Posted on 09/19/2014 11:22:35 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
Why would you be surprised that Paul is quoted? Those who hold to what God's word says recognized a long time ago that St. Paul wrote sacred Scripture as he was carried along by the Holy Spirit and what he teaches us is what ALL genuine Christians believe. Paul WAS a Christian - neither a Protestant nor Roman Catholic.
“What OTHER tests would YOU consider valid?”
I would probably be fine with the test as originally planned, if all the scientific protocols were followed.
I'm quoting God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired SCRIPTURE to show what Christ-followers hold.
Paul happened to be a follower of Christ.
Although he was probably called a Christian because believers were first called *Christians* at Antioch.
GMTA
“You’ve got to be taught, before it’s too late.
Before you are six, or seven or eight...”
Exactly which ones were NOT followed?
“Do it. Get some human blood, dry it out, then re-liquefy it the same way.”
As I said to another poster, do you have chemical tests showing that what is in the reliquary is just dried blood? Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a proper replication, now would it?
Protestantism was born out of hate - so you should know.
“Exactly which ones were NOT followed?”
The sampling. The sample was taken from a place on the shroud that had been repaired, instead of from the original material, as the protocol required.
“As I said to another poster, do you have chemical tests showing that what is in the reliquary is just dried blood? Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a proper replication, now would it?”
If it’s fraudulent, as you seem to think, then we don’t want replication. As a matter of fact, demonstrating that the liquefaction cannot be replicated would be significant.
Unless you think that the Illuminati and the Church had some secret chemical that imparts magical powers to blood.
“As a matter of fact, demonstrating that the liquefaction cannot be replicated would be significant.”
Without knowing what is in the reliquary, we can’t demonstrate anything.
However, I can say with certainty that the same behavior can be demonstrated with other substances using the same methods. Uri Geller fooled millions of people back in the seventies with the same basic trick.
“Without knowing what is in the reliquary, we can’t demonstrate anything.”
Yes, you most certainly can. You can demonstrate that what is observed in the reliquary can or can not be replicated using human blood.
Both of those eventualities have significant implications, and the publication of such a study might motivate the Church to allow testing.
“Yes, you most certainly can. You can demonstrate that what is observed in the reliquary can or can not be replicated using human blood.”
Not when a miracle is being claimed, you can’t.
“And of course you can cite secular experts or sources that will confirm your position.”
You need sources to tell you that increasing temperature and imparting energy to a substance can change the chemical properties?
Boogieman post 311Without knowing what is in the reliquary, we can’t demonstrate anything.
Sounds like someone is having difficulty making up his mind.You really should try to stay consistent at least for the duration of the thread.
“Sounds like someone is having difficulty making up his mind.You really should try to stay consistent at least for the duration of the thread.”
What are you talking about? Those are two different replies to two entirely different questions. Seems more like someone is desperate and nitpicking my comments to try to criticize me for some reason.
Because you are making contradictory statements.
The SINS of your church leaders created it.
Thanks!
(Oh... thanks for the bible, too!)
EVERY sample?
Hold this thought...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.