The question of miracles - Are there convincing miracle cases?

[EndTimes]

Just like theologians…

Some…

And AntiChristians…

All?

_

 

[catholic-heart]

There were several saints who ate nothing other than consuming the Eucharist during mass for years at a time without failing in health. The Eucharist, the tiny host, was the only food/nourishment they received.

A few of these include St. Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine of Genoa, Blessed Alexandrina da Costa, among others.

This is to prove how miraculous the Eucharist is – that it is the true body, blood, soul & divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Eucharist, if you believe it is true, is the greatest miracle of all time and it happens again and again at every mass in the world.

For God to become present to us, wholly, in such a humble manner, to offer his whole self to us: This is the most important teaching and belief of the Catholic Faith and the most beautiful miracle.

No, most of the time we cannot see anything with our eyes but this doesn’t change or diminish the reality of it.

Eucharistic miracles (where the Eucharist physically became flesh/blood can serve as a reminder of this hidden reality and can strengthen the faith of those who have trouble believing Jesus’ words – that the bread he held up and offered at the Last Supper “is” his body, given up for us. For each of us individually.

 

[undead_rat]

Justin_Mary:

I believe the Shroud of Turin.

Shroud of Turin has been proven a fraud numerous times.

This is not true.

1. The image on the Shroud was claimed to have been a painting by skeptics. Scientific investigation has proven that the image on the Shroud is not a painting of any kind.
2. Skeptics claimed that the Shroud had no history prior to 1357 when it appeared in France. Research into ancient images of Jesus’ face prove that these images found on coins and icons have such a great congruence with the face on the Shroud that the odds of them being created without the artist taking his lead from the Shroud are about one in a billion.* The legend of a cloth bearing the miraculous image of Jesus is a very strong one, and it goes back to the first century.**
3. Skeptics claim that the 1988 carbon fourteen evidence obtained from a Shroud sample proves that the Shroud’s linen fabric originated in medieval times. This claim has been debunked. The Shroud’s C-14 evidence did not pass robust statistical analysis tests needed for legitimizing a date. Fanti’s conclusion is that the Shroud’s C-14 evidence is “scientifically meaningless” and that, if one insisted on assigning a date to this evidence, it would be 1325 A.D. with an uncertainty factor of several thousand years.*
   Cardinal Bertone accused the British Museum of essentially holding a kangaroo court on the Shroud by reaching its verdict without having analyzed the evidence.
4. Corpses do not leave photographic quality images on their burial shrouds. This one did, and no scientist has been able to explain how it got there without postulating that the corpse within that Shroud vanished into another dimension.*** The Shroud’s carbon fourteen content becomes greater as the sample tested becomes closer to the image. This evidence indicates that the corpse became a source of neutron radiation. The Shroud’s image appears to have been created by radiation from the corpse, and proton radiation has been proven to be a possibility.

In all, the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is Jesus’ burial cloth and that His image on that cloth is the result of a miraculous event.

*THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST!, Fanti/Malfi, 2015

**THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010

***TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

 

[catholic-heart]

@emest11 Not just anyone will be able to do this; it was a miracle for a few very holy people. Not something to be tried and tested by the general population. Isn’t that how miracles work?

 

[undead_rat]

@emest11 Not just anyone will be able to do this; it was a miracle for a few very holy people. Not something to be tried and tested by the general population. Isn’t that how miracles work?

Jesus promised a miracle that a “generation” would be able to witness, and He called this miracle
“The Sign of Jonah,” meaning that it would be associated with His burial.*

*Gospel of Matthew

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There were several saints who ate nothing other than consuming the Eucharist during mass for years at a time without failing in health. The Eucharist, the tiny host, was the only food/nourishment they received.

A few of these include St. Catherine of Siena

St. Catherine of Siena practiced extreme fasting for most of her life because she was an ascetic and practiced self-mortification generally. She developed serious health problems at a relatively young age, and the lack of food may have been a factor. Towards the end of her life, she tried to start eating again because by that point her spiritual director and her followers were alarmed and urging her to eat. However, by that point she was unable to consume food. She died at age 33.

Nowadays, it is widely believed that she and many other saints of her era who practiced extreme fasting had a form of anorexia, an eating disorder. If you’re looking for examples of saints who lived on the Eucharist but stayed in good health, she’s a bad example.

Also, it’s my understanding that even when she was fasting, she did consume vegetables.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

St. Rita, miraculously, the last four years of her life was sustained mostly on the Eucharist alone, though I would agree it is not a good idea to attempt extreme fasting. One reason is, we eat a lot different today than people of the past and it could danger one’s health.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It should also be noted that some of the more modern holy persons who are said to have had “inedia” (where they lived only on the Eucharist for years) were already in poor health and bedridden. Blessed Alexandrina da Costa was paralyzed from an accident, bedridden, and her weight dropped to about 73 pounds while she was allegely living only on the Eucharist. Ven. Marthe Robin, who allegedly lived only on the Eucharist for 50 years, was also paralyzed and bedridden. While these people survived, I don’t think I would say they were in good health.

Therese Neumann by contrast was relatively healthy and normal weight during the time she allegedly lived only on the Eucharist, but there was some question about whether her father was secretly feeding her, and after one medical test of 15 days during which she was observed to see if she ate anything, her family would not allow any more tests. So it’s inconclusive and the Church hasn’t pronounced on it. I believe she now has an open sainthood cause since 2005 so I’m sure it is something they will be looking at.

I must say I am a little skeptical of claims that victim souls in the modern era lived for years only on the Eucharist, and I tend to favor the victim souls like Servants of God Rhoda Wise and Luisa Piccarreta who ate meals.

 

[undead_rat]

References please. All scholarship I am aware of identifies the shroud as a medieval artifact . . .

Really ? All scholarship ? On my previous post I listed three references that regard the Shroud as first century. How can you be unaware of these ? There are many more that are dedicated to showing how the Shroud is authentic. Here are a few of them:

THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, Vignon, 1902

THE HOLY SHROUD, A REPLY TO FATHER THURSTON, Beecher, 1929

A DOCTOR AT CALVARY, Barbet, 1953

THE SHROUD, Walsh, 1963

THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Wilson, 1978

REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Heller, 1983

THE SHROUD AND THE CONTROVERSY, Stevenson/Habermas, 1990

THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD, Wilson, 1998

THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010

TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST !, Fanti/Malfi, 2015

Sir, when you say that it is “not possible” that radiation from a vanishing corpse could have created the Shroud’s image, are you saying that Jesus’ corpse did not disappear from the inside of a sealed and guarded tomb as is recorded in the Holy Gospels ?

 

[undead_rat]

Here is a quote from the Fanti/Malfi book of 2015, page 159:

" . . .a group of professors of statistics at Parma (M. Riani), London (A. Atkinsons), and Udine (F. Crosilla), in cooperation with the first author, demonstrated that the 1988 radiocarbon dating result referring to the Shroud is not reliable.
"These results have been first published in the Italian Society of Statistics review, in which, among others, conclusions are:
The statements of Damon et al (1988) that the quoted errors reflect all sources of error and that the results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval need to be reconsidered in the light of the evidence produced by our use of a robust statistical technique. In other words, the 12 measurements produced by the three labs cannot be considered as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity, therefore an environmental contamination in the analyzed piece of fabric that acted in a non-uniform linear way can be hypothesized.

"Conclusions are very important:

If the bias highlighted by the radiocarbon dating of the three labs was directly transferred all along the Shroud, it could be hypothesized for a length of about four meters, a variation of twenty millenniums in the future, starting from a date of the edge dating back to the first millennium A.D.

“This conclusion affirms therefore that the result of the 1988 radiocarbon dating is unreliable and scientifically meaningless.”

Shroud of Turin: Interview with Researcher Who Debunked the 1988 ‘Medieval’ Dating

 

[Chistian-ity]

Lol, I’m not sure how much that applies here.

 

[tomo_pomo]

Im sorry, it’s been a long time. What do you mean does not apply?

 

[undead_rat]

I have provided you with the scientific refutation of the “carefully analyzed C-14 dating,” yet you persist in claiming that this dating is without error. The fact is, as Cardinal Bertone stated, the British Museum reached its “medieval” verdict before the so-called “careful analysis” of the data was performed. It was nothing less than a kangaroo court, and the Museum’s statistical analysis of the C-14 data was fudged.
You are right when you say that the “invisible patch” theory has been refuted (since 2002, in fact,) but the unrefuted theory is that the Shroud has been subjected to a neutron radiation event, and that event enhanced the Shroud’s C-14 content.

All of your other objections are spurious and have been refuted many times by various researchers and scientists. Some of them appear to be made up by yourself. For instance, the Church has never stated that the Shroud is a forgery, and the Shroud’s cloth is NOT consistent with medieval weaves. When Prof. Tite of the British museum tried to find control samples from the 14th century, he was unable to find a similar weave, even after diligent searching.

 

[undead_rat]

Sir , you said that “All scholarship that I am aware of identifies the Shroud as a medieval artifact,” so I provided you with a list of works that have the opposite conclusion. But then you contradict yourself and say that “I am aware of many of these and have read a few” and accuse me of saying, “Here, read this book.” But, in fact, I never said that.

What I did do was quote a passage from one of the latest works which you apparently ignored and then persisted in your inaccurate statement that the three labs got “the exact same result.” The labs did not get the “exact same result.” The data from the Oxford lab, which tested the sample closest to the edge, showed less C-14 content than the data from the Arizona lab, which tested the sample that was closest to the image.

 

[undead_rat]

Sir, when you say that it is “not possible” that radiation from a vanishing corpse could have created the Shroud’s image, are you saying that Jesus’ corpse did not disappear from the inside of a sealed and guarded tomb as is recorded in the Holy Gospels ?

You haven’t answered my question, but, perhaps, this is a source that you do not consider “respectable.”

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

I have provided you with the scientific refutation of the “carefully analyzed C-14 dating,” yet you persist in claiming that this dating is without error.

I found not respectable source that agrees with that.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.12467
So now you are dismissing scientists and their reports on the basis that you do not find them to be “respectable?” How can anyone hold a rational discussion with you on that basis?

BTW, you yourself have not provided a single reference or scientific report to support your assertions.

 

[BigRon]

Shroud of Turin.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...elics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/

Hello everyone, new to the forum. I am an Agnostic who’s searching to find the truth. Since I’m trying to find out if Christianity and Catholicism in specific is true, if it includes actual miracles, it would only speak for it. My issue is that most miracle claims are either too far into the past with not much evidence, or things that seem impressive at first sight, but turn out not so, like the Incorruptibles a lot of whom have been found to have been mummified (St Margaret of Cortona for example).

Are there any miracles that you consider really defensible?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The Pray Codex predates the earliest C14 date.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Also you are forgetting the lead chemist on STURP wrote a peer reviewed paper outlining a new dating method showing the cloth was much older. He did this because he determined the C14 sample was not representative of the main body of the cloth.

 

[undead_rat]

You are the one making the claim that the tests were inaccurate.

I have never said the the Shroud’s carbon fourteen ratio to carbon twelve measurements were not accurate or that they were taken from an invalid sample. The issue is how to interpret these measurements, and that is where statistical analysis comes in. The data must pass certain mathematical tests in order for it to be taken as indicative of a date. The C-14 data from the Shroud did not pass the required tests, but the British Museum went ahead and assigned a date anyway.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (Vatican Secretary of State) said: “The analysis of carbon fourteen (of the Shroud) seems to have been a mistake, particularly because of prejudices, of which it is useless to speak, because the verdict was decided even before performing the (statistical) analyses.”
Page 16 [PDF] The setting for the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud | Semantic Scholar

An alternative interpretation of the Shroud’s C-14 evidence would be to postulate that the Shroud was subjected to a neutron radiation event whose source was the corpse that it enveloped. The Shroud’s C-14 evidence fits this hypothesis much better than it fits the hypothesis that it indicates a date of origin.
https://www.testtheshroud.org/singl...-of-Radiocarbon-by-Neutron-Radiation-on-Linen

BTW, the Catholic Church did not supervise the Shroud’s C-14 testing. That role was given to the British Museum which failed to adhere to numerous protocols that had been agreed to. One of the worst violations was the Museum’s refusal to forward the Shroud’s raw C-14 evidence to the G. Colonnetti Institute in Turin for statistical analysis. The Museum actual concealed this data until 2017 when it was finally forced by a court order to release it.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues...-latest-evidence-will-challenge-the-sceptics/

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

Sir, when you say that it is “not possible” that radiation from a vanishing corpse could have created the Shroud’s image, are you saying that Jesus’ corpse did not disappear from the inside of a sealed and guarded tomb as is recorded in the Holy Gospels ?

And you STILL have not answered this simple question.