Comments about ‘Relics of 'John the Baptist' dated to 1st century’
What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In World & Nation
- Washington Post writer: Mitt Romney lost...
- Colorado Mormons join other faiths in...
- Men's Wearhouse fires founder and current...
- NYT: Utah one of 6 states President Obama has...
- Senators challenging White House on religious...
- 'Pain capable' abortion regulation makes...
- Harvard study links high air pollution with...
- Pew study: News media inserted bias into gay...
Most Commented
Across Site
In World & Nation
- Washington Post writer: Mitt Romney...
77 - Pew study: News media inserted bias... 57
- Video: Miss Utah USA flubs answer at... 26
- Parents rally after Canadian elementary... 25
- NSA director says surveillance programs... 21
- Officials: NSA programs broke terrorist... 16
- NYT: Utah one of 6 states President... 16
- IRS official: Washington scrutinized... 15
Scientist could save a lot of time and money by reading the bible. They would know they don't have Johns bones, I don't know who they belong to but definitely not John the Baptist.
@JD;
I don't recall anywhere in the bible where it indicates that John the Baptist was resurrected. I assume that's what your referencing, since it is the only (religious) reality that would make it impossible that the bones are John's.
I don't disagree that they're not likely John's but not for that reason.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments