Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires

twg73

What is the general consensus about the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires?

The scientific report from New York is really interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs&feature=player_embedded

skimpydoo

twg73 wrote: »

What is the general consensus about the Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires?

The scientific report from New York is really interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs&feature=player_embedded

This video is nearly 5 years old and there was me thinking it might have something to do with the current pope.

twg73

skimpydoo wrote: »

This video is nearly 5 years old and there was me thinking it might have something to do with the current pope.

Well actually yes it does have a lot to do with the current Pope. Why did he keep the miracle hidden for so long? The practice is if the Eucharist is defiled that you place in water and later once its dissolved you can pour over a plant. However in this case the Eurcharist didn't dissolve it turned to flesh. Cardinal Bergoglio who is now Pope ordered that the flesh be kept hidden in the Tabernacle for a number of years. He finally asked for a sample to go to New York where they found it was flesh from a living heart, that is to say the cells were alive.

Zombrex

twg73 wrote: »

The scientific report from New York is really interesting.

The scientific report from New York is horrific, if accurate.

Someone took this sample from a man who was still alive and under a huge amount of stress. One would hope that it comes from a medical procedure carried out by professional, rather than a criminal act.

It is weird that people automatically jump to the conclusion that this was a miracle, rather than the much more likely and much more disturbing conclusion that someone placed the sample there after recently extracting it from a living person.

twg73

Zombrex wrote: »

The scientific report from New York is horrific, if accurate.

Someone took this sample from a man who was still alive and under a huge amount of stress. One would hope that it comes from a medical procedure carried out by professional, rather than a criminal act.

It is weird that people automatically jump to the conclusion that this was a miracle, rather than the much more likely and much more disturbing conclusion that someone placed the sample there after recently extracting it from a living person.

If they did the same test today from the same tissue in buenos aires they would get the same results because the tissue in Buenos Aires still has not decayed. The Cells are still in a state of living tissue.

Infact the tissue is pretty similar to the tissue in Santarem Portugal, which has also not decayed after several hundred years.

georgieporgy

Zombrex wrote: »

The scientific report from New York is horrific, if accurate.

Someone took this sample from a man who was still alive and under a huge amount of stress. One would hope that it comes from a medical procedure carried out by professional, rather than a criminal act.

It is weird that people automatically jump to the conclusion that this was a miracle, rather than the much more likely and much more disturbing conclusion that someone placed the sample there after recently extracting it from a living person.

If the sample was extracted from a living person and exchanged for the Buenos Aires sample as you are inclined to believe, would the tissue remain alive or be dead and undergoing decomposition once removed from its host?

Zombrex

twg73 wrote: »

If they did the same test today from the same tissue in buenos aires they would get the same results because the tissue in Buenos Aires still has not decayed. The Cells are still in a state of living tissue.

And you know this how?

twg73 wrote: »

Infact the tissue is pretty similar to the tissue in Santarem Portugal, which has also not decayed after several hundred years.

Again you know this how?

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

would the tissue remain alive or be dead and undergoing decomposition once removed from its host?

No.

Let me guess, someone told you this tissue is still alive and has not started decomposing. And you believed them.

twg73

Zombrex what is the point of your 2 posts above?

Gumbi

twg73 wrote: »

Zombrex what is the point of your 2 posts above?

That there was no miracle.

Zombrex

twg73 wrote: »

Zombrex what is the point of your 2 posts above?

I pointed out that the most likely explanation for this "miracle" is that someone carried out a criminal act, and that that act was at best unethical and at worst horrific.

Your response was to say that this flesh was still alive and growing.

It seems logical and reasonable to ask how you know this, since it seems very unlikely that what you say is true.

Again the most likely explanation is that someone carried out a criminal act, certainly not something we should be celebrating or encouraging.

If you have already decided that this was an act of God then that won't mean much to you, but then if you have already decided that this was an act of God what exactly is this "miracle" demonstrating?

Zombrex

Gumbi wrote: »

That there was no miracle.

Well more how do they know it was a miracle.

If all someone needs to believe a miracle took place is to be told by someone else a miracle took place, then that would suggest to me that they are already in a state of mind of searching for a miracle (fitting the facts around a conclusion, not a conclusion from the facts).

And if that is the case this "miracle" hardly leads to faith, more like faith leads to concluding this was a miracle. Which raises the point of what is, well, the point.

But my original point was that the most likely explanation for this "miracle" is that a crime has taken place, and that is certainly not something to celebrate. If you find a body on the ground you think someone has been murdered, not an angel has fallen to Earth. Unless you are looking for angels of course.

Gumbi

Zombrex wrote: »

Well more how do they know it was a miracle.

If all someone needs to believe a miracle took place is to be told by someone else a miracle took place, then that would suggest to me that they are already in a state of mind of searching for a miracle (fitting the facts around a conclusion, not a conclusion from the facts).

And if that is the case this "miracle" hardly leads to faith, more like faith leads to concluding this was a miracle. Which raises the point of what is, well, the point.

But my original point was that the most likely explanation for this "miracle" is that a crime has taken place, and that is certainly not something to celebrate. If you find a body on the ground you think someone has been murdered, not an angel has fallen to Earth. Unless you are looking for angels of course.

Yup, I agree. I also think it's easy to positively argue that there was no miracle, simply because I find the word itself to be largely nonsensical/meaningless. You want me to believe something that's otherwise impossible occurred, and is therefore possible? I mean if that's the case it's not very miraculous. Eh, no thanks.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

If you have already decided that this was an act of God then that won't mean much to you, but then if you have already decided that this was an act of God what exactly is this "miracle" demonstrating?

Whatever about this particular claim, miracles in the NT are, at least in part, simply signs of God's intervention. In passages like Acts 5:12 the word used is sēmeion - which means a sign of things to come or events that transcend the common course of nature.

In answer to your question, I think that a miracle could potentially demonstrate many things both to non-Christians who are willing to allow for the possibility that miracles happen and to believers who already think as much.

For more on a discussion between an Irish sceptic, Geoff, and a Christian continualist, Craig Keener, on the topic of miracles click here. It's a very fair and respectful discussion and all the more valuable for it.

For more about Keener's 2-volume book, Miracles, that is at the centre of the above discussion see here.

Fanny Cradock

Gumbi wrote: »

Yup, I agree. I also think it's easy to positively argue that there was no miracle, simply because I find the word itself to be largely nonsensical/meaningless. You want me to believe something that's otherwise impossible occurred, and is therefore possible? I mean if that's the case it's not very miraculous. Eh, no thanks.

You have just begged the question by assuming the thing that you are trying to demonstrate. This is the equivalent of your argument pulling itself up by its own bootstraps. Miracles aren't impossibilities that happen. This would be an illogical clam much like the claim that you saw a married bachelor getting into her colourless green car. Instead, miracles are defined as some manner of intervention by God.

On another note, why do you think that the world (and here I assume you mean existence itself) is largely nonsensical/meaningless? (BTW, nonsensical and meaningless are not necessarily interchangeable in terms of meaning. So if you are going to answer my question perhaps you can parse those out. Cheers.)

Gumbi

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, a miracle isn't very amazing if it can be explained by natural means.

I said word, not world, unless you meant word? Meaningless would be more precise as to what I was trying to say.

Fanny Cradock

Gumbi wrote: »

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, a miracle isn't very amazing if it can be explained by natural means.

If something is explained entirely by natural means then it isn't a miracle. However, a miracle, as I've loosely defined previously, can be understood to involve natural processes that are themselves used by God to some end. I think that a miracle is in part amazing because of what has happened and also because Christianity teaches that God, the highest conceivable being, actually did something for your (direct or indirect) benefit.

Gumbi wrote: »

I said word, not world, unless you meant word? Meaningless would be more precise as to what I was trying to say.

So you did. My apologies. Time for bed! While I'm slipping into my onesie perhaps could you explain to me why the word miracle is meaningless? And how you can defend this view to those who think otherwise.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In answer to your question, I think that a miracle could potentially demonstrate many things both to non-Christians who are willing to allow for the possibility that miracles happen and to believers who already think as much.

Well that is the thing? Leaving aside the fact that an interventionist omnipotent creator deity is very silly (see post below), what does a miracle demonstrate to someone who has already decided to believe, or that they want to believe, in an interventionist deity?

Claims of miracles seem to speak more about the person making the claim, and those who believe it, than the circumstance of the claim itself. It is a bit like people who are really really into winning the lottery, and convinced they have a chance. The first question someone observing someone like that would be "having financial troubles, by any chance?"

But anyway, my main point was not about the mind set of those who subscribe to miracles, but rather that this particular miracle seems to most likely involve a criminal act, which few who are celebrating it seem all that bothered by.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that a miracle is in part amazing because of what has happened and also because Christianity teaches that God, the highest conceivable being, actually did something for your (direct or indirect) benefit.

Which in itself is a nonsensical believe. God is supposed to be omnipotent. He is aware of every move of the chess game before he makes his first move. He knows exactly what will happen. The idea that he would interven in existence at any point is like saying he knows exactly how the game of chess will play out but on move 34 he still decides to cheat anyway. Rather silly.

But then that isn't the point of miracles. Miracles speak to human psychology, to hyper-active agency detection, and the notions are found throughout human cultures not just the Judeo-Christian religions. While the idea of God needing to cheat his own laws of nature is nonsensical, we still find it deeply comforting because he ourselves have no control over these systems and as much as we subscribe to the idea of all powerful gods, it is actually the rigid structure of nature that we fear the most. The idea that someone, be it a god, a magician, luck etc can over come these rules for our benefit is deeply comforting and reassuring.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

what does a miracle demonstrate to someone who has already decided to believe

As I said, miracles can demonstrate many things. One of the obvious things is that God had acted. Miracles might also be thought of acts of good with themselves and do not as such have to demonstrate anything beyond this.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

Which in itself is a nonsensical believe. God is supposed to be omnipotent. He is aware of every move of the chess game before he makes his first move. He knows exactly what will happen. The idea that he would interven in existence at any point is like saying he knows exactly how the game of chess will play out but on move 34 he still decides to cheat anyway. Rather silly.

God isn't supposed to be omnipotent. Classical or orthodox Christianity claims that omnipotence is part of God's nature. It doesn't require belief in God to understand the difference. (And at this point the word "omnipotence" should be qualified to mean that which is logically consistent. So no squared-circles and colourless green cars.) You then go on to state that a miracle is cheating and God needs to do something with respect to his interaction in this world. I don't know if this is a case that you simply don't understand what Christians say about miracles and the nature of God or if you are misrepresenting your opponents beliefs.

Ken bryan

In 1996 in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, Argentina, when the present Pope Francis was Auxiliary Bishop under Cardinal Quarracino, an amazing Eucharistic miracle took place. He himself had it photographed and investigated and the results are astonishing. At seven o’clock in the evening on August 18, 1996, Fr. Alejandro Pezet was saying Holy Mass at a Catholic church in the commercial center of Buenos Aires. As he was finishing distributing Holy Communion, a woman came up to tell him that she had found a discarded host on a candle holder at the back of the church. On going to the spot indicated, Fr. Alejandro saw the defiled Host. Since he was unable to consume it, he placed it in a container of water and put it away in the tabernacle of the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament.


On Monday, August 26, upon opening the tabernacle, he saw to his amazement that the Host had turned into a bloody substance. He informed Bishop Jorge Bergoglio(Now Pope Francis, Auxillary Bishop that time), who gave instructions that the Host be professionally photographed. The photos were taken on September 6. They clearly show that the Host, which had become a fragment of bloodied flesh, had grown significantly in size. For several years the Host remained in the tabernacle, the whole affair being kept a strict secret. Since the Host suffered no visible decomposition, Cardinal Bergoglio(Who became Archbishop by that time) decided to have it scientifically analyzed.


On October 5, 1999, in the presence of the Cardinal’s representatives, Dr. Castanon took a sample of the bloody fragment and sent it to New York for analysis. Since he did not wish to prejudice the study, he purposely did not inform the team of scientists of its provenance(the source of sample was kept secret to the scientists). One of these scientists was Dr. Frederic Zugiba, the well-known cardiologist and forensic pathologist. He determined that the analyzed substance was real flesh and blood containing human DNA. Zugiba testified that, “the analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. It should be borne in mind that the left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflammatory condition and contains a large number of white blood cells. This indicates that the heart was alive at the time the sample was taken. It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism. They require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.”

Two Australians, journalist Mike Willesee and lawyer Ron Tesoriero, witnessed these tests. Knowing where sample had come from, they were dumbfounded by Dr. Zugiba’s testimony. Mike Willesee asked the scientist how long the white blood cells would have remained alive if they had come from a piece of human tissue, which had been kept in water. They would have ceased to exist in a matter of minutes, Dr. Zugiba replied. The journalist then told the doctor that the source of the sample had first been kept in ordinary water for a month and then for another three years in a container of distilled water; only then had the sample been taken for analysis. Dr. Zugiba’s was at a loss to account for this fact. There was no way of explaining it scientifically, he stated. Also, Dr. Zugibe passionately asked, “You have to explain one thing to me, if this sample came from a person who was dead, then how could it be that as I was examining it the cells of the sample were moving and beating? If this heart comes from someone who died in 1996, how can it still be alive?

Then did Mike Willesee inform Dr. Zugiba that the analyzed sample came from a consecrated Host (white, unleavened bread) that had mysteriously turned into bloody human flesh. Amazed by this information, Dr. Zugiba replied, “How and why a consecrated Host would change its character and become living human flesh and blood will remain an inexplicable mystery to science—a mystery totally beyond her competence.”

Then Doctor Ricardo Castanon Gomez arranged to have the lab reports from the Buenos Aires miracle compared to the lab reports from the Lanciano miracle, again without revealing the origin of the test samples. The experts making the comparison concluded that the two lab reports must have originated from test samples obtained from the same person. They further reported that both samples revealed an “AB” positive blood type. They are all characteristic of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East region.

Only faith in the extraordinary action of a God provides the reasonable answer—faith in a God, who wants to make us aware that He is truly present in the mystery of the Eucharist. The Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires is an extraordinary sign attested to by science. Through it Jesus desires to arouse in us a lively faith in His real presence in the Eucharist. He reminds us that His presence is real, and not symbolic. Only with the eyes of faith do we see Him under appearance of the consecrated bread and wine. We do not see Him with our bodily eyes, since He is present in His glorified humanity. In the Eucharist Jesus sees and loves us and desires to save us. (Archbishop Bergoglio became a Cardinal in 2001, this miracle was published after many researches, by that time he became a Cardinal, that's why he is addressed as cardinal in this post) Also watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APz1v8oz1ms where Dr.Castanon, Atheist turned Catholic explains this miracle!

darjeeling

All very sciency sounding, but is it published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Until then, any scientist would discount it as not having any scientific basis.

It is interesting that so many people want their miracles to be backed up by science these days. I think it's a tacit admission that faith is not enough any more, and that scientific validation has become the new standard of truth.

Ken bryan

"but rather that this particular miracle seems to most likely involve a criminal act"

I wish you read the events before posting . It might help your position .
As when read the article you will find you are Factually wrong .

Important facts
Firstly Fr. Alejandro saw the defiled Host. He placed it in a container of "water" and put it away in the tabernacle of the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament. for 3 years . Mike Willesee asked the scientist how long the white blood cells would have remained alive if they had come from a piece of human tissue, which had been kept in water. They would have ceased to exist in a matter of minutes, Dr. Zugiba replied. The journalist then told the doctor that the source of the sample had first been kept in ordinary water for a month and then for another three years in a container of distilled water; only then had the sample been taken for analysis. Dr. Zugiba’s was at a loss to account for this fact.


Dr. Frederic Zugiba, the well-known cardiologist and forensic pathologist
Could not explain It .

also
he said Zugiba testified that, “the analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. It should be borne in mind that the left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflammatory condition and contains a large number of white blood cells. This indicates that the heart was alive at the time the sample was taken. It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism. They require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.”

Ken bryan

I have no doubt that , Dr Zugiba would be happy to give all the information you . As to his methods he used in analysing the sample .
As this person is a highly regarded cardiologist and forensic pathologist .

Ken bryan

Frederick Thomas Zugibe (/ˈzʌɡɪbi/; born 1928) is an American expert in forensic medicine. He was the chief medical examiner of Rockland County, New York from 1969 to 2002.[1] Zugibe is one of the United States' most prominent forensics experts, known for his research and books on forensic medicine as well as his crucifixion and Shroud of Turin studies.

Zugibe holds a Bachelor of Science, Master of Science (Anatomy/Electron Microscopy), and a PhD (Anatomy/ Histochemistry), and an M.D. degree. He is a diplomate of the American Board of Pathology in anatomic pathology and forensic pathology, and a diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice. Zugibe is an adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and is a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists, a Fellow of the American Academy of the Forensic Sciences, Forensic Pathology Section, and a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners.[1]

He was formerly Director of Cardiovascular Research with the Veteran's Hospital in Pittsburgh, and is a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology, Fellow of the Council on Arteriosclerosis of the American Heart Association, Fellow of the New York Cardiological Society, and Member of the International Atherosclerosis Society.[1]

Zugibe spent most of his career as the chief medical examiner of Rockland County, New York, appointed on August 15, 1969, to his retirement on December 31, 2002, and continuing as Acting Medical Examiner from January 1, 2003, to March 31, 2003, until his successor, Lone Thanning, was confirmed.

Zugibe is well known for his research into crucifixion and the Shroud of Turin, which modifies the theories of Pierre Barbet regarding crucifixion, and the Catholic Church regarding the Shroud of Turin. He has made numerous television appearances on these subjects, including How Jesus Died - the Final 18 Hours (Learning Channel and History Channel), The Shroud of Turin (CBC), Jesus, the Man (Discovery Channel), Son of God (BBC), Stigmata and the Shroud (In Search Of), The Stigmata (Learning Channel), The Shroud of Turin (60 Minutes, Australia), DaVinci and the Shroud (National Geographic), The Mystery of Jesus (CNN) and The Naked Archaeologist.[1][2]

In 2003 Rockland County dedicated the Rockland County Medical Examiner's Office as the

darjeeling

Ken bryan wrote: »

I have no doubt that , Dr Zugiba would be happy to give all the information you . As to his methods he used in analysing the sample .
As this person is a highly regarded cardiologist and forensic pathologist .

If it is to be regarded as science and not anecdote, whoever has the data should write it up and submit it for review by the relevant experts, who will then have their say on whether or not the scientific claims are founded.

Authority doesn't cut it in science, so whether Dr Zugiba is an authority or not is not really relevant. Also, all we have heard here is someone else reporting what he claims Dr Zugiba has said, and not even what the man himself has to say.

Ken bryan

I think this man . Knows what Cuts it in Science .
What qualifications in science do you have .
If so please state them so that others may compare them and Judge who is the most credible . Authoritative Scientist in this area of science .

endacl

I really don't get miracles. I know this may come across as a bit trollish, but I can assure you its not. My natural tone is...... flippant(?) at best.

Firstly, where have all the cool CGI miracles gone? If the Red Sea could be parted for Moses, why not for us? If the Sun danced at Fatima, why won't it dance now that we have the Solar Dynamics Observatory to monitor it? It seems to me that the better we get at verifying stuff, the more unverifiably just-take-my-word-for-it they become.

Secondly, where have all the useful miracles gone? Surely making just one blind child see, or one lame man walk, would be a more productive use of divine resources than turning a little bit of bread into a little bit of meat? Do we not get the useful miracles now that we have medical science? Or are we being told that we should all be on the Atkins diet? If so, why not tell the Pope or somebody who could pass the word on?

Thirdly, y'all believers don't need them. It's we godless heathens who do. Frankly, speaking as a common-or-garden godless heathen, I remain entirely unconvinced. What's the point of miracles? To impress the already faithful? Or to demonstrate divine power so as to win over the infidel? Wasn't that what they were used for in Bible stories? Old Testament: 'These are my people. Don't fcuk with them!'. New Testament: 'He's my dad. Come follow me'.

Soooooo..... If it was a miracle, and to me it clearly wasn't, why such a flimsy and unimpressive one? Question for those that believe it. Why do you? What's the point of it? If you believe there is a god, what do you need miracles for? Seriously?

darjeeling

Ken bryan wrote: »

I think this man . Knows what Cuts it in Science .
What qualifications in science do you have .
If so please state them so that others may compare them and Judge who is the most credible . Authoritative Scientist in this area of science .

If these people know what cuts it - and they should - then they know that it is peer-reviewed publication. That this is not a peer-reviewed study is the reason it is kicking around on Youtube and not headline news in the world media.

Anecdote is fine and all very interesting, but it is not science.

Ken bryan

Based on this Paragraph .
It was peer reviewed .

The "experts" making the comparison concluded that the two lab reports must have originated from test samples obtained from the same person. They further reported that both samples revealed an “AB” positive blood type. They are all characteristic of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East region

mdebets

People should have really googled this 'Eucharistic Miracle', to see that there are more than enough pointers to cast a heavy doubt that this really is a miracle.

1) all texts are on blogs, no major newspaper, news agency, or church website has published something about it.
2) all English texts are more or less cut and pastes. One Polish source exists, which seems (going by Google Translate) to be the source of the English texts (plus some additional text, not in the English versions). This versions seems to be from 2009 (going by the oldest comment to it).
3) only other source is the video from 2008 linked in the first post.
4) even so the English texts states that the results were published, there seems to be no record about this publication.
5) there is no record on Dr. Frederic Zugiba's publication list of a publication of his findings.
6) I couldn't find a publication list of Dr. Castanon, but in another forum, someone states that it is also not on his list.


I have one question to the ones, who believe it really happened.
How do you explain the Human DNA? Shouldn't he have (if he has DNA at all) non-Human (God) DNA instead?

georgieporgy

mdebets wrote: »

I have one question to the ones, who believe it really happened.
How do you explain the Human DNA? Shouldn't he have (if he has DNA at all) non-Human (God) DNA instead?

Do you not know that Jesus was a man?

darjeeling

Ken bryan wrote: »

Based on this Paragraph .
It was peer reviewed .

The "experts" making the comparison concluded that the two lab reports must have originated from test samples obtained from the same person. They further reported that both samples revealed an “AB” positive blood type. They are all characteristic of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East region

What I'm talking about is a proper, peer-reviewed publication. Scientists need to write up a paper describing any samples, protocols and analytical methods, along with their results. They submit this to a scientific journal, which appoints two or three other scientists who are abreast of the relevant studies in the field to review the new work, finding any flaws they can spot in the process.

The nature and importance of such review are well described in a recent public information document from the UK science publishing campaign organisation Sense about Science (link here).

When scientists try to skip this kind of review, we end up with the sort of fiasco we witnessed over cold fusion, announced to the world at a media event, and only afterwards debunked by experts as a lab mistake.

In this case, as mdebets points out above, there seems to be no such scientific peer-reviewed publication. The report is merely anecdote. As such, there is little merit in debating blood groups, DNA types etc when the researchers apparently responsible haven't published any of their data.

Bogwoppit

Ken bryan wrote: »

Also, Dr. Zugibe passionately asked, “You have to explain one thing to me, if this sample came from a person who was dead, then how could it be that as I was examining it the cells of the sample were moving and beating? If this heart comes from someone who died in 1996, how can it still be alive?

I think if Dr Zugiba had a piece of flesh from a heart that continued to beat as he examined it that he would have made a bit of a fuss. For starters I think the lab would be put in serious quarantine to prevent the possible outbreak of a horde of zombies.

Bw

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

God isn't supposed to be omnipotent. Classical or orthodox Christianity claims that omnipotence is part of God's nature. It doesn't require belief in God to understand the difference.

Well that is all a bit academic. My issue is with the claims made by Christians about God, not God himself given that we have no system to test claims about God. Neither of us can sit down and work out an experiment with a falsifable result to determine the likelihood that God is or isn't omnipotent.

The issue is the paradoxical nature of both claiming that God is the omnipotent creator of the universe and that he intervenes with his own creation.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You then go on to state that a miracle is cheating and God needs to do something with respect to his interaction in this world. I don't know if this is a case that you simply don't understand what Christians say about miracles and the nature of God or if you are misrepresenting your opponents beliefs.

I think it is more a case that you, like many Christians, don't actually appreciate what the claim of an omnipotent creator actually implies.

I'm not saying it is logically impossible that God intervenes in his own creation. I'm saying that such an intervention would be unnecessary and utterly pointless if God actually was the omnipotent creator, just as cheating in a game of chess would be unnecessary and utterly pointless if you already knew all the moves from the start and in fact invented the game.

In fact given how God is defined by Christians miracles would be strong evidence against God doing anything, as of all the beings that could exist God would be least likely to need to intervene.

Which is why I always find it odd that Christians if they believe something supernatural must have happened don't seriously consider miracles as being the work of non-deity supernatural entities, such as Satan, since such acts are far more consistent with begins that have interventionist power but which didn't "invent chess" as it were.

Zombrex

Ken bryan wrote: »

I think this man . Knows what Cuts it in Science .
What qualifications in science do you have .
If so please state them so that others may compare them and Judge who is the most credible . Authoritative Scientist in this area of science .

Oh the irony

In science you shouldn't appeal to authority!

Who are you to say that!?

Zombrex

Bogwoppit wrote: »

I think if Dr Zugiba had a piece of flesh from a heart that continued to beat as he examined it that he would have made a bit of a fuss. For starters I think the lab would be put in serious quarantine to prevent the possible outbreak of a horde of zombies.

Yeah it is odd that these scientists always just report back findings and then go about their normal business when they are supposed to have found something that completely revolutionises science. You would think one of them at least is deserving of a Nobel prize.

Almost as if, oh I don't know, the reports of the scientists findings are greatly exaggerated.

Of course it is on the Internet, so it must be true ...

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Well that is all a bit academic. My issue is with the claims made by Christians about God, not God himself given that we have no system to test claims about God. Neither of us can sit down and work out an experiment with a falsifable result to determine the likelihood that God is or isn't omnipotent.

The issue is the paradoxical nature of both claiming that God is the omnipotent creator of the universe and that he intervenes with his own creation.



I think it is more a case that you, like many Christians, don't actually appreciate what the claim of an omnipotent creator actually implies.

I'm not saying it is logically impossible that God intervenes in his own creation. I'm saying that such an intervention would be unnecessary and utterly pointless if God actually was the omnipotent creator, just as cheating in a game of chess would be unnecessary and utterly pointless if you already knew all the moves from the start and in fact invented the game.

In fact given how God is defined by Christians miracles would be strong evidence against God doing anything, as of all the beings that could exist God would be least likely to need to intervene.

Which is why I always find it odd that Christians if they believe something supernatural must have happened don't seriously consider miracles as being the work of non-deity supernatural entities, such as Satan, since such acts are far more consistent with begins that have interventionist power but which didn't "invent chess" as it were.

God did intervene - he sent so many people and prophets, but then he sent Jesus Christ, his only son, knowing that it was the only way to prove what love is. Hence the crucifix that baffles so many.

What real love is- not about 'rules' but about actual love and about real living, real loving.

As it were, Christians do believe that Satan intervenes a lot, and that there is such a thing as 'sin' too, that we know that sin is real because we are rational creatures who know when we are 'sinned' against - ( which makes no sense unless it exists ) the most rational amazing animals etc. and created to know and feel the effects of it above all other life - which is what makes us truly the oddities. Some people say the similarities count - I think that we're the oddities, from the time the first man decided to draw a picture we've been the only observers of this fabulous universe in quite such a unique way, and possibly the last.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

God did intervene - he sent so many people and prophets, but then he sent Jesus Christ, his only son, knowing that it was the only way to prove what love is. Hence the crucifix that baffles so many.

Why was it necessary for an omnipotent omniscience being to intervene in the system he created in order to ensure the outcome he wanted?

That is the paradox.

lmaopml wrote: »

As it were, Christians do believe that Satan intervenes a lot

And how do you determine when God is intervening and when Satan is intervening.

How for example do you know Jesus wasn't a manifestation of Satan in order to trick people into moving away from the Old Testament laws? After all you don't follow those laws any more, under the idea that Jesus fulfilled them. If Jesus wasn't God and didn't actually have the authority to fulfill them you are breaking the law and sinning, which is obviously something that Satan would wish.

peaceboi

Zombrex wrote: »

Why was it necessary for an omnipotent omniscience being to intervene in the system he created in order to ensure the outcome he wanted?

That is the paradox.



And how do you determine when God is intervening and when Satan is intervening.

How for example do you know Jesus wasn't a manifestation of Satan in order to trick people into moving away from the Old Testament laws? After all you don't follow those laws any more, under the idea that Jesus fulfilled them. If Jesus wasn't God and didn't actually have the authority to fulfill them you are breaking the law and sinning, which is obviously something that Satan would wish.

"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God". Matthew 22:29

Zombrex

peaceboi wrote: »

"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God". Matthew 22:29

But then Satan would say that, wouldn't he? Satan pretending to be a false prophet or the messiah commands you to do something against what God has ordered. Confused you ask this messiah is it not wrong to do this. The false prophet, wishing you to disobey God, instructs you taht in fact you made a mistake when interpreting the original message from God, this false prophet will no give you the real instruction and you should follow that.

I guess it is up to God whether he will punish you for listening to Satan when Satan says "This is what God really wants"

indy_man

This is an outstanding Miracle and not the first time this has happened. There is to much testimony, evidence and witnesses to not believe. But I guess a miracle this powerfull will have its detractors.

Zombrex

indy_man wrote: »

This is an outstanding Miracle and not the first time this has happened. There is to much testimony, evidence and witnesses to not believe.

That is a very naive position to take, and shows a large lack of understanding of human nature.

In 1978 a red panda escaped from a zoo in Rotterdam. After the escape was mentioned in the local papers and on the radio over the course the next year the zoo received close to 300 reports of residents of Rotterdam having seen the panda out and about.

Sounds reasonable doesn't it, panda escapes from a zoo you would expect that people saw it out and about and would phone in to the zoo.

The problem?

The panda had been hit by a train just a few feet outside the zoo wall. He had never made it to a populated area. All these people who were going to the trouble of ringing in to the zoo were not actually seeing the red panda.

People are easy to fool, particular easy to fool within the context of a system that has already been suggested to them. They already have a narrative and fill in the gaps in knowledge to fit within that narrative.

The only evidence you ever have that a miracle has taken place are the testimony of people who are claiming a miracle has taken place, based on their own assessment that this is the only plausible explanation. These people are more often than not believers, or at the very least invested in the narrative of a "miracle" taking place.

There has never been any objectively testable evidence that a miracle has ever taken place. In fact many Christians like that fact as they say that a miracle is not proof of God, but simply a sign to the faithful. The key word being faithful, these miracles are only miracles to those who already believe.

And if 300 people can see a panda that doesn't exist convincing them a miracle has taken place doesn't seem all that hard.

indy_man

Bad analogy, you can't compare a dead panda (poor thing) to a miraculous event that was analysed by scientists who gave reports and testomonies. I suppose you also compare the resurrection of Jesus Christ to sightings of the lock ness monster.

miracles are only miracles to those who already believe.

Many people have been converted through Miracles, apparations and healing, this is well known.

But I guess you are right in saying that Christians rely a lot on faith.

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is will suffice." So common ground, maybe.

Zombrex

indy_man wrote: »

Bad analogy, you can't compare a dead panda (poor thing) to a miraculous event that was analysed by scientists who gave reports and testomonies.

Of course you can. No one has ever been able to show through science that something actually was a miracle. Despite that lots of believers claim otherwise.

You have your dead panda right there, people seeing what they want to see, not reality.

indy_man wrote: »

I suppose you also compare the resurrection of Jesus Christ to sightings of the lock ness monster.

What?, because the Loch Ness monster is less plausible than a guy in 1st century Palestine rising himself from the dead?

People see what they want to see, particularly when a suggestion is being passed around a community. It is easy to imagine how a rumour got started that Jesus had come back from the dead and then people would start claiming to have seen him, even if they hadn't. The stories get more embellished until a few years later you have stories of people meeting with him and talking to him.

All this is entirely plausible and in fact happens all the time. For example, interviews with holocaust survivors often have claims that Hitler himself visited prisoner and concentration camps when we know from historical records he didn't. These people aren't lying, they believe the stories, which are often quite elaborate. But they aren't true stories, we know from historical documents that Hitler didn't visit places where these survivors claim to have seen him. This demonstrates how easy it is for false memories to be generated by the mind, particularly in times of extreme stress and hardship, as the early Christians would have no doubt experiences following Jesus' execution.

People put a huge amount of faith in testimony when that testimony fits a particular narrative.

indy_man wrote: »

Many people have been converted through Miracles, apparations and healing, this is well known.

It is also common in other religions, religious that are mutually exclusive to Christianity.

Is this evidence that those religious are the true religion and Christianity is false?

And most interesting these miracles more often than not occur along cultural and religious boundaries. So we get a ton of "miracles" occurring in European and European settled countries where Christian tradition is part of the culture. Not so many visions of Mary or bleeding statues appearing to the Aborigines of Australia. Likewise Muslim miracles more often than not occur in cultures steeped in Muslim tradition.

Miracles are simply unexplained events, that people then take and fit into the narrative they are most familiar with. If these miracles had happened in another culture at another time they would have been interpreted along the lines of what supernatural tradition existed in that culture. There is nothing explicate Christian about this miracle other than the claims made by Christians after they interpreted the unexplained even in the framework of their own religion. Imagine what an ancient Chinese person would have thought of this miracle, I doubt he would have seen it as a sign of the truth of Christianity.

indy_man wrote: »

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is will suffice." So common ground, maybe.

That is nonsense. An explanation that actually explains what happened will suffice. Simply saying "It must have been [insert particular cultures supernatural being here] making this happen for [insert particular cultures supernatural reason here] reason" isn't an explanation.

It is a guess, nothing more. The ones who are happy with that are the ones who have already decided to believe in what ever cultural supernatural tradition they happen to be born into. "Miracles" happen across cultures, across time, across languages. And they are never universally attributed to one deity or religion.

Brian Shanahan

darjeeling wrote: »

If it is to be regarded as science and not anecdote, whoever has the data should write it up and submit it for review by the relevant experts, who will then have their say on whether or not the scientific claims are founded.

Authority doesn't cut it in science, so whether Dr Zugiba is an authority or not is not really relevant. Also, all we have heard here is someone else reporting what he claims Dr Zugiba has said, and not even what the man himself has to say.

Given Dr. Frederick Zugibe's (note correct spelling) inclinations, I'm guessing the church sent the "sample" to him in the confident expectation that he would give them the answer they wanted (and despite what has been written by other posters, they probably told him this was a result of a "miracle").

Brian Shanahan

peaceboi wrote: »

"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God". Matthew 22:29

It is incredibly wrong to quote the book you are trying to prove is true, in order to prove it true.

To show a book to be true, you have to deliver evidence independant of the book which cooberates that book. This is something that is very lacking vis a vis the bible.

indy_man

I think its great all you unbelievers are in here questioning these posts, I guess in a roundabout way you are searching for the truth.

Matthew 7:7
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

Keep seeking, I recommend you ask God to show you the truth, please do it, try and be sincere. Even if you don't believe. What if perhaps this is all true, wouldn't it be better to believe and then benefit from the peace and love that comes from God.

Gumbi

indy_man wrote: »

I think its great all you unbelievers are in here questioning these posts, I guess in a roundabout way you are searching for the truth.

Matthew 7:7
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

Keep seeking, I recommend you ask God to show you the truth, please do it, try and be sincere. Even if you don't believe. What if perhaps this is all true, wouldn't it be better to believe and then benefit from the peace and love that comes from God.

This is exactly what we're trying to do.

You'\re second paragraph seems to be some form of wonky Paschal's Wager.

Porthos

There's a report that a Eucharist Miracle occurred in Mexico last Wednesday.

For your discernment.

http://www.spiritdaily.com/A726eucharist%20miracle.htm