It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eucharistic Miracle: Hoax or Reality?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha


Even assuming the flesh was human, it couldn't have been preserved so after being exposed to parasites, the environment, etc. It simply goes against the law of nature.

Um, if it's legitimate, that means that it's supernatural and not subject to the laws of nature.

Compare with The Incorruptible Saints, whose bodies are not embalmed (like Lenin's was,) but don't rot, even after hundreds of years.

Or the Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a cactus cloak that should have disintegrated after about 20 years, but is almost 500 years old, has survived having acid poured on it, been unprotected with gobs of candle smoke flowing over it for hundreds of years (the metal frame got covered with gunk, but the cloak did not,) and having a bomb exploded right underneath it in the 1920s.




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
I would still like to see evidence of this from the scientific community....

Sure. Understandable. All I can show you are the videos that I referenced.
And my eyewitness account. Folks are always free to take it or leave it.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

I understand what you are saying but I don't believe anything can supersede the laws of nature. My thinking is: if god wants to show his super powers, then he should do something we can all witness.




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

LOL Somebody else just said the same to me! I repeat: I don't believe anything is above natural laws, even 'god'.

I have never heard of the saint and cloak you mentioned, I'll read on it tomorrow, too late for me now.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Nothing can supersede nature... but what about the ONE who designed it?

Would God be bound by his own rules?

Personally if I witnessed such a event my heart would probably burst out of my chest...

I've Found that God is very subtle in the way HE shows himself... This is just hard to believe though

The bread and wine Jesus was talking about is supposed to be symbolic of his teaching and the way he led his life... Not a real so called "transubstantiation"

I just don't know what to think of this if its actually real...




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Ok....let's assume the creator is above natural laws......but who created the creator?

There's always a natural explanation for said miracles, if only accurate / peer reviewed modern tests were allowed.

Funny how miracles usually happen in very religious countries, eh?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: adjensen

LOL Somebody else just said the same to me! I repeat: I don't believe anything is above natural laws, even 'god'.

I have never heard of the saint and cloak you mentioned, I'll read on it tomorrow, too late for me now.


God created the universe and wrote it's rules, the natural laws. Why would you think He'd be bound by them? That He chooses to follow them is more out of understanding for us. We need them and the consistency they provide in our lives.

What you're saying is to me like saying that the programmer of a video game world suddenly becomes bound to live by the physical laws he or she programs for that world. You know that's ridiculous.

If God wants to break the natural laws, He will and He absolutely can. I don't think He does very often, but when He does and it can be proven, it is what we call a miracle. For the rest of us, He works through regular natural means.

As for this, even when Christ began it, the Eucharist was symbolic in nature, not literal. So why would a Eucharist miracle suddenly create a literal Eucharist?
edit on 7-5-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

If we're fortunate, we might someday be allowed to ask Him and receive an answer.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Akragon

Ok....let's assume the creator is above natural laws......but who created the creator?

There's always a natural explanation for said miracles, if only accurate / peer reviewed modern tests were allowed.

Funny how miracles usually happen in very religious countries, eh?



Why would God the grand designer/creator need to be created?

perhaps God has always been?

This example defies the laws of Nature if its real... Living heart tissue does not just appear on a cracker...

Though in reality what do we really know of God? Only what is revealed on to each of us...

Religion attempts to explain God, but in reality God can not be explained.... I've studied religions of the world for years, and one thing has always been very clear... I always return to Jesus even though I disagree with much of Christianity and the vast majority of what "Christians" believe...

the best explanation I've found of God is the following...

Understanding the Indiscribable

And even though this is by far the best I've found from any religious document... it really comes down to the fact that we don't know anything about God, the nature of God or anything else about him for that matter


edit on 7-5-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I respect your faith and belief but I don't agree: where you see a miracle, I see something that we still don't understand. Where you see the act of god, I just see the act of nature and its laws. In the end most miracles are analyzed and understood in a scientific way.

Also, I have Norwegian friends who believe in God, they believe in Thor. My pagan friends believe in The Goddess... who is right and who is wrong? Impossible to tell.

My friend, let's agree to disagree, eh?








posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


The bread and wine Jesus was talking about is supposed to be symbolic of his teaching and the way he led his life... Not a real so called "transubstantiation"

Not according to Jesus.


Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:53-58, 60, 66 NIV)

If it was just "symbolic", it wouldn't have been "hard teaching" that drove away most of his followers. They were seriously grossed out by the idea of eating another human being, understandably, but they just didn't get it.

Jesus was the Paschal Lamb -- the Jews had to eat the Passover lamb, they couldn't just make a sacrifice and be done with it. In the same way, we must eat of the Paschal Lamb, we can't just pay lip service to him, and he himself said that. So for most of Christianity -- Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and some Anglicans -- Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, in fulfillment of scripture.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: ketsuko

I respect your faith and belief but I don't agree: where you see a miracle, I see something that we still don't understand. Where you see the act of god, I just see the act of nature and its laws. In the end most miracles are analyzed and understood in a scientific way.

Also, I have Norwegian friends who believe in God, they believe in Thor. My pagan friends believe in The Goddess... who is right and who is wrong? Impossible to tell.

My friend, let's agree to disagree, eh?



OF course we are all free to our beliefs... the fact is we will all find out eventually...

Personally I find life in general a miracle... the complete perfection of it all, even in the intricate nature of how the planets are in the exact position required for life... Proof of God is everywhere, most people just have to open their eyes and see it for what it really is...

Whos correct? Hell we might all be wrong... Most religions aren't even close in my humble opinion... but I do believe Jesus knew God personally...

When a piece of living heart tissue appears on a cracker, and no one has an explanation for it... one can only wonder




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: ketsuko

I respect your faith and belief but I don't agree: where you see a miracle, I see something that we still don't understand. Where you see the act of god, I just see the act of nature and its laws. In the end most miracles are analyzed and understood in a scientific way.

Also, I have Norwegian friends who believe in God, they believe in Thor. My pagan friends believe in The Goddess... who is right and who is wrong? Impossible to tell.

My friend, let's agree to disagree, eh?







I wish more threads could be this civil.
I personally believe in the Universe. The All that is Infinity as well as One. Represented by 0. The point where all negative and positive numbers generate from...but what of zero itself? It is unique. Nothing, but everything at the same time.


Miracles are indeed not only possible, but do occur. My question is how much influence the Collective Will manifests something into being? What is random?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen


If it was just "symbolic", it wouldn't have been "hard teaching" that drove away most of his followers. They were seriously grossed out by the idea of eating another human being, understandably, but they just didn't get it.


I agree they "just didn't get it"... but still it was supposed to be symbolic... to eat his flesh and drink his blood means to live as he lived, and learn what he taught... and apply it to your life... Clearly he did not mean eat and drink my literal body and blood... but im sure that's what they thought he meant... it can be very clearly shown that his followers didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about most of the time.


Jesus was the Paschal Lamb -- the Jews had to eat the Passover lamb, they couldn't just make a sacrifice and be done with it. In the same way, we must eat of the Paschal Lamb, we can't just pay lip service to him, and he himself said that. So for most of Christianity -- Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and some Anglicans -- Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, in fulfillment of scripture.


Except John actually made him said sacrifice as "the lamb" in his gospel... he changed the date of his execution to coincide with the so called sacrifice that needed to be made...

read mark which is an earlier gospel and Jesus was not the sacrificial lamb as John makes him into...

At most the blood and flesh he spoke of at the last supper was allegorical... not literal




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear
Cannibalism at its most holy level.
Eat your god.

If indeed God created man, then demanded bull blood and fat and meat and other blood sacrifice before becoming human as Jesus and the whole transsubstanciation thing replaced the blood lust of the OT aspect yet were created in his image...doesn't this resemble a cannibalistic ouroboros?


Maybe. But the entire "sacrifice" thing had a much deeper meaning behind it. It was not the act itself that supposedly held the importance. Plus, we are not physically talking about eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. It is symbolic. Even if this turned into real heart tissue, nobody ate it, lol. The entire Eucharist is symbolic, a reminder if you will, as well as a purifying act. So no actual cannibalism going on here.

I don't know if this story is true. Even if it is far-fetched, it still could be true. It does seem like some real research could get to the bottom of the entire incident. BUT, this could never be proven to have actually occurred? Why you ask? Because there is no way to prove that the integrity of the sample. The chain of custody cannot be proven in this case, at least most likely not.

However, IF it can be proven that the tissue was alive, which is not possible, then something miraculous and strange could likely be proven to have occurred. It irks me that there are Christians out there who would take advantage of others by making things up. This is clearly not an action that is aligned with the teachings of their religion. Everyone makes mistakes, but something like this takes deliberate planning, giving the perpetrator time to consider that what they are doing is wrong. If it is a hoax that is.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear
Cannibalism at its most holy level.
Eat your god.

If indeed God created man, then demanded bull blood and fat and meat and other blood sacrifice before becoming human as Jesus and the whole transsubstanciation thing replaced the blood lust of the OT aspect yet were created in his image...doesn't this resemble a cannibalistic ouroboros?


This is the sort of comment I'd expect to find on Reddit. Also, yes. Yes, I think it would.
edit on 7-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


it can be very clearly shown that his followers didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about most of the time.

And yet Jesus didn't go running after them when they left, saying "Wait! Wait! It's only symbolic!" It seems unreasonable that he would allow people to reject him if he knew that it was due to a misunderstanding that was his fault.

Either he meant what he said, or he was the world's worst teacher.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Akragon


it can be very clearly shown that his followers didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about most of the time.

And yet Jesus didn't go running after them when they left, saying "Wait! Wait! It's only symbolic!" It seems unreasonable that he would allow people to reject him if he knew that it was due to a misunderstanding that was his fault.

Either he meant what he said, or he was the world's worst teacher.


Well I wouldn't expect him to just go running after anyone... follow him or don't... He didn't care if people believed what he had to say... He knew it was the truth, and even went to his own execution with complete conviction...

He said specifically, "from now on I will teach in parables" basically you either get it or you don't...

Its rather ironic that nothing like this "miracle" ever occurred before these times, when just about anything can be faked...

and besides that the whole "transubstantiation" thing wasn't a part of any church tradition until almost 1000 years after his death... Surely the early church did not take it for anything more then symbolic




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus

originally posted by: the owlbear
Cannibalism at its most holy level.
Eat your god.

If indeed God created man, then demanded bull blood and fat and meat and other blood sacrifice before becoming human as Jesus and the whole transsubstanciation thing replaced the blood lust of the OT aspect yet were created in his image...doesn't this resemble a cannibalistic ouroboros?


Maybe. But the entire "sacrifice" thing had a much deeper meaning behind it. It was not the act itself that supposedly held the importance. Plus, we are not physically talking about eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. It is symbolic. Even if this turned into real heart tissue, nobody ate it, lol. The entire Eucharist is symbolic, a reminder if you will, as well as a purifying act. So no actual cannibalism going on here.

I don't know if this story is true. Even if it is far-fetched, it still could be true. It does seem like some real research could get to the bottom of the entire incident. BUT, this could never be proven to have actually occurred? Why you ask? Because there is no way to prove that the integrity of the sample. The chain of custody cannot be proven in this case, at least most likely not.

However, IF it can be proven that the tissue was alive, which is not possible, then something miraculous and strange could likely be proven to have occurred. It irks me that there are Christians out there who would take advantage of others by making things up. This is clearly not an action that is aligned with the teachings of their religion. Everyone makes mistakes, but something like this takes deliberate planning, giving the perpetrator time to consider that what they are doing is wrong. If it is a hoax that is.


I agree there was deeper meaning to "sacrifice". Priests got the first choice of the cuts of meat. Establishing a hierarchy of "closer to God". Hard to raise bulls and lambs and goats in a desert.

But the rhetoric from the OT...I'm just jaded.

Why would an omnipotent god who was before anything need rams blood spilled on an altar or bull or whatever in order to make HIMSELF (God is all MAN. Penis and testes, vas deference, prostate)feel better about himself, unless "He" is going through an unhinged phase as we all do.

The guy could create million galaxies of bulls blood to huff or whatever.
This just makes no sense. A blood fetish god who became human in order to be sacrificed. Whoa...getting heavy. It's like those stories that leak out of Germany about people meeting up and do their thing until one is eaten...
edit on 7-5-2014 by the owlbear because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus

originally posted by: the owlbear
Cannibalism at its most holy level.
Eat your god.

If indeed God created man, then demanded bull blood and fat and meat and other blood sacrifice before becoming human as Jesus and the whole transsubstanciation thing replaced the blood lust of the OT aspect yet were created in his image...doesn't this resemble a cannibalistic ouroboros?


Maybe. But the entire "sacrifice" thing had a much deeper meaning behind it. It was not the act itself that supposedly held the importance. Plus, we are not physically talking about eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. It is symbolic. Even if this turned into real heart tissue, nobody ate it, lol. The entire Eucharist is symbolic, a reminder if you will, as well as a purifying act. So no actual cannibalism going on here.

I don't know if this story is true. Even if it is far-fetched, it still could be true. It does seem like some real research could get to the bottom of the entire incident. BUT, this could never be proven to have actually occurred? Why you ask? Because there is no way to prove that the integrity of the sample. The chain of custody cannot be proven in this case, at least most likely not.

However, IF it can be proven that the tissue was alive, which is not possible, then something miraculous and strange could likely be proven to have occurred. It irks me that there are Christians out there who would take advantage of others by making things up. This is clearly not an action that is aligned with the teachings of their religion. Everyone makes mistakes, but something like this takes deliberate planning, giving the perpetrator time to consider that what they are doing is wrong. If it is a hoax that is.


I agree there was deeper meaning to "sacrifice". Priests got the first choice of the cuts of meat. Establishing a hierarchy of "closer to God". Hard to raise bulls and lambs and goats in a desert.

But the rhetoric from the OT...I'm just jaded.

Why would an omnipotent god who was before anything need rams blood spilled on an altar or bull or whatever in order to make HIMSELF (God is all MAN. Penis and testes, vas deference, prostate) unless "He" is going through an unhinged phase as we all do.

The guy could create million galaxies of bulls blood to huff or whatever.
This just makes no sense. A blood fetish god who became human in order to be sacrificed. Whoa...getting heavy. It's like those stories that leak out of Germany about people meeting up and do their thing until one is eaten...


the simple fact is the true God of creation did not ever require blood from any living being...

The Sacrifice must be from within... Sacrifice your own needs for the needs of others


edit on 7-5-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join