Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

[ps139]

If DNA were sufficient proof for anything, OJ Simpson would have gone down. But there will be absolutely no proof to satisfy those with an agenda.

I could not have said it better myself, Solomon.

Its interesting how because miracles do not fit in with one's personal doctrine, they are so ready to either call it a complete fake or credit satan with the work, without, in either case, even really knowing what happened.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.
These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

 

[Veritas]

Your "proof" cannot be validated as being true, and can be called into reasonable doubt as pointed out in my earlier post. Skeptic Magazine raised the following serious problems, which you have yet to give an answer (even a reasonable one at that) to:

*The core of the miracle is the transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood. But only one man witnessed it, while nobody else (apparently) was close enough to discover the transformation. Therefore, a simple switch could easily have taken place. Sleight-of-hand, and you have a miracle.
*It is therefore of relatively little importance how well the flesh and blood are preserved. There are many examples of various degrees of mummification and dehydration of flesh, especially if the flesh has not been exposed all that much to the open air or moisture.
*We have no way of knowing if the flesh and blood have been changed to new samples over the years.
*It is absolutely possible to have cut a thin slice of a human heart in 700 - just freeze the heart first, then cut it.
*Hvidt gives two different periods when this has happened, 700 and 750. If he isn't even sure when it happened, how can he be sure that it happened at all?



About Christ's miracles, here is your red herring back again. Whether or not "Eucharistic miracles" are true and can be validated is not dependent upon whether or not Christ's miracles can be validated and proven true. Your argument is logically invalid, and invalid arguments are not worth dignifying by responding to.



Your lack of response to the problems raised in the Skeptics magazine is "absolutely tragic" and leads me to believe that you cannot answer thenm without compromising your own position. BTW, "Real Presence" and "transubstantiation" are not one and the same.



Pot.Kettle.Black



who said that anybody was afraid? I find it rather humorous that people jump to conclusions and try to brush skeptics aside when they can't answer the problems skeptics raise about a supposed 'miracle'.

You two can believe this hoax if you wish, but I'm most certainly will not until the problems raised are adequately answered. I have great respect for Roman Catholics who believe these things, but are honest enough to admit that they cannot proove a miracle actually occurred, and that the "miracle" has serious problems.

Adieu,
DW

You're too funny Diane! First you say my posts aren't worthy of response and they you proceed to respond. I don't trust anything these "skeptics" say because they are anti-Catholic and anti-religous for that matter. Why should I take their word for anything? We have already discovered the incredible gaffs that happend when doing the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin and the hidden agenda of those involved. I would say your friends at a secular mag fall into the same category. Why fight so hard against miracles? What does it do to you anyway? If some people's faith is strengthened because God has performed supernatural events, how is that a problem for you? Why not go after Benny Hinn who refuses to allow the kind of stringent investigation of miracles the Catholic Church does?

 

[Veritas]

The better question would be, 'why would Jesus cause such miracles when He told us the New Testament was based on faith alone'?

The NT was not based on "faith alone". The only place where "faith" and "alone" ocurrs in the bible is in James where it says, "you are not saved by faith alone".

 

[Diane_Windsor]

You're too funny Diane! First you say my posts aren't worthy of response and they you proceed to respond. I don't trust anything these "skeptics" say because they are anti-Catholic and anti-religous for that matter. Why should I take their word for anything? We have already discovered the incredible gaffs that happend when doing the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin and the hidden agenda of those involved. I would say your friends at a secular mag fall into the same category. Why fight so hard against miracles? What does it do to you anyway? If some people's faith is strengthened because God has performed supernatural events, how is that a problem for you? Why not go after Benny Hinn who refuses to allow the kind of stringent investigation of miracles the Catholic Church does?

Yet another non-answer *shrug*, and she even brings up the Shroud of Turin-yet another subject that is highly debatable. I'd rather this poster just admit that she cannot answer the questions raised by Skeptics Magazine, or at least make an attempt to answer their questions.

ps139, thank you for at least attempting to answer the questions raised by that magazine.

Debate Resolved: We have found that the various "Eucharistic Miracles" cannot be proven to be true and be from God.

Diane

 

[geocajun]

Diane, do you know of any miracle which is provable?

 

[Veritas]

Diane, do you know of any miracle which is provable?

 

[Albion]

The NT was not based on "faith alone". The only place where "faith" and "alone" ocurrs in the bible is in James where it says, "you are not saved by faith alone".

If I say that I am going to paint my house, are you justified in concluding that this means I am going to use paint? Or are you right to believe--and base your dealings with me--on the absolute conviction that I am going to use coats of paint and also coats of wine or animal urine?

If not, why not? I didn't say "paint alone." Am I at fault or did I make a mistake by not saying "this doesn't include coats of urine, in case you are wondering?" What if I DO say that it doesn't include urine? Are you then justified in saying that I didn't rule out gasoline and honey, too...so maybe I meant that I was going to use them?

I DID NOT HAVE TO do this in order to convey the meaning of paint and only paint when describing paint. Any attempt to add other possibilities and then place the blame on me for not covering all the fanciful possibilities that YOU could add without reason, is YOUR problem not mine.

In other words, Faith alone is indeed in the Bible because Faith is treated, in the relevant passages, alone.

To say what you did is to impose something upon Scripture that is of your doing, not the Word of God's, and then complain about it not being satisfactory.

 

[Veritas]

Yet another non-answer *shrug*, and she even brings up the Shroud of Turin-yet another subject that is highly debatable. I'd rather this poster just admit that she cannot answer the questions raised by Skeptics Magazine, or at least make an attempt to answer their questions.

ps139, thank you for at least attempting to answer the questions raised by that magazine.

Debate Resolved: We have found that the various "Eucharistic Miracles" cannot be proven to be true and be from God.

Diane

Are you speaking to me or someone else

 

[Veritas]

If I say that I am going to paint my house, are you justified in concluding that this means I am going to use paint? Or are you right to believe--and base your dealings with me--on the absolute conviction that I am going to use coats of paint and also coats of wine or animal urine?

If not, why not? I didn't say "paint alone." Am I at fault or did I make a mistake by not saying "this doesn't include coats of urine, in case you are wondering?" What if I DO say that it doesn't include urine? Are you then justified in saying that I didn't rule out gasoline and honey, too...so maybe I meant that I was going to use them?

I DID NOT HAVE TO do this in order to convey the meaning of paint and only paint when describing paint. Any attempt to add other possibilities and then place the blame on me for not covering all the fanciful possibilities that YOU could add without reason, is YOUR problem not mine.

In other words, Faith alone is indeed in the Bible because Faith is treated, in the relevant passages, alone.

To say what you did is to impose something upon Scripture that is of your doing, not the Word of God's, and then complain about it not being satisfactory.

A. Poor analogy

B. Off topic

 

[Albion]

A. Poor analogy

B. Off topic

Off topic perhaps, but it was the answer to your post preceding it (which may also have been off topic). Sometimes when we read a memorized word trick for the hundredth time masquerading as logic or good theology, you just have to pull it's mask off.

 

[SumTinWong]

Diane, do you know of any miracle which is provable?

I can.

Me.

Ask anyone who knew me before conversion, and they will say I should be dead or in prison.

I am not.

I am a miracle of God.

Too those people who knew me, they have all the proof they need.

 

[Veritas]

Off topic perhaps, but it was the answer to your post preceding it (which may also have been off topic). Sometimes when we read a memorized word trick for the hundredth time masquerading as logic or good theology, you just have to pull it's mask off.

Diane in her inability to not respond to my posts (which she said she wouldn't), she just had to resurrect this thread. If you'll notice, I posted what you are referring to back on Feb. 13th. I had all but forgotten this thread until Diane brought it back to life.

 

[Lynn73]

The denial of transubstantiation was a product of the rationalist thought of the enlightenment mind. Skepticism and demands for scientific proof are consistent with such a mindset, and indeed, most today would acknowledge such critical thinking and demands as worthy endeavors.

However, to suppose a miracle as being the work of Satan rather is to again irrationally descend even deeper into the superstitions and naivete that the Enlightenment and Reformation were supposedly meant to deliver us from.

I suppose though, such is the nature of the world. Scoffers and non-believers will always demand proofs for evidence of God working in our lives. Yet not proof can ever suffice to persuade the hardened heart of the cynic.
Conversely, the world itself provides more than adequate evidence for the existence of Satan. Proof for the existence of such an entity is only to painfully obvious to all of us.


If DNA were sufficient proof for anything, OJ Simpson would have gone down. But there will be absolutely no proof to satisfy those with an agenda.

With all due respect, those of us who don't automatically accept these events as miracles from God aren't heart hardened cynics. We're exercising something called caution and spiritual discernment since we're well aware, as others have pointed out, that satan can perform miracles if it serves his purpose of deception. Frankly, I believe he would do it to appear to affirm unbiblical doctrines thereby causing people to continue to believe in those unbiblical doctrines. And the only "agenda" we have is to examine these things in the light of Scripture and discern between truth and error. The Bible warns over and over of the very fact of deception and satan's abilities to deceive.

 

[RedTulipMom]

Why do you take the miracles performed in the bible on faith even though you have no proof. Yet have a hard time understanding why Catholics would take these eucharistic miracles on faith. Why do we have to PROVE to you that these are miracles?? We don't!! Either believe them or don't. But since you have no way of proving that they ARENT miracles then just leave it alone rather than saying Satan performed them. What if your wrong and your doing what the pharisees in the bible did by accusing Jesus of performing miracles by Satan. Same thing isnt it??
Why would Satan perform a miracle that brings someone closer to God. These miracles have brought nobody AWAY from God! Catholics Believe them and their faith is strengthened, non Catholics dont believe them. Who is getting closer to Satan because of these miracles?? NOBODY! So it makes no sense that he performed them! karen

 

[Veritas]

With all due respect, those of us who don't automatically accept these events as miracles from God aren't heart hardened cynics. We're exercising something called caution and spiritual discernment since we're well aware, as others have pointed out, that satan can perform miracles if it serves his purpose of deception. Frankly, I believe he would do it to appear to affirm unbiblical doctrines thereby causing people to continue to believe in those unbiblical doctrines. And the only "agenda" we have is to examine these things in the light of Scripture and discern between truth and error. The Bible warns over and over of the very fact of deception and satan's abilities to deceive.

Lynn, as has already been pointed out, if you're wrong and these miracles are from God by the power of the Holy Spirit, then attributing them to Satan is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Of that, I would be very careful. Since belief in the miracles does not harm you, then there is no reason for you to argue against them. If belief in them brings Christians closer to Christ, then there is no harm to the believer.