Skip to comments.
Science Stunned by Virgin of GuadalupeĀ“s Eyes
Zenit News Org ^
| January 14, 2001
| Zenith News Org
Posted on 10/16/2001 10:09:15 PM PDT by topher
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
To: RobbyS
Then I could be wrong on that point. I assumed it was named after Juan Diego, since he is revered as being a part of this story.
21
posted on
10/16/2001 10:56:51 PM PDT
by
topher
To: mercy; Arthur McGowan
Oh come on you two, don't beat around the bush. Have the balls to say it outright: You hate Catholics.
22
posted on
10/16/2001 10:59:22 PM PDT
by
Timesink
To: ppaul
The photo in the book is enlargements of the pupil from the 1960s testing. Modern testing could find "infinite images" in the eyes (assuming that this is a miraculous image).
By "infinite images", I mean that images can be expanded as infinited as our "primitive science" allows (compared to what heaven can do, science is limited and lacks understanding, especially of such special images).
23
posted on
10/16/2001 10:59:49 PM PDT
by
topher
To: topher
It is also worth noting that the events described in the original post were a major turning point in the development of Mexico as a Catholic nation. Until 1531, Mexico was clearly divided into classes of wealthy Catholic Spaniards and the poor Indians who were often exploited by the ruling class. The fact that Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to a poor Indian instead of a wealthy Spaniard caused some monumental soul-searching among the people in the upper class, and the lives of the Mexicans of Indian descent improved almost immediately.
To: Arthur McGowan
You need a reputation as a smart ass like myself before you can make sarcastic comments without adding the "slash sarcasm" thingy.
You've gotten flamed by some here - expect more before you do damage control ;)
To: Arthur McGowan
I gave you a long form of my response to you.
I consider Mary to be my mother -- Jesus gave her to me on the cross ("Woman this is your son, and son this is your mother"). Anyone who is a member of her Son's church is one of her children, who she can defend -- not because she is divine, but the favor she has with God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus (all three persons of the Trinity). Show me a person in the Bible who an angel appears to and says "Hail to you, you are full of grace". And then the response of Mary that though she is the "Handmaid of the Lord", that "God has done great things for me".
God gives her angels and favors because of her position in heaven. Remember, the mother of the sons of Thunder, James and John, asked Jesus that they be allowed to sit at the right and left of Jesus in Heaven. Jesus responded that He does not have authority to say who will sit at His right or left hand -- only the Father can say that.
This clearly implies THAT THERE ARE POWERFUL POSITIONS in heaven. And by other scripture, it can be proven that Mary is very powerful not only when she was of this world but was to be very powerful in heaven.
That does not make her divine, but makes a person of heaven who the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may grant favors for those on earth.
She is my mother as much as my other mother.
26
posted on
10/16/2001 11:06:54 PM PDT
by
topher
To: Alberta's Child
The Jewish tradition is the black ribbon or band around her waste (her womb). You have to find a Biblical expert to contradict me on that one, as I got it from reading several books on Guadalupe and that this was where the black "belt" (for lack of a better word) meant -- she is pregnant, and has special honor in Jewish society of the time of Christ.
This is why Jesus NEVER SPOKE OF ABORTION. Having children was always valued in Jewish tradition. Rachel lamenting how barren she is, for example. And the rejoicing at the birth of children in the Old Testament.
Father Mitch Pacwa would be a good source if I could pull some favors with some Jesuits who know him.
27
posted on
10/16/2001 11:11:03 PM PDT
by
topher
To: mercy
re your post 11.
Disgraceful. I have read some of your replys on other threads. Obviously, they have not made a very big impression on me as I don't recall which threads and what your positions were. However, with this comment of yours...well, suffice it to say that I am not impressed and hold your judgement in very low regard as most who view it do as well, IMHO.
I think an apology is in order and I think you should present it without delay.
28
posted on
10/16/2001 11:11:05 PM PDT
by
griffin
To: topher
Jesus said: "Do not give what is holy to the unworthy." Jesus said: "Only a good tree can produce good fruit and a bad tree, bad fruit."
Do you have the Chapter and verses for these two statements?
29
posted on
10/16/2001 11:14:15 PM PDT
by
jude_3
To: topher
I have often bashed Catholics due to their elevation of Mary. That being said, I am willing to look at the evidence. Are there pictures of the eyes that you can post?
30
posted on
10/16/2001 11:17:05 PM PDT
by
ikka
To: Vince Ferrer
The eyes! A photo of the eyes! Who has one they can post so we can see these images?
31
posted on
10/16/2001 11:18:30 PM PDT
by
ppaul
To: topher
The eyes! The eyes! Pics of the eyes! Please!
32
posted on
10/16/2001 11:23:26 PM PDT
by
ppaul
To: Senator Pardek
You need a reputation as a smart ass like myself You're a nutcase. I have reams of files and notes to prove it.
To: Storm Orphan
Don't talk to me of "reaming" - you libertine pervert.
To: Mo1
A bump for reading later
35
posted on
10/16/2001 11:27:27 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: Storm Orphan; Senator Pardek
The Senator is esteemed in these parts.
Senator, use your Vulcan disruptor grip on him.
36
posted on
10/16/2001 11:28:28 PM PDT
by
ikka
To: Senator Pardek
Right into my trap.
Now for the mind beam.
To: PRND21
If the tourist guy Jack N. Boxx is not seen in the picture of the Virgin of Guadalupe now, I'll bet he will be soon! Jack pops up everywhere.
To: PRND21
LOL!
(and an "I didn't know about the Virgin of Guadalupe" bump)
To: topher
What is the non-Catholic scientific community's conclusions about this picture and the images in the eyes? Something reported to be this markedly supernatural should attract interest from many faiths, as well as from agnostics.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson