Why Catholicism is worthy of a closer look

  • Thread starter Thread starter EZweber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EZweber

Guest
This thread is for the continuation of a discussion between @Pattylt and myself. If you have any (name removed by moderator)ut it will be welcomed.
 
EZweber said:
In 1979, the portrait of Our Lady of Guadalupe underwent a searching scientific study by Dr. Philip Callahan, a research biophysicist at the University of Florida. One of the methods used was to photograph it extensively in infra-red light, which is a recommended technique for the critical study of old paintings. He found evidence that some minor decorations such as the sunburst around Mary, which is clearly cracking and fading, were added after the original. In confirmation, the sunburst does not appear in early representations of the image in indian picture writing. But with every aspect of Mary’s face and form, the conclusion was quite different, and I quote:
"The mantle is of a dark turquoise blue… This presents an inexplicable phenomenon because all such pigments are semi-permanent and known to be subject to considerable fading with time, especially in hot climates. The Indian Mayan blue wall paintings are already badly faded. The blue mantle, however, is bright enough to have been laid last week.
The most remarkable feature of the robe is its remarkable luminosity. It is highly reflective of visible radiation yet transparent to the infared rays… As in the case of the blue mantle the shadowing of the pink robe is blended into the paint layer and no drawing or sketch is evident under the pink pigment…
The pink pigment appears to be inexplicable… One of the really strange aspects of this painting is that not only is the tilma not sized, but there is absolutely no protective coating of varnish. Despite this unusual total lack of any protective overcoating, the robe and mantle are as bright and colored as if the paint were newly laid.
The head of the Virgin of Guadalupe is one of the great masterpieces of artistic facial expression. In subtleness of form, simplicity of execution, hue and coloring it has few equals among the masterpieces of the world. Furthermore, there are no portraits that I have ever observed which are executed in a similar manner…
One of the truly marvelous and inexplicable techniques utilized to give realism to the painting is the way that it takes advantage of the unsized tilma to give it depth and render it lifelike. This is particularly evident in the mouth, where a coarse fiber of the fabric is raised above the level of the rest of the weave and follows perfectly the ridge at the top of the lip. The same rough imperfections occur below the highlighted area on the left cheek and to the right and below the right eye. I would consider it impossible that any human painter could select a tilma with imperfections of weave positioned so as to accentuate the shadows and highlights in order to impart realism. The possibility of chance is even more unlikely… The black of the eyes and hair cannot be iron oxide or any pigment that turns brown with age for the paint is neither cracked nor faded with age. The truly phenomenal thing about the face and hands is the total quality which is as much a physical effect from the tilma as it is from the paint itself.
Click to expand...
(From previous discussion)
 
I’ve rejected the Guadeloupe painting and I really don’t think there is any way to further that discussion.

Did you really want to tackle the Bible? If so, make your claim but I would like to know how much research you have done on critical biblical scholarship. I need to know if you know what they claim. Have you read any Bart Ehrman, for example.

Thanks
 
I have not read him, but it is a fact that if we reject the Bible, we have to reject everything we know about ancient history. Everything.
 
The Bible is by no means our only source text for knowledge of ancient history…
 
But it is by an extraordinary margin the best at passing the historical tests. If aetheistic scholars used the same standard for other texts that they use on the Bible, that history would be far gone
 
It is a painting. It appears to have been touched up. I have read the research that has been allowed on it (not much) and also the history of the people involved in the story. There are problems…significant ones. Google “debunking our lady of Guadeloupe “ and you can see the arguments. They are not all rock solid but there are enough facts and history research to give me great pause. My conclusion at this point in time is that it is an amazing piece of art…nothing more.
 
It’ll be a little before I can find my source. I don’t remember source books when I store info. Be back in a bit.
 
That ridiculous! It’s not like the Bible is the only piece of literature from ancient history plus we have art, statues, engravings etc. surrounding most of the eras we look at. It may not always be complete but there is much that historians can say.
 
With the Catholic Church, everything just seems to fit. There is a reason for everything. Catholicism is the best.
 
Pattylt said:
That ridiculous! It’s not like the Bible is the only piece of literature from ancient history plus we have art, statues, engravings etc. surrounding most of the eras we look at. It may not always be complete but there is much that historians can say.
Click to expand...
The Bible is not the only historical document we have from that period, but it passes tests much better than others.
 
First, most NT historical scholars are Christian!
Second, they use exactly the same criteria on all ancient literature. Not liking the answers is why many have to claim that
EZweber said:
If aetheistic scholars used the same standard for other texts that they use on the Bible, that history would be far gone
Click to expand...
Historians usually know the limits of what they can claim historically. When they go further than the evidence shows then they are arguing theologically. Can you accept the fact that certain claims in the Bible can not be proven without using theological arguments?

If you want to discuss the historical evidence only, I will. I will not try to prove or disprove theological statements. I’d probably just get flagged or banned. Also, can you tell the difference? I find some people have a hard time doing that.
 
  1. First, we can take biblical stories as true if they are not contradicted by an equally reliable source but have no extrabiblical confirmation. That is the critical approach to other documents, such as the writings of Josephus and Tacitus.
 
At the moment, I am just referring to historical accuracy, particularly of the Gospels.
 
The word reliability is the first problem. How do you determine if a document is reliable in an historical context?
 
I have to take a break…time to get some errands run! Be back later…
 
The first test is internal contradiction. The next is archeological contradiction. The third is basically how many documents do we have, how close to the original text were they written, and how similar are they. Also part of this is how close was the author to the events described. The last is how well they line up with the other documents that pass these tests. The Gospels are by far the best in these. For example, we could reconstruct virtually the entire New Testament by citations from the Fathers of the Church alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top