Miracle of Guadalupe

[chaval]

theres another post called the Fatima miracle, which got me thinking about what people would think about the shroud of the virgin of guadalupe
summary: in 1500s a converted native named juan diego saw the virgin mary several times whom he spoke to in nahuatl, on the last time she gave him roses (which shouldnt have been there during the season) so he took them in his "poncho" and went to the bishop (who had demanded for proof) and layed it out before him. as he dropped the flowers an image of the virgin mary was on his shroud. you can still see the image today in mexico

whats bizarre about it is that they have done many scientific tests on it and they dont know wtf the image is made out of cause its not paint and not the thread, its just kinda there. also the image is so perfectly made that they are sure that no living person is capable of making that, at least not in the 1500s

the material of the shroud is about 500 years old so that checks out with the historical setting but the strange thing is that the material only should last about 30 years then it disintegrates yet its still intact (they also didnt exactly have good cloth preservers back in the 1500s so its not like theyve just kept real good care of it)

they've been able to magnify the image and they saw that in the eyes of mary are the reflection of people. i.e. when you look into someone's eye you can see your reflection. there are two seperate angles of the same image in the eyes which are the perfect different angles that would be seen by two human eyes. also the image is that of several people looking surprised and several people in that image have been identified from old paintings including the bishop who would have been in charge during the time the incident was supposed to ahve occured.

some years ago a bomb was planted underneath the shroud. the bomb blew up the altar and the large iron cross next to the shroud was completely bent out of shape but the shroud was intact, not a scratch. same happened with a fire that burnt everything but the shroud

so what do you guys think on the matter? how can this be rationally explained, if at all

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:12 AM
whats bizarre about it is that they have done many scientific tests on it
Who's "they"? Do you have some source for these test results independent of the Church?

And why do believers feel some need for proof to back up their faith anyway? Unless you realize on some level that faith is insufficient.

"Reasons to believe" add nothing for those who already believe, and never turn out to be convincing for those who don't.

[chaval]

Who's "they"? Do you have some source for these test results independent of the Church?

obviously, if all the tests had been done by the church then nobosy would buy them for even a second.

[QUOTE]"Reasons to believe" add nothing for those who already believe, and never turn out to be convincing for those who don't. [QUOTE]

reasons to believe may add nothing to those who believe. you are right, if we already believe then how can we believe more. but your second argument, that it is not enough is entirely false. it would assume that there are no such things as converts. though it may not be enough for you, it most definately is enough for others. you may call these people simple minded, perhaps, but i think part of the problem in the western world is that our scientific education has tought us to accept nothing that cannot be explained by rational scientific means. it has tought us that everything in the universe can be explained through natural and perfectly logical means, so this is a rather illogical phenomenon therefore it must be rejected entirely OR some bizarre natural phenomen that cannot be explained YET but in the future perhaps. if that is so then thats one hell of a fucking natural phenomenon, the fact that it just happened to take on the image of the virgin mary and have all these ridiculously improbable characteristsics and occurences combined with it

[Severian]

Again, source?

Edit: Nevermind.

Mexico City's Image of Guadalupe--a sixteenth-century portrait of the Virgin Mary supposedly imprinted miraculously on an Aztec convert's cloak--has been confirmed as merely a painting. Nevertheless Pope John Paul II is scheduled to confer sainthood on the Aztec, Juan Diego, despite the pleas of some Catholic scholars. These include the former curator of the Basilica of Guadalupe, who doubts the historical existence of Juan Diego and said such a canonization would be "recognition of a cult."

Now a ubiquitous symbol of Mexican Catholicism, the image, say critics, was painted by a native artist named Marcos Cipac de Aquino. It was probably utilized by Spanish conquerors to convert the Indians to Catholicism. (A church to enshrine the image was built in front of a site where the Aztecs had had a temple for their virgin goddess Tonantzin, thus grafting the Catholic tradition onto the Indian one--a process folklorists call syncretism.)

Recently, the results of a secret 1982 scientific study of the image were reported by the Spanish-language magazine Proceso (in its May 12 and 19, 2002 issues). Art restoration expert Jose Sol Rosales examined the cloth with a stereomicroscope and determined it did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century.

According to Rosales, the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp or cactus fiber. It was prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate), and the painting was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a "very limited palette," stated the expert, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras"), reds (including carmine), and gold.

Rosales's report confirms and amplifies what skeptics had determined from early records, infrared photographs, and other evidence. (See Joe Nickell and John E Fischer, "The Image of Guadalupe: A Folkloristic and Iconographic Investigation," SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 9:3 [Spring 1985], 243-255.)

In addition, new scholarship suggests that, while the image was painted not long after the Spanish conquest and was said to have miraculous powers, the pious legend of Mary's appearance to Juan Diego may date from the following century.

Meanwhile, none of this appears to have had any effect on the Vatican, which seems set to make a saint of "Juan Diego," fictitious or not.
source (http://www.dynomind.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_26/ai_91236217)

People believe tests done by the church - if they want to, and you do seem very much to want to. People convert - if they want to believe, for example if they find it comforting.

The scientific method, which assumes that a natural explanation can be found for whatever's under investigation, has quite a record of accomplishments to its credit. Even when a natural explanation cannot be found right away, one is often found eventually.

Did divine revelation give us penicillin? Did any of the prophets of the Bible, supposedly inspired by an all-knowing God, bother to tell us that disease is caused by living things too small to see, and that boiling drinking water, bandages, etc., could protect us from them?

When a car breaks down and you can't figure out why right away, do you assume that gremlins have put a curse on it? Or do you assume there's some mechanical cause, you just don't know what it is yet?