U
undead_rat
Guest
Seems to suggest that the Shroud was woven in China. Interesting.
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.
The question of miracles - Are there convincing miracle cases?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Seems to suggest that the Shroud was woven in China. Interesting.
U
undead_rat
Guest
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE TURIN SHROUD
Three major “problems” with the Shroud have been postulated:
Circular reasoning then comes into play, and we often see it right here on CAF. The mysterious image found on the Shroud cannot be proof of a miracle because miraculous events are not possible.
Three major “problems” with the Shroud have been postulated:
- The Shroud suddenly appeared in France in about 1357 and its owners refused to say anything about where it had come from other than "spoils of war’ and “a reward for valor.” That such an important relic could have appeared without a record after 1300 years seemed extremely unlikely.
- The local bishop condemned the Shroud as a “painting,” and wrote that his predecessor had interviewed the artist who had painted it.
- The Shroud’s linen fibers contain much more carbon fourteen than would be expected of a relic originating in the first century.
- Indications are that the Knights Templar purchased the Shroud from the French 4th Crusade in the early 13th century. Most of the Knight’s property had been subsequently confiscated by the King of France one hundred years later in 1307. The Knights Templar kept their possession of the Shroud a secret because trading in relics was a crime and because they had no need to raise money by exhibiting it. The de Charney family could not admit that the Shroud had been Templar property as to do so would make it the property of the King of France.
- The bishop in question was at odds with the de Charney family over political control of the Lirey area, and he was attempting to raise funds for the completion of the Troyes Cathedral. He had never actually seen the Shroud and the translation of his letter to the Pope is questionable. It may have read that the testimony about the Shroud being a painting came from “an artist who had copied it.”
At any rate, 20th century research has proven what was known all along: the image on the Shroud is NOT a painting. - The Shroud’s carbon fourteen evidence does not pass the required mathematical tests that are needed for the assignment of a date. This evidence exhibits a systemic bias which is compatible with the theory that the corpse it contained became the source of a neutron flux.
Neutron radiation on nitrogen is what creates carbon fourteen, and the Shroud’s linen fibers contain a small amount of nitrogen.
Circular reasoning then comes into play, and we often see it right here on CAF. The mysterious image found on the Shroud cannot be proof of a miracle because miraculous events are not possible.
Last edited:
P
Poet
Guest
@Hugh_Farey, in regards to your question about a list, this was posted in post #277 .And…
The Magis Center:
Magis Center – 28 Sep 17
7 Proven Modern Catholic Miracles: Free Article - Magis Center
Are there any modern Catholic miracles? Learn in detail about 7 remarkable and scientifically proven contemporary and recent miracles!
Maybe these might help in your search for answers.
God bless you on your spiritual journey.
However, another way of finding approved miracles would be to study canonized saints. Canonization depends on there being a documented miracle (or two, I believe) springing from asking for their intercession. It should be easy enough, with saints in the last two or three centuries, to find out what those miracles were.
However, I think this thread is evidence that for one who does not wish to believe, no amount of evidence is sufficient.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
This is one of the most reasoned and informative posts from Undead_rat for some while, and deserves the attention of impartial followers of our discussion.
It is interesting that he begins by calling certain statements about the Shroud, “problems”. Medievalists, of course, do not see these as problems at all; they are fully in keeping with a medieval origin. They are only problems to those otherwise hopeful of an authenticist provenance.
Be that as it may, they are worth exploring.
Firstly: The Shroud is only known to have appeared in the mid 14th century from two pilgrim badges and a letter from 35 or so years later. It was then associated with one Geoffrey de Charny the younger, whose parents were Geoffrey de Charny the elder and Jeanne de Vergy. The arms of the de Charny and de Vergy family appear on the pilgrim badges, but one has the de Charny arms on the right and the de Vergy arms on the left, while the other has them on the opposite sides. The significance of the change is not fully understood.
It is misleading to say that “its owners refused to say anything about where it had come from other than 'spoils of war’ and ‘a reward for valor’.” In fact nothing is known about anything either of the Geoffreys de Charny may have claimed, except that the son said it came from his father. In 1443, over a hundred years since its first display, Marguerite de Charny (Geoffrey the younger’s daughter) said it had been “conquis par feu messire Geoffroy de Charny, mon grant père.” Although it was originally suggested that “conquis par feu” had something to do with “conquest by fire”, this was soon corrected by those more familiar with medieval French to “acquired by the late …” as ‘con-quer’ (from Latin con-quaere) had the same force as 'ac-quire (ad-quaere), and ‘feu’ derives from ‘futatus’ (dead), not ‘focus’ (fire).
To this day the Shroud has no provenance, which is, for a relic, as Undead_rat says, extremely unlikely. However, if it was originally a repurposed liturgical prop, then it is extremely likely.
Secondly: We have already looked at Bishop Pierre d’Arcis’s letter to Pope Clement VII. As I have mentioned before, there is nothing to suggest that the Bishop was or was not “at odds with the de Charny family over political control of the Lirey area”, or that “he was attempting to raise funds for the completion of the Troyes Cathedral” or that “he had never actually seen the Shroud.” The verb depingo, which is used to mean ‘depict’, or less precisely ‘paint’ cannot be interpreted to mean ‘copy’ in the sense of reproducing another painting or image.
Thirdly: Undead_rat never specifies what he means by “the required mathematical tests”. Twelve different pieces of Shroud were tested multiple times, and every single measurement was equivalent to a date in the late Middle Ages. No mathematical test denies this.
It is interesting that he begins by calling certain statements about the Shroud, “problems”. Medievalists, of course, do not see these as problems at all; they are fully in keeping with a medieval origin. They are only problems to those otherwise hopeful of an authenticist provenance.
Be that as it may, they are worth exploring.
Firstly: The Shroud is only known to have appeared in the mid 14th century from two pilgrim badges and a letter from 35 or so years later. It was then associated with one Geoffrey de Charny the younger, whose parents were Geoffrey de Charny the elder and Jeanne de Vergy. The arms of the de Charny and de Vergy family appear on the pilgrim badges, but one has the de Charny arms on the right and the de Vergy arms on the left, while the other has them on the opposite sides. The significance of the change is not fully understood.
It is misleading to say that “its owners refused to say anything about where it had come from other than 'spoils of war’ and ‘a reward for valor’.” In fact nothing is known about anything either of the Geoffreys de Charny may have claimed, except that the son said it came from his father. In 1443, over a hundred years since its first display, Marguerite de Charny (Geoffrey the younger’s daughter) said it had been “conquis par feu messire Geoffroy de Charny, mon grant père.” Although it was originally suggested that “conquis par feu” had something to do with “conquest by fire”, this was soon corrected by those more familiar with medieval French to “acquired by the late …” as ‘con-quer’ (from Latin con-quaere) had the same force as 'ac-quire (ad-quaere), and ‘feu’ derives from ‘futatus’ (dead), not ‘focus’ (fire).
To this day the Shroud has no provenance, which is, for a relic, as Undead_rat says, extremely unlikely. However, if it was originally a repurposed liturgical prop, then it is extremely likely.
Secondly: We have already looked at Bishop Pierre d’Arcis’s letter to Pope Clement VII. As I have mentioned before, there is nothing to suggest that the Bishop was or was not “at odds with the de Charny family over political control of the Lirey area”, or that “he was attempting to raise funds for the completion of the Troyes Cathedral” or that “he had never actually seen the Shroud.” The verb depingo, which is used to mean ‘depict’, or less precisely ‘paint’ cannot be interpreted to mean ‘copy’ in the sense of reproducing another painting or image.
Thirdly: Undead_rat never specifies what he means by “the required mathematical tests”. Twelve different pieces of Shroud were tested multiple times, and every single measurement was equivalent to a date in the late Middle Ages. No mathematical test denies this.
U
undead_rat
Guest
These statements are not accurate.
pg 16
- The tradition of a cloth bearing a “not made by hands” image of Jesus is very strong in the Orthodox Church and in the Armenian Church of the East. Vignon was the first to note many congruences between the facial image on the Shroud and sixth century icons of Jesus’ face.
His findings have been confirmed by later researchers. To try to say that “To this day the Shroud has no provenance” is nothing more than a grasping at staws by someone with a modernist philosophy.
The Shroud has all of the history that anyone could want, and its legend goes back to the first century. - No matter what the verb “depingo” really means, the image found on the Shroud is NOT a painting as has been proven by STURP’s research and by many others.
- The “required mathematical tests” have been discussed on CAF in detail, and Mr. Farey knows exactly what is meant by this reference.
pg 16
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Well, no, obvs.
There are lots of traditional cloths in Christian literature, several of them “not made by hands”. They include Veronicas, the Images of Edessa and Camuliana, Hodegetria, the Virgin of Guadalupe and a couple of crucifixes. The Shroud was never considered one of these until the 20th century. Paul Vignon’s observations that Byzantine paintings of Christ, his apostles, numerous saints, bishops and even emperors all bore one or more similarity to the image of the Shroud act as useful guide to Byzantine iconography, but cannot be taken as evidence that the Shroud was the source of the images; quite the reverse. There are no references to a burial cloth of Christ bearing an image before the sack of Constantinople, and even that one may be mistaken. The ‘Legend of the Shroud’ was concocted, quite compellingly, in the 20th century, but does not withstand historical scrutiny. The Shroud has no history, and no provenance, before the mid fourteenth century.
The Shroud is not a painting. I think you’re probably right. It is probably a stain or an acid-burn. Possibly the stain was made by paint, later washed off, or possibly it was a wine- or even wood- stain. Or possibly vinegar, or malic or lactic acid, associated with an artist’s medium, could be responsible. After all, it was, as Bishop d’Arcis wrote: “subtili modo depicta erat”.
There are no "required mathematical tests’ needed to interpret the information that all the measurements from all the different pieces of cloth tested all indicated a late medieval provenance. The tests Undead_rat is thinking of suggest that the pieces come from sightly different times during the late medieval, possibly affected by some minor contamination that was not completely removed.
There are lots of traditional cloths in Christian literature, several of them “not made by hands”. They include Veronicas, the Images of Edessa and Camuliana, Hodegetria, the Virgin of Guadalupe and a couple of crucifixes. The Shroud was never considered one of these until the 20th century. Paul Vignon’s observations that Byzantine paintings of Christ, his apostles, numerous saints, bishops and even emperors all bore one or more similarity to the image of the Shroud act as useful guide to Byzantine iconography, but cannot be taken as evidence that the Shroud was the source of the images; quite the reverse. There are no references to a burial cloth of Christ bearing an image before the sack of Constantinople, and even that one may be mistaken. The ‘Legend of the Shroud’ was concocted, quite compellingly, in the 20th century, but does not withstand historical scrutiny. The Shroud has no history, and no provenance, before the mid fourteenth century.
The Shroud is not a painting. I think you’re probably right. It is probably a stain or an acid-burn. Possibly the stain was made by paint, later washed off, or possibly it was a wine- or even wood- stain. Or possibly vinegar, or malic or lactic acid, associated with an artist’s medium, could be responsible. After all, it was, as Bishop d’Arcis wrote: “subtili modo depicta erat”.
There are no "required mathematical tests’ needed to interpret the information that all the measurements from all the different pieces of cloth tested all indicated a late medieval provenance. The tests Undead_rat is thinking of suggest that the pieces come from sightly different times during the late medieval, possibly affected by some minor contamination that was not completely removed.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
It should, shouldn’t it? So why isn’t it?It should be easy enough, with saints in the last two or three centuries, to find out what those miracles were.
P
Poet
Guest
It is. It took me approximately 15 seconds to find a long list of sites just about John Paul II. If I had the time, it would be equally easy to go down a long list of canonized saints and compile the list. Not to mention somebody else posted exactly the list you asked for and I just took the time to re-post it. So why do you keep insisting no such list exists and even hinting that such a list couldn’t be made?It should, shouldn’t it? So why isn’t it?
https://churchpop.com/2019/05/30/the-extraordinary-miracles-that-got-pope-st-john-paul-ii-canonized/
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
You misunderstand me. There are hundreds of sites of the kind you post, all of them apparently quoting from some source or other for their information. I don’t believe churchpop made up its information any more than you do. So where did churchpop get its information from? If I click on “French nun” (the first link in the ‘First Miracle’ Section) I get a YouTube video, and if I click on “second miracle” (the first link in the ‘Second Miracle’ Section) I get telegraph.co.uk, a newspaper.
If I go to the Magis Centre site (mentioned above) and look for evidence for the most recent miracle mentioned, a Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires, I’m sent to loamagazine (link now defunct) and aleteia.org. If I check out the aleteia source, it sends me to loamagazine! No joy there.
The Magis centre has no references for the miracles that led to the canonisation of John Paul II, but Wikipedia does. One is to a Reuters report (fair enough, but where did the Reuters reporter get her information from?) and the other to telegraph.co.uk.
Entering Floribeth miracle in Google gives me NBC, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph (of course), L.A. Opinion, and the Bangkok post, among dozens of others.
Frankly, if the best an impartial inquirer can do is go round and round popular news sites, then it’s hardly surprising if they decide the whole thing is mere folklore. I think this is a great shame. The investigations into these things are very thorough and, I suspect, genuinely difficult, scientifically, to refute. But if the best we can do is the Bangkok Post, then our position is wholly indefensible.
If I go to the Magis Centre site (mentioned above) and look for evidence for the most recent miracle mentioned, a Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires, I’m sent to loamagazine (link now defunct) and aleteia.org. If I check out the aleteia source, it sends me to loamagazine! No joy there.
The Magis centre has no references for the miracles that led to the canonisation of John Paul II, but Wikipedia does. One is to a Reuters report (fair enough, but where did the Reuters reporter get her information from?) and the other to telegraph.co.uk.
Entering Floribeth miracle in Google gives me NBC, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph (of course), L.A. Opinion, and the Bangkok post, among dozens of others.
Frankly, if the best an impartial inquirer can do is go round and round popular news sites, then it’s hardly surprising if they decide the whole thing is mere folklore. I think this is a great shame. The investigations into these things are very thorough and, I suspect, genuinely difficult, scientifically, to refute. But if the best we can do is the Bangkok Post, then our position is wholly indefensible.
P
Poet
Guest
Fair enough, but how could I have ‘understood’ that’s what you meant when you merely ignored the first post and responded to me by simply saying it’s hard to find a list.Frankly, if the best an impartial inquirer can do is go round and round popular news sites, then it’s hardly surprising if they decide the whole thing is mere folklore. I think this is a great shame. The investigations into these things are very thorough and, I suspect, genuinely difficult, scientifically, to refute. But if the best we can do is the Bangkok Post, then our position is wholly indefensible.
What sources do you want? Something from the Vatican? I would imagine that the records of these investigations are there or at various parishes where they’ve been investigated. I did look at the Vatican website and their archives are in Italian for the most part.
For me, I think that to entirely discount site after site after site that reports on these things, you have to believe that every single one of these miracles was made up out of whole cloth and that the church is knowingly promoting a terrible hoax. Furthermore, you have to believe that millions upon millions of people over two thousand years are all stupid enough to fall for it.
To me, that belief strains credibility more than believing that miracles happen, especially when even everyday people speak of miracles in their lives. I’ve personally witnessed one (or more) so I have no reason to doubt that someone could be healed by John Paul’s intercession. I’ve read the scientific results of blood and DNA samples on Eucharistic miracles, and so on.
I think it would be a great idea to write to the Vatican and explain your position and ask if they have those records and investigations available to the public.
However, I would also add that for one who does not want to believe (and I’m not saying that’s you, I mean anyone who doesn’t want to believe in miracles or the validity of the Christian faith) hearing it straight from the priest or scientist who conducted the tests will still not be proof. They’ll simply say the priest is promulgating a terrible hoax because that’s what the Catholic Church does to people–or that the scientist is lying or was the victim of the hoax himself and fooled.
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
By grace…How can I possibly have faith before I actually have it? To have Faith I need first to know that Jesus is the Son of God so that I can have Faith in him. Also, from what I’m aware, Catholicism condemns fideism, so your position is not Catholic.
Ask, seek, knock…
Faith is a grace
153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”.24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him . "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’"25
Faith is a human act
2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord’s words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"57 - reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.
A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.’"58
C
Cone
Guest
The miracle of Pieter de Rudder is one of the most convincing miracles I’ve ever come across.
A
AlNg
Guest
What did you think about the skeptic’s report on this?The miracle of Pieter de Rudder is one of the most convincing miracles I’ve ever come across.
Nickell, Joe. (2010). “Belgian Miracles”. Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
U
undead_rat
Guest
As you may have noticed, the resident skeptic on CAF has invested an extra-ordinary amount of time and even money in his effort to prove that the Holy Shroud is a fake.However, I think this thread is evidence that for one who does not wish to believe, no amount of evidence is sufficient.
How can this be explained? I once thought that this person was a closet adherent of Bahai’ Faith as that religion was infected with a modernist philosophy by its secondary founder, Abdul’Baha. But he denies it, and Bahai’s do not typically exhibit such animosity towards Christian relics such as the Shroud, and they seem content to just ignore these things.
It seems to me that our skeptic has a deep seated animosity towards Christian Churches despite his characterization of himself as a “card carrying Catholic.”
What could account for this I don’t know, but I have a suspicion.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
What frightful calumny! I have never made any effort to prove that the Shroud, Holy or not, is a fake. Indeed, I have gone out of my way, and at length, to discourage any suggestion that ‘proof’ is a worthwhile pursuit of scientists. I have presented such information as I have acquired, duly referenced, to explain why I think the Shroud is a thirteenth century art-work, but I do not think my opinion is proven, and I have never asked or expected anyone to agree with me. The evidence is there, and we are all to make of it what we will.As you may have noticed, the resident skeptic on CAF has invested an extra-ordinary amount of time and even money in his effort to prove that the Holy Shroud is a fake.
N
Neithan
Guest
Nickell’s skepticism relies on records that were not perfect and an incredible hypothetical situation: Pieter de Rudder was faking his injury for eight years to collect a pension, and then claimed a miracle a year after when the pension was discontinued so that he could return to work. Nickell says that it’s possible Pieter de Rudder’s leg could have healed over time, which doesn’t account for the recorded fact that it was still bleeding only days before the pilgrimage.
L
Lenny
Guest
First, miracles are a sign from God that validates the one true Church.
Rabinical Judism that we see today was born in the second century and is chronicled by the Pope at the time. The Jewish encyclopedia states that the Pharisees are the fathers of modern Judism. Judism(the one true faith of the time of Christ) ended in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the second temple along with the records of the Aronic priesthood.
I was trying to find the article to cite, others may be able to help, but there was a man that fell down an elevator shaft and shattered his pelvis and arm. He was carried to Lourdes and left walking without pain. Subsequent x-rays showed that his pelvis and arm were still shattered, but he had full range of motion, without pain.
Christ through St.Padre Pio restored a mans sense of smell. Venerable Father Grunner who was a priest near where I live had a chance to meet this man. He said that the nasal membrane responsible for smell was blown away in the man before the miracle, yet after his encounter with St. Pio, he could smell as anyone. Father Grunner tested him as they both could smell rubber as they traveled in a car together.
Rabinical Judism that we see today was born in the second century and is chronicled by the Pope at the time. The Jewish encyclopedia states that the Pharisees are the fathers of modern Judism. Judism(the one true faith of the time of Christ) ended in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the second temple along with the records of the Aronic priesthood.
I was trying to find the article to cite, others may be able to help, but there was a man that fell down an elevator shaft and shattered his pelvis and arm. He was carried to Lourdes and left walking without pain. Subsequent x-rays showed that his pelvis and arm were still shattered, but he had full range of motion, without pain.
Christ through St.Padre Pio restored a mans sense of smell. Venerable Father Grunner who was a priest near where I live had a chance to meet this man. He said that the nasal membrane responsible for smell was blown away in the man before the miracle, yet after his encounter with St. Pio, he could smell as anyone. Father Grunner tested him as they both could smell rubber as they traveled in a car together.
M
MPat
Guest
And why did you hope so?I suppose I was hoping to answer the OP easily by referring to some kind of official list of defensible miracles.
You are not going to benefit much, unless you trace those reasons back to the one that describes what is wrong with you in some way, something you can then try to improve. Maybe you make a false assumption, maybe you lack some skill that would have been useful.
Surprise, just as frustration, is a signal that expectations did not match the reality. So, as with user “Hugh_Farey”, have you thought what deficiency in you it indicates? Did you make false assumptions, lack some skills?I’ll have to add that I am surprised that there is no list of verified, accepted miracles (other than the Bible) from the Catholic Church, as well.
We know they investigate them so I’ve always assumed they publish their findings. I don’t expect private details to be revealed but a summary would be normal in other investigations.
There are many words that might describe the process of just dismissing any miracle claim out of hand, but “difficult” does not seem to be one of them.In the absence of consensus, I guess Blindseeker04 must go with his intuition as to which, if any, miracles are true for him. This could be difficult for an agnostic.
So, nothing is new.How can anyone say there have been 70 Lourdes miracles? Does the Church just say so? Why should I, as a non believer, just accept the Churches word with no documentation whatsoever! It just allows me to completely discount any Catholic miracle.
Or do you imagine we are going to believe you did not just dismiss claims of miracles until now?
That also hints why the Church does not find proclamations that miracle has been checked to be of such great importance, as you imagined.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m not frustrated, I’m just surprised. Yes, I assumed there would be documentation of some kind. I think it’s a reasonable expectation for miraculous claims.
I’m a skeptic and when someone offers a miracle story I would hope everyone would be skeptical until they had documents to view. Would you not also be skeptical of Hindu claims? If their priests stated they investigated but had no documents to show it, would you just accept that or would you remain skeptical? I’m not abnormal for this!
I’m a skeptic and when someone offers a miracle story I would hope everyone would be skeptical until they had documents to view. Would you not also be skeptical of Hindu claims? If their priests stated they investigated but had no documents to show it, would you just accept that or would you remain skeptical? I’m not abnormal for this!
H
historyfan81
Guest
i to was an agnostic
the resurection as of know is the best recorded miracle (said by anthony flew) case and of the 5 criteria of
even though some argue it fits all 5 if since its not ad hoc , since it only adds one more suppostion that god exist .
so its not ad hoc
as all other hypotesis fail to explain the events or are so ad hoc like the halucination theory wich adds 7 extra supossitions , that the resurection theory is more belivable than them.
and in terms of plausibility , only a naturalist who denies the pausability of theisim can say its no posible .
but that is arguing from a presuposition and not being opened to evidence.
so yes jesus resurection is the most historical recorded miracle , the evidence is there and what convinced me that god is real.
now more of the recent miracles and holy aparitions
like the aparation in fatima can really be explained by science and not something super natural.
so not all "miracles " are true , but some have more evidence than the others.
the resurection as of know is the best recorded miracle (said by anthony flew) case and of the 5 criteria of
- explanatory scope it can explian all the facts
- explanatory power: it can explain the facts with the least amount of effort
- less ad hoc : puts the least amounts of extra assumption
- plausibility
- illumination : offers insigths on the other areas of history.
even though some argue it fits all 5 if since its not ad hoc , since it only adds one more suppostion that god exist .
so its not ad hoc
as all other hypotesis fail to explain the events or are so ad hoc like the halucination theory wich adds 7 extra supossitions , that the resurection theory is more belivable than them.
and in terms of plausibility , only a naturalist who denies the pausability of theisim can say its no posible .
but that is arguing from a presuposition and not being opened to evidence.
so yes jesus resurection is the most historical recorded miracle , the evidence is there and what convinced me that god is real.
now more of the recent miracles and holy aparitions
like the aparation in fatima can really be explained by science and not something super natural.
so not all "miracles " are true , but some have more evidence than the others.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.