BBC Focus Magazine

[Shadowwolf]

New dating evidence supports claims that bones found under a church floor in Bulgaria may be of John the Baptist, who is described in the Bible as a leading prophet and relative of Jesus Christ. A team from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at Oxford University dated a knucklebone from the right hand to the 1st century AD, a date which fits with the widely held view of when he would have lived. The researchers say they were surprised when they discovered the very early age of the remains adding, however, that dating evidence alone cannot prove the bones to be of John the Baptist.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618151228.htm

You gotta love it, the bones could be the person known as John the Baptist or indeed anyone living in that region around the 1AD period.

[MikeG]

If they had found neck vertebra that were cut through, they would have a better case. Even so, even if they could irrefutably prove that all the individuals mentioned in the bible exist, which they probably did as someone must have come up with these stories, proving that the events themselves happened is another matter altogether.

[M Paul Lloyd]

And apparently related to a chap for whom any actual evidence is even sketchier?

But then when one has sufficient faith who has need of mere facts?

[MikeG]

And apparently related to a chap for whom any actual evidence is even sketchier?

Apparently, said chaps last resting place has been found, and promptly buried under a new apartment high rise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6397373.stm

[M Paul Lloyd]

In 3D no doubt?

[Shadowwolf]

Apparently, said chaps last resting place has been found,

Not exactly, http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=913.

[MikeG]

The documentary claims that DNA analysis of the bone fragments from Ossuary 701 (which they identify as belonging to Mary Magdalene) and those from Ossuary 704 (supposedly Jesus of Nazareth) shows that these individuals were married rather than related by blood. Of course, this is a ridiculous claim, as DNA analysis shows whether or not people share a common ancestor, not their marital status.

The above is a quote from the link provided by SW. It's also the only strong argument in the article (to my mind at least). The question is, why not do a DNA analysis of all three individuals, Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and Yehudah, to see if Yehudah is in fact related to both. Another interesting chech would be to see if Mary and Joseph had common DNA with Jesus. I'm surprised Cameroon hasn't done such a check already.

[Shadowwolf]

I'm surprised Cameroon hasn't done such a check already.

Amateurs, ones with an agenda.

The commonness of the names, the meaningless DNA, the over wrought sensationalism, the lack of credible experts, all Cam 'n' Co found was an ancient tomb and pretty much nothing else can be said at this point, certainly nothing as far as it's JC's final resting place.

[MikeG]

The commonness of the names....

I recall reading somewhere , what assumption would we make if we found a tomb where the names of the individual's interred where John, Paul , George and Ringo? With the exception of Ringo, all the other names are quite common. It's not the names which raise questions, but the combination in the same tomb. Given the small size of the population (80,000) the odds of these names in a common grave is quite unusual.

[MikeG]

And apparently related to a chap for whom any actual evidence is even sketchier?

Actually, given the fact that the chap in question has been referred to in independent sources living at the time, and in a negative manner, I'm not that sure that he didn't exist. The Greek philosopher Kelsus was familiar with Jesus and his teachings, but claimed that Jesus was the product of rape by a Roman soldier, and not divine birth.

Apparently, a new movie by Paul Verhoeven is in the works, exploring exactly this scenario.

The movie, titled "Jesus of Nazareth," is based on Verhoeven's own 2010 book of the same name, which presents a pseudo-historical account of Christ's story that differs greatly from the accounts of Jesus presented in the Bible – mainly that Jesus was not the Son of God, but was born after his mother Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.

http://global.christianpost.com/news/fi ... ght-77026/

[M Paul Lloyd]

And apparently related to a chap for whom any actual evidence is even sketchier?

Actually, given the fact that the chap in question has been referred to in independent sources living at the time, and in a negative manner, I'm not that sure that he didn't exist. The Greek philosopher Kelsus was familiar with Jesus and his teachings, but claimed that Jesus was the product of rape by a Roman soldier, and not divine birth.

I guess it rather depends what one reads.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[MikeG]

I guess it rather depends what one reads.

Excellent link MPL, and a great tool for further research to cross check the websites own claims.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I'll be honest with you MikeG having come from a very roman catholic background I fully accepted that beyond the biblical references of the apparent existence of Jesus I always took it as read that Roman history backed it up 100%. However in more recent times I have been made aware of some serious flaws in the so called historical record, which I have to admit came as something of a revelation.