F
Faith1960
Guest
Is it possible that after two years and five months, his leg could’ve been surgically reattached?
truechristianity.info/en/articles/article0259.php
truechristianity.info/en/articles/article0259.php
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Sunbreak
Guest
I doubt that it was possible to surgically reattach anything in the 1600s.Is it possible that after two years and five months, his leg could’ve been surgically reattached?
truechristianity.info/en/articles/article0259.php
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Following a request from the city’s authority, a formal inquiry was initiated in order to ascertain the veracity of the event. Legal proceedings, presided by the archbishop of the city began on June 5 1640 and took about a year.
All hearings were public and no voice of dissent was recorded. Twenty-four witnesses spoke out, selected as the most trustworthy from among the great number of people that knew Pellicer, both from Calanda and from Zaragoza
On April 27 of 1641 the archbishop of Zaragoza pronounced a judgment, thereby officially declaring the authenticity of the miracle. At the end of the year Pellicer was also invited to the royal court at Madrid, where King Philip IV knelt down before him and kissed the leg.
Records also show that the restored leg was the same one as that which had been amputated two and a half years before, for it could be reidentified through some bruises and scars that were there before the amputation. Also, the hole in the cemetery of the hospital of Zaragoza in which the leg had been buried was excavated and found empty.
All hearings were public and no voice of dissent was recorded. Twenty-four witnesses spoke out, selected as the most trustworthy from among the great number of people that knew Pellicer, both from Calanda and from Zaragoza
On April 27 of 1641 the archbishop of Zaragoza pronounced a judgment, thereby officially declaring the authenticity of the miracle. At the end of the year Pellicer was also invited to the royal court at Madrid, where King Philip IV knelt down before him and kissed the leg.
Records also show that the restored leg was the same one as that which had been amputated two and a half years before, for it could be reidentified through some bruises and scars that were there before the amputation. Also, the hole in the cemetery of the hospital of Zaragoza in which the leg had been buried was excavated and found empty.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Could it have been surgically reattached after two and a half years?Following a request from the city’s authority, a formal inquiry was initiated in order to ascertain the veracity of the event. Legal proceedings, presided by the archbishop of the city began on June 5 1640 and took about a year.
All hearings were public and no voice of dissent was recorded. Twenty-four witnesses spoke out, selected as the most trustworthy from among the great number of people that knew Pellicer, both from Calanda and from Zaragoza
On April 27 of 1641 the archbishop of Zaragoza pronounced a judgment, thereby officially declaring the authenticity of the miracle. At the end of the year Pellicer was also invited to the royal court at Madrid, where King Philip IV knelt down before him and kissed the leg.
Records also show that the restored leg was the same one as that which had been amputated two and a half years before, for it could be reidentified through some bruises and scars that were there before the amputation. Also, the hole in the cemetery of the hospital of Zaragoza in which the leg had been buried was excavated and found empty.
T
Telstar
Guest
It wasn’t “surgically reattached”. It miraculously grew back. Overnight. While he was sleeping; two and a half years after it was amputated because of a gangrene infection. There was no such thing as anyone attempting to reattach an amputated limb in the 1600s. If you haven’t read the story yet, I suggest you do, because it is truly amazing (and very well documented).Could it have been surgically reattached after two and a half years?
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Flesh rots. He lost his leg 2 and half years earlier and it was buried. Before the advent of anesthesia in the mid 19th century, surgery was a traumatically painful procedure and surgeons were encouraged to be as swift as possible to minimise patient suffering. This also meant that operations were largely restricted to amputations and external growth removals.Could it have been surgically reattached after two and a half years?
F
Faith1960
Guest
The reason I ask is because one of the articles I read. (the one in my OP?) says the leg that grew back was the same one amputated. It had the same scars, and the leg which was buried after amputation was missing.It wasn’t “surgically reattached”. It miraculously grew back. Overnight. While he was sleeping; two and a half years after it was amputated because of a gangrene infection. There was no such thing as anyone attempting to reattach an amputated limb in the 1600s. If you haven’t read the story yet, I suggest you do, because it is truly amazing (and very well documented).
F
Faith1960
Guest
The reason I ask is because one of the articles I read. (the one in my OP?) says the leg that grew back was the same one amputated. It had the same scars, and the leg which was buried after amputation was missing.It wasn’t “surgically reattached”. It miraculously grew back. Overnight. While he was sleeping; two and a half years after it was amputated because of a gangrene infection. There was no such thing as anyone attempting to reattach an amputated limb in the 1600s. If you haven’t read the story yet, I suggest you do, because it is truly amazing (and very well documented).
T
Telstar
Guest
Exactly. Even more amazing considering how well documented it seems to be, isn’t it? I remember hearing about this story many years ago, before the internet (I think).The reason I ask is because one of the articles I read. (the one in my OP?) says the leg that grew back was the same one amputated. It had the same scars, and the leg which was buried after amputation was missing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.