CASES OF STIGMATA - Fact or Fiction?

[Front 242]

Sorry folks ... I did a boo-boo in the course of posting this topic (my first one in that I am new to the Free Republic forum website) by hitting the "Submit" button three times in succession at the end of my post due to my thinking that my Internet Provider was on the blink. I sincerely apologize and I hope that the site administrator will have rectified the problem by removing the extra posts. Please use this current post with the most recent timestamp as the one in which to reply to. Thanks for your time and once again I sincerely apologize. Front 242

[Hermann the Cherusker]

St. Paul is thought to have said he had the sitgmata.

[drstevej]

***St. Paul is thought to have said he had the sitgmata.***

Source?

[sockmonkey]

** Source **

Galations 6:17

[drstevej]

Gal. 6:17 - From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

Paul tells us he was repeatedly beaten [2 Corinthians 11:24, Acts 16:21]. He was beaten for his preaching of Jesus. He was beaten as was Jesus. Isn't this a sufficient explanation of "the marks of the Lord Jesus."

Is this not a more reasonable explanation of the verse than imagining the marks were stigmata?

Any other source?

[k omalley]

I am reading the life of St. Gemma Galgani(1878-1903). She had the stigmata on the palms of her hands, her side, and on her head, supposedly from the crown of thorns. According to those who examined her there were wounds present every Thursday evening till Friday evening. They would bleed so profusely as to soak the sheets. By Saturday morning there would be absolutely no wounds present, just a tiny healed mark. I find the whole subject fascinating and puzzling. I alternate between belief and skepticism.
I would love to hear what some of our knowledgeable members of the forum have to say about the subject.

[SoothingDave]

Isn't this a sufficient explanation of "the marks of the Lord Jesus."

No.

Is this not a more reasonable explanation of the verse than imagining the marks were stigmata?

No. Why would Paul refer to random lumps and bruises as "the marks of the Lord Jesus"? How would such traumas be "marks" of the Lord?

SD

[SoothingDave]

why is it that so many alleged stigmatists have "wounds" located in the center of their palms?

Because the stigmatics didn't know any better. They received the wounds they would recognize as authentic, based upon Crucifixes and other works of art.

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me: for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body." (Galatians 6.17)

[drstevej]

***Why would Paul refer to random lumps and bruises as "the marks of the Lord Jesus"? How would such traumas be "marks" of the Lord?***

Random lumps and bruises? What an insult to the apostle! Those cruel lashes were received for one reason only, because he preached the resurrected Christ!

When in Ecuador, I met a number of young pastors who bore on their bodies the scars of similar beatings from those who were now members of their churches.

Random lumps and bruises??? Shame on you.

Our Lord was beaten prior to His crucifixion, were those mere "random lumps and bruises"??? No they were evidence of hatred inflicted by those for whom He was to give His life.

Paul's beatings were inflicted by those who hated the message of Christ. Paul endured them because he was constrained by the love of Christ!

You insult him in order to maintain a superstition. In doing so, you also shame the Lord.

Shame on you.

[SoothingDave]

Random lumps and bruises??? Shame on you.

Spare me. I meant no disrespect. "Random" indicates that they make no pattern, like stigmata do.

Which was my point, that stigmata are "the marks of the Lord Jesus" in a significant (literally) way that random marks are not.

S

[drstevej]

***"the marks of the Lord Jesus"***

Your reasoning is circular Dave. You read your desired meaning into Paul's term and then argue from the term.

The phrase can refer as easily to the marks Jesus received in his scouraging as it can to the marks received in nailing Him to the cross.

Paul, in context, makes no statement that these marks were supernaturally manifest in his body. You assume they are.

Prove that these marks were supernatural and "non-random." Cite evidence that they were such.

Otherwise, you present pure speculation as having biblical support. Not wise.

[SoothingDave]

I believe Thomas wanted to probe these very marks in order to prove to himself that the Lord has risen. They are, in this way in Scripture, distinctive signifying marks of Jesus.

But you are right that it is impossible to know exactly what is meant just from this passage. We require a tradition in order to understand. It could mean stigmata or not.

SD

[k omalley]

Whether Hermann and Dave's interpretation of scripture is correct or not, I think that the phenomena of the stigmata goes further than just being mere superstition.
These cases have been observed and documented, fraud has been ruled out in the more recent cases of saints who had these wounds. Blood has been observed pouring out of gaping wounds which often rapidly heal. Whether these are the authentic wounds of Christ, a psychological phenomena or are caused by satan can be debated. But thre is plenty of evidence that they are authentic.

[drstevej]

***But you are right that it is impossible to know exactly what is meant just from this passage. We require a tradition in order to understand. It could mean stigmata or not.***

Thank you.

What sources of tradition lead you, as a Catholic, to believe Paul is speaking of stigmata? Just curious.

[drstevej]

I did not say all claims stigmata are superstition.

My point was that the passage cited to show Paul that was a stigmatic was without substantiation and mere superstition.

Regarding claims of others, I have not researched them historically. Certainly God is able to produce stigmata if He so chooses. Likewise, Satan can offer counterrfeit miracles.

[OLD REGGIE]

I believe Thomas wanted to probe these very marks in order to prove to himself that the Lord has risen. They are, in this way in Scripture, distinctive signifying marks of Jesus.

But you are right that it is impossible to know exactly what is meant just from this passage. We require a tradition in order to understand. It could mean stigmata or not.

Paul was accepted as an Apostle based on what? Is there any hint, any place, that he "proved" anything by showing his stigmata?

No, this is a big stretch. Are you aware of any RCC teaching which shows Paul with stigmata? It certainly is the first time I have heard of it.

[SoothingDave]

What sources of tradition lead you, as a Catholic, to believe Paul is speaking of stigmata? Just curious.

Why, there is only One Source of Tradition. ;-)

Honestly, I believe that some saints have been given sitgmata. I think it's a real thing and not fraud or the devil.

That a great saint like Paul may have been gifted is not out of the realm of possibility and this seems to support that. But I am not certain if this is so or not.

SD

[SoothingDave]

My point was that the passage cited to show Paul that was a stigmatic was without substantiation and mere superstition.

Superstition? I don't think I like that word. It may be unsubstantiated by formal Scripture, but that doesn't mean it is superstition.

SD