St. Juan Diego's tilma: "completely outside" science

DeaconsBench ^ | Monday August 24, 2009 | Beliefnet/Deacon's Bench

[Salvation]

St. Juan Diego's tilma: "completely outside" science

Monday August 24, 2009

Take a look:

A physicist who has spent years researching the tilma bearing the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is affirming that there is no scientific explanation for the phenomenon.

Adolfo Orozco stated this in a presentation given at an International Marian Congress that took place Aug. 6-8 in Phoenix.

The congress, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, the Phoenix Diocese and the Institute of Guadalupan Studies, was dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Orozco gave a presentation on the image of the Virgin imprinted on St. Juan Diego's tilma, stating that it is "completely outside" any scientific explanation.

He explained that due to the humid, salty environment around the basilica where the tilma is kept in Mexico City, the cloak material should have decomposed years ago.

In fact, the researcher noted, this is what happened to a painted copy of the image that was made in 1789, on a material similar to the original tilma.

Although the copy was preserved behind glass, like the original, it had to be discarded eight years later because it was falling apart and the painting was fading, the physicist reported.

The original image, however, which was imprinted on the cloak when the Blessed Virgin appeared to the saint, remains intact after 478 years.

Orozco told his audience that this phenomenon is heightened by the fact that it should have been destroyed twice, once when nitric acid was accidentally spilled on a section of the cloth, and another time when a bomb exploded close to it.

He affirmed that there is no natural explanation for how the image has survived undamaged through time and potentially destructive events such as these.

[grey_whiskers]

Do RCs understand the difference between the revealed truth found in Scripture and various extra-biblical musings and "vain jangling" which actually detract from the glory of God?

Yes...but FReepers also understand trolls.

Two or three of the biggest differences between Protestants and RC's (I am not qualified to speak of Greek Orthodox and other such) seem to be:

1) Sola Scriptura vs. continuing guidance of the Church as a vehicle to deliver ongoing truths

2) the role of Mary and/or the Saints

3) (...and this might apply to all *kinds* of groups, btw) whether Christ's death & resurrection "imputes" righteousness or instills, creates righteousnes--whether in an immediate fashion, or in a Platonic, similar to "transubstantiation" sense.

I've seen you posting on other threads and admittedly have not paid close attention to your theology except to note that it was someone anti Roman Cathoic like.

Do you extend credence to miracles from contemporary non-Catholic sources (say, Third-world missionaries, or Pentecostals?)

Do RCs understand the difference between the revealed truth found in Scripture and various extra-biblical musings and "vain jangling" which actually detract from the glory of God?

How is a piece of cloth with a historical pedigree, which admits of no "scientifically consistent" origin or survival, considered to be an extra-biblical musing? It is an artifact, a datum.

And what are the "vain janglings" you speak of?

Cheers!

[Uri’el-2012]

Thank you for confirming it. And it's not my definition. It's the definition of the Church which counts, anyway, not mine or yours.

You seem very confused.

I believe you are referring the definition
of the word Ekklesia created to the man-made
corporation started in 325CE at Nicea by
the Pagan Roman Pontiff, Constantine .

I prefer to use the definition from the WORD of G-d.
"All who have been called out by YHvH". See Deut 4:10

What matters is what the creator of the universe: YHvH
says; not the word of men in Roman who wear dresses.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[grey_whiskers]

GIVEN

Shrillery’s documented education in UFO’s and ET’s at the hand of Rockefeller . . .

and

GIVEN the high likelihood that a huge percentage of the ‘Marian’ Apparition stuff has been staged over the centuries by the “ET’s”

I’d have thought that Shrillery would have known who was responsible.

grey_whiskers' proof of the NON-existence of aliens.

1) A disproportionate share of reports of alien visitations (e.g. anal probes, "close encounters of the third kind" and the like) come from witnesses whose trustworthiness is questionable (ill-educated; drunks; "flakes"; "nuts and sluts"; rednecks)

2) Many august thinkers, if they deign to consider the subject at all, loudly proclaim that if aliens existed, that they would immediately show themselves, with irrefutable evidences and proofs, to highly educated people or government officials.

3) While Bill and Hillary were in the White House, they represented BOTH ends of the continuum: rednecks AND Ivy-League educated government officials.

4) But the ALIENS didn't show up.

Therefore, we can conclude that either the aliens don't exist, or that they are finished with us for now. QED.

/thread-hijack>

As far as your assertion that ET's / rebellious spirits aka demonic powers are implicated in the majority of Marian apparitions, may I refer to this link about Sarah Palin, and remind you that Joseph was a manual laborer (a carpenter) and likely to be rather displeased at your attitude.

May I recommend several rolls of ace bandages, liniment, and materials for several casts to be place in your coffin against any untoward meetings later on ;-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

The God of Creation allows his mother to glorify herself to the human race while portraying Almighty God as a powerless little baby, who is under the feet of his mother...

So are you against the Christmas song "Away In A Manger" or the contemporary Christian musician Michael Card's album The Final Word?

Cheers!

[Iscool]

So are you against the Christmas song "Away In A Manger"

Away in a manger,
no crib for His bed,
The little Lord Jesus
lay down his sweet head.
The stars in the sky
looked down where He lay
The little Lord Jesus,
asleep on the hay.

The cattle are lowing,
the poor Baby wakes,
But little Lord Jesus,
no crying He makes;
I love Thee, Lord Jesus,
look down from the sky
And stay by my cradle
till morning is nigh.

Be near me, Lord Jesus,
I ask Thee to stay,
Close by me forever,
and love me, I pray!
Bless all the dear children
in Thy tender care
And take us to heaven,
to Live with Thee there

I don't see Mary in there anywhere with Jesus under her feet...Do you???

[grey_whiskers]

Close, but not entirely.

See also 1 Cor. 4:16 and 1 Cor 11:1.

Sometimes imitating a godly example is as high as one can reach (for the time being).

And...one other question about the thread topic.

What historical sources are there from the people in the area to indicate that (choose each in turn) in the immediate aftermath, or on the whole, or after it had time to spread and sink in...

the people impacted by this, or exposed to it, DID increase their devotion to Christ as opposed to whatever pagan activities they had been engaged in before the miracle?

(What I'm getting at, is even known, acknowledged Christian churches had some *real* problems, from immorality to listening to false prophets / idolatry): and yet nobody even dares to suggest that the people involved in their conversion were anything but genuine. See for example 1 Cor. 5:1 and Rev. 2:20.)

Cheers!

[Uri’el-2012]

Close, but not entirely. See also 1 Cor. 4:16 and 1 Cor 11:1.

Sometimes imitating a godly example is as high as one can reach (for the time being).

And...one other question about the thread topic.

What historical sources are there from the people in the area to indicate that (choose each in turn) in the immediate aftermath, or on the whole, or after it had time to spread and sink in... the people impacted by this, or exposed to it, DID increase their devotion to Christ as opposed to whatever pagan activities they had been engaged in before the miracle?

(What I'm getting at, is even known, acknowledged Christian churches had some *real* problems, from immorality to listening to false prophets / idolatry): and yet nobody even dares to suggest that the people involved in their conversion were anything but genuine. See for example 1 Cor. 5:1 and Rev. 2:20.)

Cheers!

I sorry I have been unable to follow
your line of reasoning.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[grey_whiskers]

Just to stir the pot...as well as satisfy my own curiosity.

A-G, you had written, to explain extra-natural spirits :

A subtext I gather from Enoch is that the demons are the spirits of the children of the angels who slept with women. They were blood thirsty giants physically destroyed by the Noah flood. But their spirits remained to roam the earth whereas their angelic parents were bound for the coming judgment.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. - Jude 1:6

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; - 2 Peter 2:4

and you accounted for this by referring to "Roland Buck's Angels on Assignment" and the Book of Enoch.

I have *heard* of the Book of Enoch but not the other. But my question is this.

Since so many people on this thread have come across as against the "teachings of men" and "vain janglings"...

by what rule or methodology or authority is it proposed to accept the writings within these two sources as (no pun intended) "kosher"...?

Very often in evangelical circles I have run across various teachings and ideas which claim a scriptural warrant, but when one researches the verse, the idea claimed doesn't necessarily follow directly from the verse as claimed.

How does this differ from the "teachings of men" for which the Catholic Church has been criticized on this thread?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

No, but I do see Him in the Christmas story as a helpless infant...presumably *at* Mary's feet from time to time.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Let me refer back to your post #120, as it appears I was unclear in setting up my post.

Nowhere in YHvH's WORD do we find commandments, direction or admonition to worship, adore or recognition of any created being.

One can deduce that such worship, adoration and recognition is not from YHvh.

If it is not from YHvH it must be from Satan to distract us or have us question.

So -- if the Marian visions ended up (historically) in moving the people who saw it, and their friends and relations, away from Paganism to serve the living and true God...then why need it be evil?

(Come to think of it, consider also Acts 14:12 where St. PAUL almost had people sacrificing to him as Hermes...if one had stopped reading the story right there, then he'd have been demonic, eh? The point being that if we don't know the situation -- being separated by language and culture, as well as hundreds of years -- it may be quite possible that what we HEARD of the local results might not be complete or accurate. This can also happen even in contemporary events in our own time, when the sources are actively hostile to the subject. See also the press accounts of Sarah Palin vs. what she is really like ("Our Lady of the Tundra") /thread-hijack>.)

Cheers!

[Uri’el-2012]

So -- if the Marian visions ended up (historically) in moving the people who saw it, and their friends and relations, away from Paganism to serve the living and true God...then why need it be evil?

Do you think that moving from one form of Paganism
to another form of Paganism is a good thing ?

Shabbat Shalom !

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[grey_whiskers]

No, but I think that you failed to re-read my question which you so thoughtfully put in italics (for which I thank you, with my heart, la!) /waxing Shakespearean>

Re-read the italicized phrase, and then see if you can tell me why your reply looks like it is talking right past me...please?

Cheers!

[Quix]

I sorry I have been unable to follow
your line of reasoning.

shalom b’SHEM Yah’shua HaMashiach

---

Thanks. Glad it wasn’t just me.

[Quix]

A-G can speak for herself . . .

My comments are as follows:

1. The Book of Enoch is mentioned several times in the Bible.

2. Both the Book of Enoch and Roland Buck's narrative must be compared to Scripture. What doesn't match with Scripture--i.e. is CONTRADICTED by Scripture must be tossed as error--whether it's error in hearing, interpreting or because of a questionable or deceptive source.

3. Both the Book of Enoch and Roland Buck's narrative are quite consistent with my reading of Scripture and both books.

4. Some folks rant endlessly because they have ASSUMPTIONS and/or narrow rigid biases about this or that verse of Scripture--which they then decide is in conflict with one or both of those books. I think such arguments are typically quite silly and certainly obtuse beyond measure.

5. We all see through the glass darkly. THE FRUIT OF BOTH BOOKS IN MY LIFE has been to increase my Biblical understanding of God and to increase my intimacy with God. That's good fruit. That hints at some measure of kosher-ness on the part of both books.

6. I found Roland Buck's book exceedingly encouraging and Biblical particularly because it DESCRIBED VIVIDLY THE GOD OF THE BIBLE--FATHER GOD AS WELL AS JESUS THE CHRIST IN VERY BIBLICAL TERMS. Their Nature, character, ways, priorities etc. were all quite Biblical.

7. RC dogma contradicts Scripture on a long list of points and in very stark RATIONALLY UNEQUIVOCAL, PLAIN LANGUAGE terms . . . such as:

Exodus 20:4-6 4 "You shall NOT make for yourself
a carved image,
or any likeness
of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

8. BRAZENLY IRRATIONALLY extrapolating out of "full of grace" all manner of UNBIBLICAL offices, powers, roles for Mary is unmitigated blasphemous nonsense. That's quite a DIFFERENT ORDER OF PROBLEM.

[Quix]

So — if the Marian visions ended up (historically) in moving the people who saw it, and their friends and relations, away from Paganism to serve the living and true God...then why need it be evil?

---

BECAUSE it seduces folks away from an exclusive worshipful focus on Jesus The Christ

AND

it is expressly and emphatically AGAINST the clear language of several Scriptures.

[Alamo-Girl]

I continue to pray earnestly for your father and for you!

Thank you for your blessings and encouragements.

[Quix]

MUCH APPRECIATED.

LIKEWISE BACK AT YA AND IN BEHALF OF THOSE YOU CARE FOR.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your question, dear brother in Christ!

Since so many people on this thread have come across as against the "teachings of men" and "vain janglings"... by what rule or methodology or authority is it proposed to accept the writings within these two sources as (no pun intended) "kosher"...?

Very often in evangelical circles I have run across various teachings and ideas which claim a scriptural warrant, but when one researches the verse, the idea claimed doesn't necessarily follow directly from the verse as claimed.

How does this differ from the "teachings of men" for which the Catholic Church has been criticized on this thread?

First of all, neither Enoch nor Angels on Assignment are Scripture. Because of my interests, I find them illuminating, but I do not insist that others must pay attention to them.

I have always been interested in "near death experiences" - especially those of children. Pastor Buck died shortly after writing Angels on Assignment and I read it as the insights or visions of a spiritual man nearing the end of his mortal life. The book centers on Christ and radiates his love for Him. He quotes many Scriptures throughout.

I was particularly engaged by the drawing of a tesseract by a visiting angel (Pastor Buck was not a math geek but I am.) The picture (which Buck called a picture frame) is shown in chapter 3.

Angels on Assignment

Another of the many beautiful truths God gave me through the mouth of the angel Gabriel was that everything God has promised is already completed as far as God's book in heaven is concerned. This statement was very difficult for me to understand, so Gabriel took a pencil which I held in my hand, and drew a rough sketch of the picture frame. Webmasters Note: Picture below is from the book.

Everything God has promised is completed in this picture. But, he said, "Here is a tiny little spot representing things unclear to you - things not yet complete. You often spend your time looking at these things until the tiny spot expands outward and fills the frame, and totally hides what God has done. If you look to Jesus instead of the problem, you will see the complete picture." In Is. 43:2 the Lord said, "When you go through deep waters and great trouble, I will be with you." If you look at the waters of trouble, it will hide the picture, but if you look to Jesus, that little piece that looks so ominous to you has to shrink back into place and then you will see the whole picture complete with everything that God promised.

The tesseract is the best geometric representation of P.S. Wesson's 5 Dimensions/2 Times theory. Click here for the graphic and introduction to the Space/Time/Matter Consortium.

Like Kaluza/Klein, many geometric physics theories involve the compactification of extra dimensions, e.g. string theories. But Vafa's f-Theory and Wesson's 5D/2T call for additional temporal dimensions. And Wesson's is an expanded model, elegant.

In theories which involve an additional dimension of time, time is not simply an arrow (past>present>future) but can be seen either as a plane or a volume. This means that past, present and future exist concurrently. And it also means that cause>effect can be effect>cause or cause=effect.

I find this interesting because:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. - Revelation 13:8

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: - Ephesians 1:4

My interest in Enoch comes from a more general interest in ancient manuscripts. But of all them, Enoch is the most fascinating:

The Book of Enoch (Enoch I) is written for the end times much like Revelation. And like Revelation, it contains a blessing for those who will read it.

The blessing of Enoch; with which he blessed the elect and the righteous who would be present on the day of tribulation at (the time of) the removal of all the ungodly ones. And Enoch, the blessed and righteous man of the Lord, took up (his parable) while his eyes were open and he saw, and said "(This is) a holy vision from the heavens which the angels showed me; and I heard from them everything and I understood. I look not for this generation but for the distant one that is coming. I speak about the elect ones and concerning them. (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume I, 1 Enoch)

Also, since Enoch so obviously refers to Christ, it is no wonder the Rabbis rejected it even though it had been in use for many years, e.g. the carbon dating of fragments of copies found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians–precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels…

The theme of the Book of Enoch dealing with the nature and deeds of the fallen angels so infuriated the later Church fathers that one, Filastrius, actually condemned it openly as heresy (Filastrius, Liber de Haeresibus, no. 108). Nor did the rabbis deign to give credence to the book’s teaching about angels. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the second century A.D. pronounced a curse upon those who believed it (Delitzsch, p. 223).

So the book was denounced, banned, cursed, no doubt burned and shredded–and last but not least, lost (and conveniently forgotten) for a thousand years. But with an uncanny persistence, the Book of Enoch found its way back into circulation two centuries ago.

In 1773, rumors of a surviving copy of the book drew Scottish explorer James Bruce to distant Ethiopia. True to hearsay, the Book of Enoch had been preserved by the Ethiopic church, which put it right alongside the other books of the Bible…

Though it was once believed to be post-Christian (the similarities to Christian terminology and teaching are striking), recent discoveries of copies of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran prove that the book was in existence before the time of Jesus Christ. But the date of the original writing upon which the second century B.C. Qumran copies were based is shrouded in obscurity. It is, in a word, old…

There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.

Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians’ acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible’s mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke’s verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him."

The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One"–the one promised in the Book of Enoch.

The Book of Jude tells us in vs. 14 that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…" Jude also, in vs. 15, makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch (2:1), where he writes, "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly…" …

Many of the early church fathers also supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for women (from the Ibid.)–directly referencing the Enochian writings.

Athenagoras, writing in his work called Legatio in about 170 A.D., regards Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which "violated both their own nature and their office." In his writings, he goes into detail about the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from the Enochian writings.

Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso–also approved of and supported the Enochian writings…

One by one the arguments against the Book of Enoch fade away. The day may soon arrive when the final complaints about the Book of Enoch’s lack of historicity and "late date" are also silenced by new evidence of the book’s real antiquity.

Introduction

If you are going to study Enoch, I strongly suggest Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha because it includes many scholarly insights, footnotes, the other two Books of Enoch and has the latest translation.

Charlesworth's collection has many other fascinating manuscripts which were familiar to Jews and early Christians. One of these for instance explains events which preceded God calling Abraham. Another explains why Satan was so upset with Job.

Nothing of them "ring true" in my spirit like Enoch does. And no wonder, Enoch is quoted in Jude and 2 Peter - and appears to be referenced around a hundred times throughout the New Testament.

God's Name is I AM.

[presently no screen name]

Interesting, AG. Thanks for the info.

[MarkBsnr]

Thank you for confirming it. And it's not my definition. It's the definition of the Church which counts, anyway, not mine or yours.

You seem very confused.I believe you are referring the definition of the word Ekklesia created to the man-made corporation started in 325CE at Nicea by the Pagan Roman Pontiff, Constantine .

Constantine started nothing. Anyway, he was based in Turkey, not Italy. Why is it that, just as in your theology, that you can't seem to get anything right?

Not Trinitarian? Not Christian. No Nicea? Not Christian. You don't get to make up the rules as you go along.