C
CompSciGuy
Guest
I used to be skeptical of the miracle of Lanciano myself until, ironically, I started reading the evidences Radical described in his post. They seem very convincing to me. Almost frightening.
- Status
W
wmscott
Guest
1000% DEAD ON,
in context, and undeniable. By citing this example you have totally shut the door on any further argument. And if Radicle does believe in the resurrection, which I am sure he/she does, then this whole thread is out of pure desire to attack the Catholic Church and Faith. As you or someone else stated, to deny the Most Holy Eucharist is to take the side of the unbeliever.
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, Lyrical…
Great posts all throughout…I just want to point out one more thing…in one of the lesser known visions at Fatima…the angel appeared to the 3 seers, holding a host dripping with blood over a chalice…and gave communion to the three. I think this is recounted in the memoirs of Sister Lucia.
Sorry, I do not recall the link…but just wanted to point this out, as additional evidence we have of the truth of the RP, and for what it is worth.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Radical,
I think I understand your skepticism regarding the scientific claims about Lanciano. I, personally, can’t fault someone for being skeptical of scientific claims if they find the science faulty, i.e. lacking scientific rigor or involving questionable methodology or making unsound interpretations of data.
You seem to be bringing up legitimate scientific concerns (although I’m not a professional physical scientist). I’m not sure it ought to be controversial. And, you certainly should be entitled to your opinion on whether the science is good or not. And, I suspect, there will be legitimate differences regarding this.
The fact of Christ’s existence and the Miracle of Lanciano are in two entirely different classes of belief. Christ’s life is part of Revelation – part of the Deposit of the Faith – that we assent to. The Miracle, if miraculous, is part of private revelation. That can be assented to or not. That is why I also think that this statement:
There isn’t anything wrong with playing the role of an atheist in this regard, if by playing the role of an atheist we mean someone who demands scientific rigor about scientific questions. Catholics, being committed to reason, should demand scientific rigor about scientific questions, and if that aligns them with atheist so much the better for atheists! . . . we all ought to have high standards when it comes to scientific rigor.
And again,
I am not disparaging anyone’s belief in the miraculous nature of Lanciano, nor anyone’s assessment of the strength of the science regarding it. I just think we ought to be fair to Radical if he questions the science.
VC
I think I understand your skepticism regarding the scientific claims about Lanciano. I, personally, can’t fault someone for being skeptical of scientific claims if they find the science faulty, i.e. lacking scientific rigor or involving questionable methodology or making unsound interpretations of data.
You seem to be bringing up legitimate scientific concerns (although I’m not a professional physical scientist). I’m not sure it ought to be controversial. And, you certainly should be entitled to your opinion on whether the science is good or not. And, I suspect, there will be legitimate differences regarding this.
I don’t know if Radical denies that Lanciano could be true. What he seems to be saying is that he doesn’t find the scientific evidence convincing. Saying that this doubt about the science is akin to doubt about Christ is rather unfair, I think, and seems to me to be an incorrect conclusion. Christ’s life, death and resurrection were not studied by physical science, so it is an entirely different question. There were no physical tests run on Him.
The fact of Christ’s existence and the Miracle of Lanciano are in two entirely different classes of belief. Christ’s life is part of Revelation – part of the Deposit of the Faith – that we assent to. The Miracle, if miraculous, is part of private revelation. That can be assented to or not. That is why I also think that this statement:
also seems unfair. Radical doesn’t seem to be asking for proof of the truth of the Eucharist, but for good scientific evidence of the scientific claims made about the Miracle of Lanciano.
There isn’t anything wrong with playing the role of an atheist in this regard, if by playing the role of an atheist we mean someone who demands scientific rigor about scientific questions. Catholics, being committed to reason, should demand scientific rigor about scientific questions, and if that aligns them with atheist so much the better for atheists! . . . we all ought to have high standards when it comes to scientific rigor.
And again,
seems unfair.
It seems important to me that the Miracle of Lanciano is not the same as Biblical miracles – it isn’t part of public revelation. Miracles that occur, or are alleged to occur, after the close of public revelation are subject to scrutiny, and sometimes scientific scrutiny. And, if so, they ought to meet scientific rigor.
I don’t see evidence of this (though I may be wrong) in Radical’s concerns about the science surrounding Lanciano. it could be the case that his disbelief in the Eucharistic teaching of the Church colors his views of the science of Lanciano . . . but maybe not. i think some Catholics might legitimately question the science.
But, as I said above, if this means that Radical is approaching it with scientific rigor, there isn’t anything wrong with being aligned with Atheists (or Catholic, or Muslim, scientists).
But it seems to me we ought to have two different standards.
I am not disparaging anyone’s belief in the miraculous nature of Lanciano, nor anyone’s assessment of the strength of the science regarding it. I just think we ought to be fair to Radical if he questions the science.
VC
J
Jcnava15
Guest
If he was simply concerned about the scientific rigor of the studies, he could do better than ask lay people on a forum about scientific methodology. Particularly he could contact the institutions involved.
The claim that he is playing the role of an Atheist is not an unfair assessment when he in fact is playing the role of an Atheist. It’s not meant as an attack, it’s to point out that when it’s convenient for him to do so, he will create exceptionally hard standards on what he disagrees with but will not have those same standards placed on what he believes.
I can almost guarantee that if he were sufficiently impressed with the scientific rigor, he would say “well this doesn’t prove it used to be a wafer”, then shake the dust off his hands and move on to the next target.
Like I said if it seemed he was honestly just looking for scientific rigor that would be one thing. As it stands with his lengthy post all we have seen is, under a veil of honest intent, him come in only to put forward his alternative explanation that deprives this miracle of it’s status as if he had access to anymore data that we don’t.
B
brumano
Guest
We don’t believe in the truth of the Eucharist because of the miracle we believe in it because it has been revealed in the totality of revealation given to us; the Scriptures, the Sacred teachings, our own communioun with the living God in the Eucharist and as with everything we believe, by faith, but especially with Holy Communion by love. This extraordinary miracle was given first of all to this priest and then to the entire church by God who is love! Your dissensions are very weak logically because you formulate them from an alternate motive leading you to an alternate theory which appears to be that you insist that the miracle is a hoax.
"It disproves nothing that"the blood is dried, when Christ bled like we bleed the blood dried.
" "you dissent that the tissue was not alive, it was fresh.
" "copious records of the relic’s past movements are unknown to you
" "the church confines testing so as not to desecrate a Holy Relic.
" " if all blood tends to exhibit characteristics of type AB as it ages.
"It disproves nothing that"the blood is dried, when Christ bled like we bleed the blood dried.
" "you dissent that the tissue was not alive, it was fresh.
" "copious records of the relic’s past movements are unknown to you
" "the church confines testing so as not to desecrate a Holy Relic.
" " if all blood tends to exhibit characteristics of type AB as it ages.
R
Radical
Guest
fair enough…let us both adopt the standard that you have been advocating here. The first modern miracles that I looked at had nothing to do with Catholicism. They were from the Charismatic branch of Christianity. Apparently wondrous miracles are witnessed on a regular basis, such as a Nigerian pastor being raised from the dead , an old woman being raised from the dead and still others raised from the dead. …The miracles are really far too numerous to count…and many are of the very sort that Christ performed.
Now, with your approach, we do not take any sort of critical look at these claims, but accept each and every one without question so long as they are supported by eye witness accounts. We are now left with this situation: We have Catholics claiming that their Eucharistic miracles affirm their understanding of the Eucharist (which includes its importance for salvation). We have certain Charismatic Christians claiming that their ministry (including their teaching that a Eucharist involving a real bodily presence is not at all important for salvation…being a bad teaching it plays no part in salvation whatsoever) is supported by wondrous miracles, all done in the name of Jesus.
It would seem that God is affirming opposing teachings. What do we do from there…well, we don’t question the legitimacy of the miracles…for that would be a double standard. Surely we don’t affirm one set of miracles as valid and dismiss the others as that would be inconsistent too…and if we were to dismiss either the Catholic set of miracles or the Charismatic set, I can’t help but note that Charismatics take pains to perform their miracles in the name of Jesus and their miracles conform much better to those miracles that both Christ and Paul performed in validation of their ministries.
Perhaps we question the interpretation of them as affirming various teachings? Perhaps rather than affirming Catholic teachings, the Eucharistic miracles are merely God’s way of saying that, “I am with you, even when you don’t have things quite right.” . Perhaps rather than affirming Charismatic teachings, their miracles are merely God’s way of saying that, “I am with you, even when you don’t have things quite right.”. I am not sure what we do with Muslims and Hindus or Mormons and JWs etc with their miracles…Perhaps it is God’s way of saying, “Hey, I am with you all equally, even when you don’t have things quite right.” Is this where we end up with your “don’t have a critical look at miracles” approach?
L
lyrikal
Guest
First of all, I take back what I said. I do think science is good to verify the miracles; however, my point still stands and yours still falls. Why? Because science DOES verify the miracles that I posted and I even linked the results from WHO/UN and not just the two scientists that did the study.
With that said, since we have eye witness accounts AND scientific evidence of the miracles I posted, we can say that we have more evidence for these miracles than we can confirm with the miracle of the Resurrection.
Your double standard still stands and your whole point still comes crumbling down as several others have shown you.
Now, let’s talk about the miracles that you provided. First of all, I never denied that other religions can have miracles. I don’t put God in a box and say that He only works with Catholics. No, even though I believe the fullness of truth is in the Catholic Church, I do believe miracles that happen in other faiths can be legitimate miracle.
So what of the miracles that you posted; what can we conclude from them?
1.) We can conclude that they are possibly legitimate.
2.) We can conclude that they affirm the Resurrection of Christ which does not contradict my beliefs but only supports it.
3.) We can conclude that God works miracles in other faiths and not just Catholicism.
None of those things take away from the fact that the bread that turned into flesh affirms the Real Bodily Presence of Christ. Since you are giving a possibility to what these “Rising from the dead” miracles are saying, I would also like to do the same.
You said:
We can take that a different route. I don’t think that a miracle in the Charismatic group of someone rising from the dead says that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is false. The miracle has NOTHING at all to do with the teaching. You are forcing something that is not there to support your agenda. I don’t even know how you can make such an argument. Let’s think about it a little more closely.
The Eucharistic Miracle deals directly with the Eucharist and the Real Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Therefore, we can conclude that it testifies to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
The “rising from the dead miracle”, assuming that it is legit, has nothing to do with the Eucharist. What can we obtain from the miracle? That the resurrection is real! We can also get from it that God really DOES raise people from the dead. We can also get the fact that God is a compassionate God and gives people life. All of these things support Catholic Teachings. All these things support Protestant teachings as well. The bread turning into flesh does NOT support YOUR Protestant understanding of the Eucharist. You are forcing the miracles you posted into something that they do not point to.
When Christ raises someone up from the dead in the Scripture, it is a foreshadow and a foretaste of His rising from the dead. That miracle has NOTHING at all to do with the Eucharist.
When Christ turns water into wine and multiplies bread and fish to feed thousands, those miracles are more tied with the Eucharist. The Early Church Fathers saw it that way and so do I. You probably don’t agree with this but can you at least see the consistency of the logic?
Please note that all of this assumes that those miracles you pointed out actually did happen. Whether they did or not does not take away from my point. I simply gave you the benefit of the doubt. I do apologize for saying that science is not needed. I take that back and I was wrong in saying that. I do think science is needed but my point was, we DON’T have ANY scientific evidence to tell us that the Resurrection of Christ happened, all we go by are eye witness accounts. That is sufficient for you. With regards to the Eucharistic Miracles, since we have them with us today (unlike the Whole Christ), we can say that there are two things that attest to these:
1.) The eye witness accounts (which is sufficient for you to believe in the Resurrection of Christ).
2.) The Scientific evidence (which we don’t have from the Resurrection).
So with the Eucharistic Miracles, we have a bonus of scientific evidence that we don’t have from the Resurrection. Yet, you believe the latter and don’t believe the former. Why? IMHO you are being biased.
By the way, we have many saints who have done miracles in the name of Jesus. We can also say the the Eucharist is done in the name of Jesus since He is the one who told us to “do this in remembrance of me.”
Peace.
R
ringil
Guest
I’ve never understood this miracle. I’m not saying whether it’s true or not as i’ve never looked into it- the research or whatnot. But I do know the story.
I don’t understand how the heart tissue represents Jesus’ presence in the Sacrament. Catholics believe that Christ’s entire body and soul is present in the eucharist. The host doesn’t become “part” of him as in one host is his heart another is his foot etc. His presence is true and substantial but it is also mystical. We receive the totality of the resurrected Christ.
Also Christ wants us to partake of his body and blood. Even when we worship the host in adoration that host is consumed. To consume the eucharist is it’s summation. The very essense of what the Blessed Sacrament is- we are to consume- not hold in a reliquary.
The dynamics of the appearance of this tissue seems to give voice to an immature understanding of transubstantiation. This seems to be something that would be faked by someone with an incomplete understanding of the Eucharist but who wants to make sure that people understand that Jesus is truly present, without understanding in a more complete way what happens in the Mass.
If this miracle is true then God must be trying to show something, but I can’t understand it.
I don’t understand how the heart tissue represents Jesus’ presence in the Sacrament. Catholics believe that Christ’s entire body and soul is present in the eucharist. The host doesn’t become “part” of him as in one host is his heart another is his foot etc. His presence is true and substantial but it is also mystical. We receive the totality of the resurrected Christ.
Also Christ wants us to partake of his body and blood. Even when we worship the host in adoration that host is consumed. To consume the eucharist is it’s summation. The very essense of what the Blessed Sacrament is- we are to consume- not hold in a reliquary.
The dynamics of the appearance of this tissue seems to give voice to an immature understanding of transubstantiation. This seems to be something that would be faked by someone with an incomplete understanding of the Eucharist but who wants to make sure that people understand that Jesus is truly present, without understanding in a more complete way what happens in the Mass.
If this miracle is true then God must be trying to show something, but I can’t understand it.
L
lyrikal
Guest
I would encourage you to take a look at the studies done with regards to this miracle. Also, I would point out that these things did not happen once, twice, or three times. They have happened countless times and sometimes science tells us they’re flesh and blood and other times they are naturally explained.
With regards to Transubstantiation. Let’s think about this. This miracle is not used to prove that Christ is present in the Eucharist in Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. It can only give evidence to this and strong evidence in my opinion. This miracle is NOT saying that when we receive the Eucharist, that we are only receiving the heart of Christ. It is a miracle that is pointing to a reality of Transubstantiation or RBP of Christ or what have you.
Think about it this way: If Christ were to perform a miracle to show us that He is truly present in the Eucharist, how else could He have done it? Would you rather Him turn the bread into a 1 inch size Christ with a head, neck, body, legs, arms, hands, feet, etc.? Would you want Him to take that 1 inch Christ and show Him to be glorified and appear as He appeared to the Apostles in the Transfiguration? Would you want to see this 1 inch Christ have nail marks on His hands and feet and evidence of the crown of thorns on His head?
We have to be realistic and not see too much into it and be analytical about every little thing. The bread that turned into flesh points to the fact that Christ is present in the Eucharist and it is not just a spiritual presence and it is not just a symbolic presence. It is an ACTUAL presence and that is what this miracle is attesting to.
God bless.
R
ringil
Guest
I guess that kind of makes sense.
I DO have a tendency to be too analytical!
God Bless
I DO have a tendency to be too analytical!
God Bless
L
lyrikal
Guest
You and me both but sometimes I step back and take a look at the big picture rather than focus on the small details and things start to make sense that way sometimes.I guess that kind of makes sense.
I DO have a tendency to be too analytical!
God Bless
God bless you too!
R
Radical
Guest
well, nothing from Linoli actually verified the miracle. The WHO study is still a mystery. It seems to verfiy Linoli’s results…which establish nothing more than it is human flesh and blood which tests positive for blood type AB. It seems to say that they don’t have an explanation as to how the samples could be preserved for 12 centuries w/o preservatives. I get the feeling that you don’t recognize how unprofessional it is to accept the age of the samples at 1200 years w/o question. It is like a trial judge, at the start of the trial, asking “Does the Murderer’s lawyer want to make an opening remark?” Obviously the decision is in before the evidence has been heard. In any event, natural mummification of whole bodies is remarkable, but not miraculous…and that happens with whole bodies and not just a slice of flesh or a few drops of blood where natural mummification would be so much easier. So who did the WHO report? What were his/their areas of expertise? Were they familiar with instances of natural mummifications? What did they actually test? The WHO report also seems to say that the samples respond in the same fashion as do living samples, but Linoli’s study indicates the flesh sample is mummified, dehydrated and funji infested…hardly living. The blood samples are hard pellets and when Linoli examined a sample from them" using Emallume-Eosine staining, no cellular element can be detected, with the exception of a yellow-dark-green granular material with foreign bodies of vegetable origin." As Simmons (who claims to be a grad student in microbiology) observed : “That means that no cellular structures were identified, meaning no recognizable cells were left in the sample. Fresh blood contains blood cells, it is a contradiction to say that something is miraculously fresh when cellular structures and cells are no longer present. Foreign bodies of vegetable origin? The samples were contaminated also with an untested foreign vegetable.” Until you have actually produced the full WHO report for a critical analysis, you really don’t have anything of substance.
,
what specifically do you think constitutes “scientific evidence of the miracles”? Now please be precise on this. What test led to what finding and how is it that the finding necessitates a miraculous explanation? You carry on as if science has proven this to be a miracle…which makes me wonder where is the Society of Catholic Scientists that is trumpeting this irrefutable scientific evidence of the miraculous?
earlier, on yet another thread, I had provided these differences as reasons why one can distinguish between the two:
I accept the evidence wrt the miracles performed by Christ as evidence validating his message, but I don’t accept the miracles wrt the Catholic Eucharist as evidence validating a real bodily presence. If the miracles were of the same sort and were presented in the same fashion, you could properly say that I am being inconsistent, but again there are dramatic differences. Here are some of those differences:
Difference I
With Jesus, he knew when he would perform a miracle and when he wouldn’t. One could see Christ doing things to exercise his miraculous power. He presented a message through his ministry and pointed to his own miracles as validation of his message. With the Eucharist “miracles”, they happen w/o any one controlling where or when…No doubt you would say that Christ is still in control, though he is not present to be seen exercising his miraculous powers, so that is a significant difference and your claim that Christ is the miracle worker is also begging the question. There is an undeniable difference between Christ’s miracles ( predictating that he will rise again and then rising again, or, telling the lame man to get up and walk and then the lame man does just that) and the hit and miss of the extremely infrequent Eucharistic miracles.
Difference II
Jesus did not have a reputation of passing off fabricated miracles. The CC, particularly in the Middle Ages, when Eucharistic miracles were most plentiful, had a reputation of forgeries and fakes as its churches housed multiple shrouds, dozens of nails from the cross and who knows how many bits of the true cross (to name but a few)…When this became apparent, a explanation that these relics “multiplied like the loaves and fishes” had to be produced. We are not asked to swallow that type of contrived excuse to salvage Jesus’s reputation and that contrived excuse doesn’t salvage those relics which are proven to be fakes by dating and other objective means. Unlike Catholics, Jesus did not have a reputation of faking things.
R
Radical
Guest
continuing…
Difference III
With Jesus’s miracles there is no inconsistency. If he healed a leper, the leprosy was gone (accidents and all). The result matched the claim. With Eucharistic miracles that doesn’t happen. The claim is that the entire body of Christ is in each and every bit. This has been a significant claim b/c it justified not giving the congregation both elements. The Eucharistic miracle, however, doesn’t have an entire body appear, it is typically a bit of flesh or a few drops of blood. So contrary to the claim that the whole body is present, the Eucharistic miracle produces a very small fraction of it. The result does not match the claim and therefore, there is a problem in saying that the Eucharistic miracle validates the claim.
Difference IV
When a doubting Thomas demanded validation, Jesus responded by offering Thomas to conduct the exact “test” that Thomas proposed. Science now stands in a position to conduct DNA tests on the products of the Eucharistic miracles and those tests would show if the blood and flesh samples all came from the same Semitic male. This doubting Thomas proposes that test for the samples of the Eucharistic miracles. Run the tests and if all the samples come from the same body, then the previously described Differences fade into the background. Until then, your eucharistic miracles are of the same calibre as those claimed by the various Charismatic Christians…where the grand miracles (resurrections from death) occur in the third world where verification and validation is problematic and the local miracles tend to be of the “the soft-tissue injury to my back is healed” variety (impossible to objectively validate).
1.) We can conclude that they are every bit as legitimate as the Eucharistic miracles of Catholicism.
2.) We can conclude that they affirm the miracle worker’s message (Paul’s miracles verified that he had been sent by Jesus and that his whole message was endorsed by Christ…when he raised someone from the dead, Jesus was not merely affirming the resurrection through Paul’s miracle, but was giving a sign of Paul’s apostleship).
3.) We can conclude that God works miracles in other faiths and not just Catholicism
Peace back at you…tis unfortunate that this seems to be getting a little heated. Cheers.
Difference III
With Jesus’s miracles there is no inconsistency. If he healed a leper, the leprosy was gone (accidents and all). The result matched the claim. With Eucharistic miracles that doesn’t happen. The claim is that the entire body of Christ is in each and every bit. This has been a significant claim b/c it justified not giving the congregation both elements. The Eucharistic miracle, however, doesn’t have an entire body appear, it is typically a bit of flesh or a few drops of blood. So contrary to the claim that the whole body is present, the Eucharistic miracle produces a very small fraction of it. The result does not match the claim and therefore, there is a problem in saying that the Eucharistic miracle validates the claim.
Difference IV
When a doubting Thomas demanded validation, Jesus responded by offering Thomas to conduct the exact “test” that Thomas proposed. Science now stands in a position to conduct DNA tests on the products of the Eucharistic miracles and those tests would show if the blood and flesh samples all came from the same Semitic male. This doubting Thomas proposes that test for the samples of the Eucharistic miracles. Run the tests and if all the samples come from the same body, then the previously described Differences fade into the background. Until then, your eucharistic miracles are of the same calibre as those claimed by the various Charismatic Christians…where the grand miracles (resurrections from death) occur in the third world where verification and validation is problematic and the local miracles tend to be of the “the soft-tissue injury to my back is healed” variety (impossible to objectively validate).
Nah, you should have said it this way:
1.) We can conclude that they are every bit as legitimate as the Eucharistic miracles of Catholicism.
2.) We can conclude that they affirm the miracle worker’s message (Paul’s miracles verified that he had been sent by Jesus and that his whole message was endorsed by Christ…when he raised someone from the dead, Jesus was not merely affirming the resurrection through Paul’s miracle, but was giving a sign of Paul’s apostleship).
3.) We can conclude that God works miracles in other faiths and not just Catholicism
It is your assumption that a miracle is involved and then that is only your interpretation of what the miracle means…rationalize as you want, but the appearance of a slice of the heart visually contradicts the claim that the whole body is present.
as scripture teaches, miracles affirm status which includes teaching authority see John 10:25-39, Acts 2:22, 2 Cor 12:12
as indicated, it is not at all consistent with the teaching (a piece is not the whole)
I can’t see the logic, let alone the consistency thereof
the differences that I listed above address this and I still await a precise description of that evidence.
Peace back at you…tis unfortunate that this seems to be getting a little heated. Cheers.
perhaps a dove could appear above the altar and a voice could be heard announcing that “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased”…consistent with scripture and does not confict with the teaching of a whole presence.
R
Radical
Guest
Thanks…
I would hope that proper and better testing could actually eliminate the differences. There isn’t that much at issue. Can we determine the age of the samples? Is the AB type result a false positive? Is it consistent with natural mummification or not? The other opinions wrt it being too good a slice, that the tissue was living when tacked, that the samples respond as living tissue seem to be unfounded opinions, but let’s have some experts weigh in (after they have had a chance to look at the tests and the results).
miracles do happen…I personally would love to see the DNA tested on these samples…I am extremely confident that if good DNA was available, the tests would show that the samples from different Eucharistic miracles have different DNA…but I could be wrong
Bingo…actually I don’t see any scientific evidence of a miracle. Before Linoli ran his tests, the custodians of the samples feared the worst (ie porcine or bovine flesh and blood used). That acknowledged the possibility of a fraud. Linoli announced the sample was human by telegraphing John 1:1 …one of my favorite verses, but not exactly an indication that he didn’t care if it proved to be miraculous or not… The existence of human samples only rules out the use of non-human flesh and blood in a fraud…everything after seems to be uncertain or questionable opinion.
I have to admit that after all that I have said, if the Eucharistic miracles were proven, I would have to eat a lot of crow before I could eat a Catholic wafer…that probably colours my view somewhat, but at the end of the day, it would be nice to have a scientifically proven miracle to point to…and after eating the wafer, the first thing I would do is ensure that someone did a respectable job of presenting the evidence for that miracle.
Thanks, for the comments VC…tis nice to know one person gets what I am trying to say.
J
Jcnava15
Guest
Finally we got to the real issue. You don’t have a scientific problem with this, you have a theological problem with it.
John 6
*43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
*
It’s important to note that the Jews were appalled that he was speaking literally, and his own disciples who abandoned him were troubled by it.
Yet in John 15 when Jesus refers to himself as the the vine, and talks about the branches, no one is troubled by the teaching. You don’t hear anyone say “This man says he is a tree, I can’t believe this”.
Let’s concede the point then, let’s say you are right and this is a 1200 year old legend that for some reason has a mummified piece of flesh that belongs to the human species (I must give credit to the ancient fraudster for at least being pragmatic enough to predict that in the future people would have sophisticated tools to discover whether or not something was human, and would be able to detect what blood types were involved. Also what genius to pick the right flesh so that it would mummify without preservatives), but let’s throw the evidence that we do have aside, and say that you are right, that this is all just some fraud perpetrated by the Catholic Church, and no miracle occurred.
The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is still the biblical teaching.
Like I said, you don’t have to believe it, but please stop pretending that you have access to anymore data than we do, or that for some reason you are able to form a much better hypothesis than us.
And your appeal to Simmons as an authority as a Grad student is laughable, you aren’t swayed when we appeal to Linoli or Bertelli’s expertise as actual doctors, and professors, why should we care about an unproven Grad student. How do we know he isn’t flunking his classes, or is just some middle of the road student who is just following daddies footsteps and living off their money?
Appealing to authority is nothing.
If you have more data that backs up you’re point of view than please present it.
Until then your Skepticism is just that.
John 6
*43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
*
It’s important to note that the Jews were appalled that he was speaking literally, and his own disciples who abandoned him were troubled by it.
Yet in John 15 when Jesus refers to himself as the the vine, and talks about the branches, no one is troubled by the teaching. You don’t hear anyone say “This man says he is a tree, I can’t believe this”.
Let’s concede the point then, let’s say you are right and this is a 1200 year old legend that for some reason has a mummified piece of flesh that belongs to the human species (I must give credit to the ancient fraudster for at least being pragmatic enough to predict that in the future people would have sophisticated tools to discover whether or not something was human, and would be able to detect what blood types were involved. Also what genius to pick the right flesh so that it would mummify without preservatives), but let’s throw the evidence that we do have aside, and say that you are right, that this is all just some fraud perpetrated by the Catholic Church, and no miracle occurred.
The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is still the biblical teaching.
Like I said, you don’t have to believe it, but please stop pretending that you have access to anymore data than we do, or that for some reason you are able to form a much better hypothesis than us.
And your appeal to Simmons as an authority as a Grad student is laughable, you aren’t swayed when we appeal to Linoli or Bertelli’s expertise as actual doctors, and professors, why should we care about an unproven Grad student. How do we know he isn’t flunking his classes, or is just some middle of the road student who is just following daddies footsteps and living off their money?
Appealing to authority is nothing.
If you have more data that backs up you’re point of view than please present it.
Until then your Skepticism is just that.
R
Radical
Guest
I have both, but this thread is about the historical evidence and the scientific evidence regarding the EMOL…please stay on topic.
you don’t get it, it likely wouldn’t be a 12 year old legend…it would more likely be a 700-800 year old fraud.
people butchered hogs and cattle back then with some regularity…if I was a Medieval fraudster, I would use a human heart if at all possible, b/c some butcher might identify a pig or beef heart for what it was…or at least suggest it. Further, I would use a fresh one if possible…don’t want to stink up the place with a fabricated miracle…and with a fresh heart, blood would be available. If I happened to slice the heart thinly, it might mummify and the blood might dry quickly and be preserved, but I wouldn’t have control over that…as Lyrikal has pointed out, some frauds worked, some didn’t.
again, you aren’t getting it…deterioration takes care of that.
I am not…but I dare say that I have caused some to actually look at the data for the first time
I have stated my observations and so far (IHMO) they have held up much better than what you have offered here.
I have told you the problems with what Linoli concluded…can you truthfully say I am wrong on any piont? I have quoted what Simmons wrote…can you truthfully say that he is wrong on any piont?
yes, it is skeptism and not blind faith…I acknowledge that there is a difference between the two.
J
Jcnava15
Guest
In whose eyes?
Your observations have been pointed out as being ignorant from the onset, but it is only you who hasn’t seen it.
Like I said, this is your alternative origins hypothesis which needs more evidence to support it.
I have personally read and translated the paper published in Quad Sclavi. Your original assertions, or rather protests are unfounded. For example your point that Linoli said this was consistent with mummies (in regards to the blood) is not found in the paper. What he does say about mummies is this;
And 'also point out that nowhere in the histological section appeared to be indicative of an impregnation of the fabric by mummification substances, which were used in ancient times for the preservation of tissues.
And this about the blood;
It is evident that the percentage composition of protein in the liquid in question repeats the known values in clinical chemistry for normal human blood serum (Henry 1954 [7]).
More than that you questioned Linoli’s credentials, without questioning Simmons. You were seduced by the words “Grad Student”, and “Microbiology”, but never questioned anything beyond that. I mean if he is an Atheist, than you already agree he is not right on a lot of things, particularly everything that you agree with as a Christian. You are skeptical of Linoli, but simmons you welcome with welcome arms? Why not put your standards on him? It wouldn’t be convenient would it?
Yes I can, because you both had an agenda from the outset. He is and Atheist will only be looking for flaws. You as an unbeliever will follow suit, and have blind faith only because your ears want what they are itching to hear.
Your method of divide an conquer may explain inconsistencies individually, but they do not hold up as an explanation in totality. Your theory must account for all factors in the same respect.
So yes I can honestly say, besides the fact that your assertions are unfounded, they are patently biased from the outset.
Linoli and Bertelli’s conclusions are more reliable then Simmons, and yours, since they actually have first hand experience, and have the credentials to back it up. I mean after all we are arguing over there conclusions.
You are implying that not only could there have been a fraud perpetrated centuries ago, but that somehow these current scientific conclusions could also be “an inside job”.
Look at the Shroud of Turin, where was the great propaganda machine of the Catholic Church insuring that the results would be what they hoped for?
Even if this Miracle was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you would still find an out, saying “Well where is the evidence that this was originally a eucharist?” or “How do I know that this new round of testing isn’t biased, or part of a larger fraud”
You came to it with the mindset of “Here are my conclusions, what facts can I use to support it” instead of seeing what the facts actually concluded.
Your argumentation style is in the same breed as the Jesus Myther’s.
If you have a problem theologically with it, be honest about it and research it, but don’t come under the guise of honesty and put forth such obviously biased assertions. It’s not healthy for you, or for someone who doesn’t have the time to study these things for themselves.
L
lyrikal
Guest
And who were the 500 that St. Paul pointed to? What were their names? Did you talk to any of them? What did they tell you? Did you confirm that these eye witness accounts were actually real? What kind of scientific studies were done to show that the DNA of Christ before death was the same as the DNA after the Resurrection?
I am aware that you would like to continue talking about the scientific evidence, but my agenda at this point is to show your inconsistencies. There is nothing really left to be said about the scientific evidence. You have rejected what you have seen. We both see the same results and interpret them differently. You do no different than one who interprets the Gospel accounts of Christ resurrecting differently. Some say His disciples hallucinated (not possible), some say the Apostles in the Gospel weren’t really His Apostles but were followers who came way later, and some even say that Jesus never existed in the first place. They dismiss the whole thing entirely and interpret everything differently. I don’t think you should ever blame an atheist for saying these things if you’re going to interpret the scientific results differently with regards to the miracle in discussion.
Let’s see: In the 1970s, studies were done to see if the flesh is actually flesh. Why? Because if it is, then that would quiet the critics of this being fake. The critics accused the Catholics of it not being actual flesh and blood. That has been proven false. What now? Critics like you come up with more doubts. Again, you have ZERO scientific evidence for the Resurrection. So please stop acting like the Resurrection is a fact while this Eucharistic miracle is a possible hoax when scientific studies have been done to the latter and not the former. Yet you accept the former and reject the latter. I will keep pointing this out to you so if you’d like, we can drop this whole “debate” all together.
I will go ahead and show you the inconsistencies of these differences.
You assume Christ did all these things based on eye witness accounts. You don’t accept the eye witness accounts of the Eucharistic Miracles today. Inconsistency.
Again, you assume this about Christ based on eye witness accounts.
As far as the Catholic Church goes, as I pointed out in another post, just because you have 1 bad priest, doesn’t mean all priests are bad. You can’t deny every single miracle that has been done based on the bad one that have been fraud.
Again, you assume these things based on eye witness accounts. Inconsistent.
Now you say that the Eucharistic miracle does not have an entire bodily presence. Well, ringil brought that issue up and here is how I responded:
Think about it this way: If Christ were to perform a miracle to show us that He is truly present in the Eucharist, how else could He have done it? Would you rather Him turn the bread into a 1 inch size Christ with a head, neck, body, legs, arms, hands, feet, etc.? Would you want Him to take that 1 inch Christ and show Him to be glorified and appear as He appeared to the Apostles in the Transfiguration? Would you want to see this 1 inch Christ have nail marks on His hands and feet and evidence of the crown of thorns on His head?
Since you probably won’t accept this as a good answer, I will provide you yet with another point. What is the story of the Lanciano miracle? THE PRIEST DOUBTED THE REAL BODILY PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. Since he doubted, and since your argument assumes the miracle happened, then we can put 2 and 2 together.
1.) We have a doubting priest of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
2.) We have a miracle that happens in front of that doubting priest.
3.) The miracle is related to the Eucharist.
4.) The miracle shows the bread turned into flesh.
Now why would God change the Eucharistic bread into actual flesh for a priest who is doubting that the Eucharist is the actual Body of Christ? Does that affirm that the Eucharist is symbolic or a spiritual presence? The priest had two options: It is either the Body of Christ or it’s not. He doubted that it was. The miracle now makes much more sense when one takes the argument in its historical context instead of an analytical way of looking at it.
L
lyrikal
Guest
And here you go again assuming the doubting Thomas story actually happened. You assume this based on eye witness accounts.
But I find it highly ironic for you to bring up the doubting Thomas story. Here is why:
[29] Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”
Where would that verse fall if we run these DNA testing that you would like us to do? If we run them and they come out to be from one person, then we would have proof of the following:
1.) The Eucharist is the Body of Christ and not just a symbol.
2.) The Resurrection of Jesus is now a fact since it would be impossible for the DNA testings to point to one person. If the Eucharistic miracles are confirmed, that would confirm the Resurrection.
And you would come to believe and many would come to believe based on facts. Jesus could then as us “have you believed because you have seen the facts? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”
Where does that verse fall under with what you’re asking for us to do? I personally do not need any of these miracles in order to believe in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. In fact, I have believed in it before I even knew of such miracles. These miracles helped confirm my beliefs but they did not shape them. But as far you, since you require as much proof as an atheist does for the Resurrection, I pointed you to this miracle because the Bible and the Early Church Fathers were not enough for you to come to faith in the Catholic Eucharist. You interpret the Scriptures and the Fathers differently than I do. Which is ironic to say the least. It’s not the Bible that’s the final authority, is it? It’s the interpreter of the Bible that has the final authority.
And this miracle involved a doubting priest who did not believe in the Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So using your logic in point #2, we would come to the conclusion that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is true based on the miracle.
One would depend on the context of the miracle and not just a generalization of the whole thing. We see both ideas in the Bible. You mentioned the one with Paul which shows that the miracle was done to confirm the faith of Paul. Can you quote the passage that says that Paul did these miracles to confirm his teachings? Not that I am doubting that the verse is there, I am sincerely asking because I’d like to see it.
The second type of miracle is the raising of Lazarus. That points to a certain teaching of Christianity and does not have much to do with confirming Christ’s message in general to be true. The certain teaching is the Resurrection.
My interpretation is consistent with the historical context of the miracle. The priest doubted the REAL BODILY PRESENCE OF CHRIST and that’s when the miracle happened. Your interpretation is biased and is not based on any historical evidence but is based on personal agenda of nit picking little things and being analytical to disprove a doctrine that you seem to despise.
Agreed. And some miracles point to a certain teaching of Christianity like the story of Jonah being 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of a belly.
And some miracles do both like the Resurrection of Lazarus.
I guess I was asking for too much, my apologies.
It is unfortunate and I apologize for this. Radical, you know I respect your intelligence and respected it a lot during our Augustine discussion; however, when I see inconsistencies and double standards put forth (and not just me but other people are seeing this) then please understand that it gets frustrating.
You take the eye witness accounts of the Scriptures to be facts and take the eye witness accounts of the Lanciano miracle to be a possible hoax. You quote from Scripture to show your point but I can quote from Lanciano to show my view. The difference between the two is that in the Lanciano story, we at least have SOME scientific studies done where in the Resurrection we have none.
I would like to say that we should really drop the whole discussion all together. We keep going in circles and I don’t think that this is going to stop anytime soon and it may get more heated. For the sake of charity, please consider dropping it. But if you insist, I will continue with the discussion as to your liking.
- Status