Are miracles worthless?

[mytruepower2]

Please point to documented evidence there is a physical (measurable) change.
If you can’t do that, then it isn’t a physical miracle, like when there is a healing.

Your challenge assumes that a physical change must be measurable, and this is provably false in several ways.

We are unable to measure the precise motions and locations of distant stars, yet they do still move and are physical.

We are unable to accurately measure the motions of subatomic particles, yet they do indeed move.

However, most strikingly, there is no measurable evidence that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points. We simply assume this, and yet Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity itself is based on this assumption.

So it’s simply not justified to require measurable evidence of something in order for it to be physical.

My claim about the physicality of transubstantiation is a logical inference, based in Perfect Being Theology. Jesus is God, and is therefore perfect, and a perfect being cannot lie. At the last supper, he said that the eucharist was His Body, yet it had previously been bread. Therefore, the consecration physically changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Catholic and Orthodox tradition bears me out on this, as well as the findings of orthodox theology over the centuries.

 

[Theo520]

Nope, We are able to take measurements of subatomic particles, and measure the speed of light.

Yes, there are miracles associated with the eucharist, but they are documented and very specific.

 

[mytruepower2]

Nope, We are able to take measurements of subatomic particles, and measure the speed of light.

Yes, there are miracles associated with the eucharist, but they are documented and very specific.

It just sounds like you didn’t understand what I wrote, so I’m not going to further elaborate.

 

[Theo520]

It just sounds like you didn’t understand what I wrote, so I’m not going to further elaborate.

I expect you are not elaborating, because you can’t elaborate further.

In the celebration of the Eucharist, by means of the consecratory Eucharistic Prayer, the actual substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. This change in substance is not, however, a physical change; the physical aspects or outward appearances of the bread and wine—their accidents—remain as before.

 

[mytruepower2]

I expect you are not elaborating, because you can’t elaborate further.

In the celebration of the Eucharist, by means of the consecratory Eucharistic Prayer, the actual substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. This change in substance is not, however, a physical change; the physical aspects or outward appearances of the bread and wine—their accidents—remain as before.

Are you using the term “physical” to refer to motion and shape, as in “things that would fall under the domain of ‘physics?’” I rarely hear the word used this way, and even so, transubstantiation would not be mental in nature, but I want to be sure I understand your point.

And in the meantime, you can go back and re-read what I wrote. All of the elaborations are there already, and when you’ve acknowledged them, we can continue.

 

[clarkgamble1]

Miracles are just happenings that have scientific explanations that have just not yet been discovered. Mostly due to unknown mental processes. Ever wonder why the so called healings at the various shrines show a lot of evidence such as crutches, eyeglasses, etc. but no wooden legs?? God has never replaced a missing limb. Think about that. He could if He wanted to.

 

[undead_rat]

Nothing that our Creator does in this world is worthless, and that includes the innumerable miracles that He has deigned to bless us with.

One of the most useful present day miracles is Jesus’ miraculous Image on the Shroud of Turin which proves to this unbelieving world three things:

1. That Jesus was a real person who actually did live in ancient times.
2. That He was executed by crucifixion.
3. That His corpse vanished from the inside of His sealed tomb.

The fact that His corpse vanished so strongly implies His physical resurrection that it must necessarily be taken as proof that this event happened as described in the Gospels.

 

[clarkgamble1]

One of the most useful present day miracles is Jesus’ miraculous Image on the Shroud of Turin which proves to this unbelieving world three things:

That Jesus was a real person who actually did live in ancient times.
That He was executed by crucifixion.
That His corpse vanished from the inside of His sealed tomb.

The shroud proves nothing. Until it is verified as being 2000 years old and not a medieval forgery, it is suspect. Your proofs would then be all valid. As with current scientific evidence your proofs are all just wishful thinking.

 

[undead_rat]

The shroud proves nothing. Until it is verified as being 2000 years old and not a medieval forgery, it is suspect. Your proofs would then be all valid. As with current scientific evidence your proofs are all just wishful thinking.

Thank you for your reply. We still have an active Shroud of Turin thread going on with well over 300 posts. I did not notice your participation, but, perhaps you did. That thread would be a more appropriate place to present your concerns about the holy Shroud’s dating issues, which were discussed in detail.

As you well know the Shroud’s Image was investigated by a team of volunteer scientists in 1978. They could not determine how the Image was formed, nor could they find anything that would have precluded the cloth form being authentic. They did find a great deal of evidence that supported the idea that Jesus was buried in that linen cloth.
To assert that all of this evidence is meaningless without confirmation carbon fourteen dating does not make a lot of sense in my opinion.

In truth, the Shroud was proved not a forgery way back in 1898 when Secundo Pia developed his film revealing that shocking negative image.
No medieval artist was able to paint in the negative nor would one have any incentive to do so. And STURP prove that the Image is not from paint or some kind of primitive photography.

Please read posts 319 and 320, TY.

The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion? Spirituality

The sculpture / 3-D representation is EXCELLENT!!!

 

[Dan123]

They did find a great deal of evidence that supported the idea that Jesus was buried in that linen cloth.

I’d actually be interested in seeing more on that. Evidence that it was a burial shroud from the correct time would seem difficult enough but to further demonstrate it was specifically the one used for Jesus, I’m kind of not sure myself what would even constitute evidence of that.

 

[undead_rat]

I’d actually be interested in seeing more on that. Evidence that it was a burial shroud from the correct time would seem difficult enough but to further demonstrate it was specifically the one used for Jesus, I’m kind of not sure myself what would even constitute evidence of that.

Strangely enough, it is the carbon fourteen dating results that prove that the corpse vanished from inside of this linen cloth thus proving the identity of the person buried therein.***

***TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

 

[Dan123]

Alright, I’ll be honest I’m going to remain skeptical of that, carbon14 testing would I assume be measuring the linen and therefore essentially the age of the plants used to make the cloth. I don’t think we have much of a reference point for the effect vanishing bodies have on radiometric dating, but I’ll look it up more in the morning. Last time I’d looked into any of these the tests the Vatican requested made it unlikely to date back far enough, but that was some time ago. Thanks for the pointer.

 

[Dan123]

However, most strikingly, there is no measurable evidence that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points.

There’s plenty of evidence. Perhaps you mean ‘proof’? Given that light in a vacuum has never deviated when measured is a piece of evidence for example. The fact that Einstein’s formulas derived from that assumptions have born actual tangible predictions that have since been proven correct is evidence. If you’re point is no one is out there with really long tape measure and a stop watch then you’re right it’s infeasible to ever prove it that way. But the same way each piece of evidence in a trial doesn’t prove the case, but cumulatively they justify a conclusion, there’s evidence for relativity being correct.

 

[Dan123]

***TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

Brief glance obviously but the description of the book seems to suggest radiation is one theorized explanation for the images and calls for new testing to be done. Were the tests carried out? I’ll be honest your original statement was that carbon14 proved it but this sounds different and untested?

 

[idifacs_john]

Miracles are awesome for the person it was given to an the immediate friends and family of said person, does a miracle someone had at some point in history or where ever, help me with my daily struggles, no. Am I glad the person was helped, yes.

you have modern miracles that help society in general like advancement in technology and medicine, and you have the spiritual unexplainable miracles which i assume is what you are getting at. I for one do not know of any spiritual miracle performed out side the Christian faith. and i consider myself to be an anybody and so far i have not created a miracle so that debunks that statement.

 

[undead_rat]

The raw C-14 data indicted dates from 1195 all the way to 1448 with the dates becoming younger as the part of the sample tested became closer to the Image. C-14 dating is, of course, very accurate, and a 250 year variance is much too great to indicate a dating result. Rather, this data indicates some kind of event. The best theory as to what that event was is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis: the corpse vanished into another dimension and was not present when the tomb was opened as described in the Gospel of Matthew.
Mr. Antonacci employed the services of a nuclear physicist of 30 years experience in developing his theory, which seems to me to be the only credible way of explaining the Shroud’s strange features.

 

[Dan123]

I’m sorry that’s complete guesswork, you started with the answer you wanted and worked backwards and I feel you misrepresented that twice now, first by stating it had been proved, past tense, then by linking to a book only proposing a theory.

"In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 AD, with 95% confidence. "

Even if you’re right and the results were too wide, long before you conclude the wearer disappeared into another dimension you should probably think about things like, what if repairs were made to it so that there was a mixture of cloths? I don’t believe for a second anyone actually knows what a body disappearing into another dimension would do to a cloth laid against skin at the time, it’s pure science fiction at that point.

 

[undead_rat]

"In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 AD, with 95% confidence. "

In order to achieve that “95% confidence” result, the British Museum scientists had to disguard the youngest C-14 date of 1448. So it is really the Museum that “worked backwards” using the thought process of, “Since we know that the Shroud first appeared in 1357, the 1448 result is obviously spurious and should be eliminated.”

The shocking negatives obtained by Secundo Pia in 1898 proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Shroud is authentic. Medieval artists were not capable of painting a negative photograph, and, in any case, would have no reason to do so.
Pia’s proof was confirmed by the intensive STURP investigation in 1978. If the Shroud’s Image was the work of a human hand, those volunteer scientists would have discovered it. The conclusion, if one is not a member of the Flat Earth Society, is that the Image on the Shroud is the miraculous Image of Jesus’ corpse. The Shroud’s hidden history prior to 1357 and its C-14 dating results are no more than corollaries to that proven conclusion.
Thanks to Prof. Wilson’s lifetime of research, we know that The Shroud was originally known as the Image of Edessa which was taken by the disciple Thaddeus to King Abgar V in about 33 AD. Have you read any of his books?
The “invisible repair” hypothesis was disproven in 2002 when leading textile expert Methchild Flury-Lemberg was able to carefully examine the underside of the Shroud where the C-14 sample had been removed. She found no evidence of any repair, invisible or otherwise. Futhermore, if foreign material had been introduced, one would expect the C-14 dates to be youngest at the edge and become older as the part tested became closer to the main body. But the opposite result was obtained by the C-14 labs.
As Catholics, we have the advantage of knowing that Jesus’ corpse disappeared from the inside of a sealed tomb. Thanks to STURP we also know that the Shroud’s image, although like a negative photo, does not have a light source. The corpse itself seems to be the source of the Image. So it is really does not require a great stretch of imagination to hypothesize that the vanishing of our Lord’s body is what caused His Image to be imprinted on His Shroud. The linear relationship between the C-14 dates and their distance from the Image tends to confirm that hypothesis.
For a summary of what went on in the C-14 dating process please see these previously mentions posts:

The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion? Spirituality

The sculpture / 3-D representation is EXCELLENT!!!

 

[MaryT777]

Jesus said this is MY body, this is MY blood. Do you not believe those words? …

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Even if you’re right and the results were too wide, long before you conclude the wearer disappeared into another dimension you should probably think about things like, what if repairs were made to it so that there was a mixture of cloths? I don’t believe for a second anyone actually knows what a body disappearing into another dimension would do to a cloth laid against skin at the time, it’s pure science fiction at that point.

As Undead Rat is aware, I have studied the Shroud in detail for many years, and find it medieval, not first century. Others scholars find it first century, but not a miracle. Others find it first century and a miracle.

The radiocarbon date is robust. All attempts to discredit it have been studied in detail and failed. The possibility of extraneous cloth, or interwoven threads, the possibility of contamination by human contact, or bacteriological activity, or extra paint or dye, and the possibility of outright fraud, by the Catholic Church, the British Museum, and the KGB, have all been serious suggested, seriously investigated, and comprehensively rejected.

Undead Rat gives too much authority to Mark Antonacci’s book, “Test the Shroud”, whose single sensible suggestion is smothered by too much deliberate misrepresentation for most sceptics to take seriously. In particular, the idea that “British Museum scientists had to discard the youngest C-14 date of 1448” is a deliberate falsification.

Undead Rat is correct that there appears to be a slight chronological gradient along the radiocarbon sample cut from one corner of the Shroud. From this, Antonacci extrapolates an overall continuous gradient from the image to the edges of the Shroud, which is unjustified, and then speculates that such a gradient could be provided by an object radiating neutrons, which is insufficiently calculated to be verifiable. In order to produce the observed gradient in one corner of the Shroud, the duration and intensity of the supposed radiation must be carefully calculated - which is indeed, “starting with the answer you wanted and working backwards”.

However, having made the calculations, there is a concomitant prediction that the radiation at the image will have distorted any radiocarbon there as to make it appear to date several hundred years into the future. If this were ever found, it would be both serious support for the hypothesis, and a serious objection to the validity of the current radiocarbon date.

I have no confidence that any such result will be obtained.