It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But possession would violate our freewill, And I believe the scriptures on this, we never loose our freewill.
God may blind our eyes and ears for our arrogance, but we always have freewill to return to him.
Ghosts maybe? Possession absolutely not.
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: markosity1973
If you want to see a proper miracle image, look no further than the Tilma from Mexico
One of the problems with miracles is that we don't understand all the implications that they represent; such as, what, if any, understandings are affirmed or contradicted.
The main promoter of the cult was the Dominican Alonso de Montúfar, who succeeded the Franciscan Juan de Zumárraga as archbishop of Mexico. In a 1556 sermon Montúfar commended popular devotion to "Our Lady of Guadalupe," referring to a painting on cloth (a tilma) in the chapel of the Virgin Mary at Tepeyac, where certain miracles had occurred. Days later, Fray Francisco de Bustamante, local head of the Franciscan order, delivered a sermon denouncing the cult. He expressed concern that the Archbishop was promoting a superstitious regard for an image:
"The devotion at the chapel . . to which they have given the name Guadalupe was prejudicial to the Indians because they believed that the image itself worked miracles, contrary to what the missionary friars had been teaching them, and because many were disappointed when it did not."
The next day Archbishop Montúfar opened an inquiry into the matter. At the inquiry, the Franciscans repeated their position that the image encouraged idolatry and superstition, and four witnesses testified to Bustamante's claim that the image was painted by an Indian, with one witness naming him "the Indian painter Marcos". This could refer to the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de Aquino, who was active at that time. But "if he did, he did so without making a preliminary sketch - in itself a near-miraculous procedure.[...] Cipac may well have had a hand in painting the Image, but only in painting the additions, such as the angel and moon at the Virgin's feet", claims Prof. Jody Brant Smith (referring to Philip Serna Callahan's examination of the tilma using infrared photography in 1979).
. . .
In the 16th century and probably continuing into the early 17th century, the image was modified by adding the mandorla-shaped sunburst around the Virgin, the stars on her cloak, the moon under her feet, and the angel with folded cloth supporting her - as was determined by an infrared and ocular study of the tilma in 1979.
Our Lady of Guadalupe
If nothing else, this shows that people tend to feel they have some liberty to manipulate the facts. The study of 1979 shows that the mandorla (almond shaped halo effect), the stars on cloak, the moon, and angel were added later to the miracle image. Was that to bring it in line with the then current Christian artistic depictions?
originally posted by: Layaly
a reply to: rossacus
can I ask what you think about Teresa Neumann from Bavaria.
everybody is adding very interesting point of view