there should be some reasonable explanation at to how two "original" Declarations of Independence exist.
As you noted on a previous post, my purpose, according to you, is to satisfy my curiosity.
As the famed Dorothy Parker once said, "The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity."
Then you desire to make a pilgrimage, and wonder where to go ?
For this, you should consult your spiritual father instead of the internet.
As this is not my question, I did not take the time to do so; but, you should timeline and map the various accounts. One may also consider who is holding the relic; my family (Christian) emigrated from Constantinople in the 20th century - thus I am biased. But as you are not, you may well want to include that claim in your timeline/mapping project.
There are indeed several early copies of the Declaration (one discovered rather recently behind the exhibited picture bought, iirc, because of the appealing frame). The standard for "original" versus "copy" varies from 'first rendering' to 'rendered by hand as opposed to printed on a press'. I am more familiar with the standards for the latter (as refers to books in particular). It can be said, though, that all copies rendered by hand are originals. IIRC, the order of the signatures may vary ... (seems my son mentioned that).
Ah, here I must disagree with the esteemed Miss Parker (we used to carry her books in our bookstore, though).
The cure for boredom is prayer
May God who is merciful grant that it will be more fruitful for us than curiosity ! Only Christ can truly satisfy our longing ...
I would still be wary; agendas are not as easy to expose without a face to refer to. Thus, just as you want to establish provenance for items, the same should be established for internet sources.Sadly, I am physically unable to make a pilgrimage. However, although the internet is hardly the best source of information, it is still a helpful source. You may find this difficult to believe, but I trust information from you and other sincere Christians, although at times I may not agree with it.
That is an excellent idea and I would welcome any input from others in an effort to establish provenance. Provenance, as I am sure you know, is essential in establishing the value and veracity of antiques of all sorts. For the sake of the thread I have been willing to assume that sufficient provenance exists so that the consecrated skulls (excluding the recent one) can be discussed as valid. However, if provenance is suspect then I think that is also worth discussing.
I am very pleased to discover your understanding of the issue. I did not cloud my example with the differences between printed and handwritten copies as you have discussed. However, you have provided the correct response regarding a very valid explanation for the existence of more than one "original" Declaration of Independence. In that case there is a reasonable explanation. In the case of the topic of this thread, I am hoping for a similar, reasonable explanation.
Well obviously at least a few of these relics are false relics.
I would still be wary; agendas are not as easy to expose without a face to refer to. Thus, just as you want to establish provenance for items, the same should be established for internet sources.
Provenance as we know and expect it is relatively recent. (On a side note, one of the most successful art forgers of the 20th century worked with a text forger who forged the provenances for the forged artworks; even when the paintings seemed clumsy, the forged provenances conferred authority to such an extent that no chemical analysis was done on the forged paintings.Critical analysis of the forged pieces was brushed aside based on the forged provenances.)
I cannot answer for the RC; I have not sufficiently researched the matter in the EO to give a knowledgeable answer. I do note that the Byzantine Church/s claim pieces (symbolon). The RC may have built onto their pieces rather than furnishing a complete reliquary for the part.
Given my family history, I will admit to the bias of treating with suspicion any claims made by Ottomans.
I wish to discuss several indisputable facts which raise several questions in my mind. The facts are as follow:
1. The Bible makes no mention whatsoever concerning the number of heads possessed by St. John the Baptist.
2. At present there are at least seven skulls of John the Baptist which have been fully authenticated, verified, and consecrated and now reside in various churches.
3. Many centuries have passed since the events of #2 and none of the skulls has ever been discredited or disowned.
Now, for the questions:
1. Did John have seven heads simultaneously or did they appear in sequence on his neck?
2. Given the very remarkable nature of having seven heads (at the least) why did the writers of the gospels fail to mention it?
3. If these things are not true in any aspect, how do we know they are not?
Thank you.
This OP seems a bit sarcastic.
What is its point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?