But you would think that each different person would see something different than the previous though. not 2 different camps.

And you would think that the wikipedia article would say something like "However, the dye was discovered to be such and such in XXXX year by the chemist Whatshisname." or whatever. And from what i've found, though i havent searched long, it doesnt seem to have been explained yet. i'll keep looking though.

I truthfully didn't see anything in particular in the eyes.


Nada, despite all the suggestions as to what it was and the blown-up images of the paintings.

The only one that was magnified to the point where you could see very well had the outline in it so it was hard to leave up to interpretation, but i concede that point.

Also, the site that Hrae posted says the dye still hasnt been identified.

What I'm saying is, if the magnified image was put up on display, the person who saw it first may not see anything special, but when somebody who sees a family comes about and tells them, "See, there's a guy there, and his kid!" And immediately there's a "Wow, you're right!" feeling. Like you said, it can be seen in many ways, but since this particular way is most desirable (?) for religion, it will be the most propagated.



Well, if it was analyzed again, it might have been discovered. I doubt it's open to every chemist who comes by to observe it.

For your first point- that would be likely, if only tourists were visiting. However, multiple people studied in such subjects (im guessing at least some would be skeptics) observed the eyes and saw such images.

And do you have proof that it's not up for examination? im sure the church would like to reaffirm the uniqueness of the color.

Also, there's the subject of the fact that the image has lasted for what i believe has been several hundred years, while many copies have deteriorated.

That's it. I'm a believer now. I found a picture of Jesus.

http://unadorned.org/images/dandruff...y_20030715.jpg

*sigh* your sarcasm makes a point. obviously there's no way i can prove the eyes. However, the dye and remarkable longevity still has yet to be explained.

And since so far it has been unexplained, that means it's a miracle. Until it's explained. Then, all of the other unexplained stuff means it's a miracle. Welcome to the God of the Gaps.

What about the unexplainABLE? What about that which can't be unexplained? even if they FIND some kind of mineral which produces the dye created on the tilma, unless it's in mexico, there's no chance that Juan Diego or anyone he knew could've painted it. and even if it was in mexico, the chances are slim that he randomly found a flower that noone else knew about.

Which then, of course means, that it was a miracle and not that, y'know, someone else painted it. There are only sketchy accounts of the guy even existing, and nothing independent of the Catholic Church.

There isn't anything unexplainable. Everything can be explained. Maybe not right this moment, but there IS an explanation, and I have confidence it will be eventually discovered. I don't throw my hands up in defeat when things get difficult.

What if the explaination acctually happens to be the phrase you've criticized so often? what if the explaination is that God acctually did it?

If we find concrete evidence, then we find concrete evidence. Of course, that would tend to raise a lot more questions. What created the creator? It's turtles all the way down.

If the explanation turns out to be that god did it, I'll become the most devout theist in the whole world.

Well then the only thing we can really do is wait and see... there's not much else. if, by the time we're old and decaying, they still havent found a reasonable answer for the dye, explaining what it is, and how Juan Diego got it, with all the technology they'll have then, i doubt they ever will.

The point is the attitude you keep while you watch and wait. Will you ascribe it to the god of the gaps? Or will you believe in eventual progress and discovery? I think the answer is pretty obvious to me.

Ok, i concede that point. but explain one thing to me.

If none of the miracles in the new testament ever happened, why were they written? why would the followers willingly condemn themselves? was it a case of mass insanity? or were the followers of Jesus masichists?

i sincerely doubt that they would lie about the acts in the new testament. they had nothing to gain from lying. and they would be killed if they believed.

Explain that, if you will.

They were promised a paradisaical afterlife and eternal happiness once they died. That's tempting to anyone.

True. but what you say is, basically, that Jesus never did any of the miracles that are spoken of in the new testament. Why didnt they join in with the others in Crucifying him? Their religion warned against false messiahs, after all.

Well the new testament could be wrong. * not that im saying it is*

the Jews like people would say are one of the oldest religions and they say That the TRUE messiah would come so who knows where this would lead to.

He was a charismatic figure. There would be more people who believed that he had done them than those who didn't because of the way exaggerations add onto rumours like a rolling snowball. And to be fair, the Bible would've been written putting its best face on display.

And what would Jesus himself gain from this deciet? other than scourging, and being hung at the cross, which he DID forsee. True, if all went well he would be the most well known man in the world. but he wouldnt know that it would. and he wouldnt be able to experience it in life.

You do realize the New Testament was written well after the fact, correct? By members of the Christian sect? You don't think a little hero worship/cult of personality came into play? Just look at how the North Korean government speaks of Kim Jong Il.

Acctually, the Gospel of Matthew is attributed to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus's 12 Apostles. So it probably wasnt TOO Long after the fact. And please explain why a cult of personality would've come into play? oh, and also, please the dramatic turn in the Jewish Community between palm sunday to good friday?

You only address one book. The point is that the books were written by people who were in a position and time to embellish whatever accounts they gave. It'd be to their best interest to show things a particular way.


My theology-teacher in Primary-school (who was a Nun) told me that the Gospels were written years after the fact.


It's obvious...


What do you mean?

Attributed by whom?

He probably sincerely believed in God himself.

1. Ok, i looked into the other ones, and the gospel of John was also written by a direct disciple. I'm not entirely sure about the other two, but most archeologists find many of the events in the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian

I guess to a certain degree there could be one. However, what im saying is that they wouldnt have been diciples in the first place without any proof. they were reasonable men.

I mean how they regarded him as a king and the Messiah on palm sunday and then suddenly condemned him and demanded that he be subjected to the brutalest torture imaginable?

By the manuscript that was written, i suppose.

And so he would lie and commit blasphemy? (assuming he wasn't truly the Messiah)

.

but isnt their presumed a messiah to come?

...i have no idea what you're attempting to ask... seriously...

And at Ivramire: Your choice to reply within a reply makes it extremely difficult for me to reply to you. but i'll attempt to- i'll try not to miss any points. if i do, i'll try to catch them.

1. It was significant since Palm Sunday took place in Jerusalem just a bit before his Crusifixion. And i believe he was brought into Jerusalem durring his persecution to stand before Herod too. That's what makes it significant.

2. What im saying is that they're no different from any other of the jewish people at the time. Why would they alone choose to follow him in spite of there being no signs, while everyone else ended up persecuting him?

3. So you're suggesting he was scizophrenic? i find that hard to believe since all the ideals he expressed made complete sense and werent at all violent or paranoid. if that's not what you're suggesting, then please explain WHY he would think he was the Messiah unless he truly was.

I've replied to this in a previous post. I understood what you meant when you explained it the first time.


That wasn't all of the Jews (only those in one city) and I have a thought that anyone would have cheered at what was essentially a parade.

I thought that there were people in the crowd at Jesus' ''hearing'' that incited the crowd to cry for Jesus' death? Whichever way, I still don't see how their ''change of opinion'' would affect anything.


Already addressed.


Cult of Personality, quasi-addressed in my reply to your similar previous question below.



To what source/evidence do you attribute their rationality/irrationality? Their personal sense of judgment and qualities?


Look at any religion/cult/following today, they have plenty of followers, many of whom would fit the description of ''reasonable.''




I never said anything about shcizophrenia or a mental ailment. Why does anyone start a new religion? Apply any possible existing reasons from recent examples. Unless someone goes back in a time-machine and asks him, can't really know for sure can we?

1. my POINT was that in the very same city that they praised him they soon after persecuted him. Not just ANY city, THE city. The whole city was out praising him, in the very same city that just a few days later he was brought to Herod to be persecuted. And even if there were a few people inciting it, i can't really see it causing that dramatic of a shift. And it wasnt a "Parade", they were celebrating that the man who they believed was their Messiah had come.


It's not like all of the Jewish people came out to persecute him, but the cities that were visited probably had alot of them. Jerusalem was the biggest Jewish city at the time. Why did his supporters suddenly turn against him? I only ask because the only really reasonable explaination is in the bible. People dont change their minds that quickly. :/

2. They start new religions because they truly believe in them, or for the glory, for the most part. Your two options are that either 1. He wanted to be remembered and continued wanting that in the face of death in an extremely brutal way, 2. He had some kind of a mental ailment, or 3. He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was correct. Unless there's another reasonable explaination, i dont really see much support for the first two.

3. I say they were rational since they were just like all the other Jews at the time. They were simple fishermen and such. They had found their place in the world. They were reasonably aged men, not young adults. they had no REASON to join a cult, like those in the Manson Family and such did. No more reason than any of the jews that persecuted him, at least.

And like I said, I still don't see how a dramatic shift in opinion changes anything, especially in regards to the reality of whether or not anyone was a deity. And just supposing that this affects anything. What is the source for the number of people, the technicalities, the specifics etc. Is it something that would benefit from showing things one way or another?



What was the reasonable explanation?


I beg to disagree. Hah.



That's 3 options.


Why would it necessarily be correct? You discount the option of ''He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was incorrect''



All based on assumptions and things that are impossible to verify one way or another.


Yes, some were fishermen, a number were certainly middle-aged but the rest is pure conjecture.

1. The majority were middleaged people of the Lower-Middle Class. A few of the Upperclassmen too.

2. The explaination it had relies on there being a deity present, so it'll be shotdown automatically, im sure, but it was that God hardened their hearts so that the act could be fufilled and sin could be overcome. but that's the only explaination that really makes much sense. in a matter of a week, you dont go from believing everything someone says to calling them a dirty liar without feesible evidence. The only crime they had against him was that he claimed to be the Messiah. People in the city had just a few days or weeks before also believed that. they just suddenly began agreeing with the opposite side, though. please explain how people go from thinking you're litterally God to thinking you're a blasphemer in days without feesible evidence.

3. Sorry, i made an error there. It doesnt make my argument any less week.

And he was a religious man. Most people back then were too. He would make sure to considerably weigh his evidence before going out and putting the souls of his self and others at risk.

1. I'd ask you to clarify what you meant, particularly regarding the first point as it doesn't seem to address my post. But I'm not going to bother.


2. Your mileage may vary. Because it certainly doesn't make any sense to me. What kind of scenario is it that this is the only feasible explanation?


To argue the point anyway, Jesus wasn't put to death by the collective Jewish-community, he was supposedly set-up by the Jewish Council, exactly for what they saw to be him claiming to be the Messiah. From my understanding of it, they seeded the crowd with their supporters so that when it came to the vote between Barabas (sp?) and Jesus, the cries for Jesus came out louder. A possible explanation, one that even bypasses their ''attitude-shift.''


3.''He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was incorrect''


Still doesn't change the aspect that he could have been incorrect or been doing it for any other reason.


4. You didn't address my last point.

Your number 4 was my number one... they were probably not ALL Middle to lower class or middle aged, but the majority certainly were, and therefore were still in the same boat as the other commoners who opposed him.

My Point was that he wouldnt have claimed to be the Messiah unless he was completely sure. The Bible, if it's to be taken as an accurate historical document, not just a theological one, shows us that he was an intelligent man, philosophically at least. And any reasonable religious man wouldnt put his or anyone else's soul at risk unless he was either 1. Greedy (disproved by his facing death and not giving up) or 2. Crazy (disproven by the fact that he was very much peaceful, not showing signs of paranoia)

And your point about the High Priest's supporters would rely on the idea that 1. The high priests had the majority of the people who attended the presenting to Pilate's side, which i doubt they did based mainly upon palm sunday, and 2. That they had come to some kind of consensus. Which, if you're correct, they hadn't. Their unity was so great that it convinced Pilate that the only way to stop a riot was to release Barbaras instead of Jesus. He truly believed that he was innocent, and would've taken any chance he could've to have released him peacefully.

And Psychologically it's the only feasible explaination. People can't change that swiftly from Worship to Condemning without Feasible Proof.

You are trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Because it was conseded earlier that when it comes to the historical points it was accurate in the new testament by Ivra.

It's like when friends and I discuss the socio-economic policies of the Federation as depicted in Star Trek:TOS and Star Trek:TNG and beyond. They may be considered, well-reasoned positions, but it's still based on fiction.

What do you mean hrae? as i previously stated, historians consider historical parts of the New Testament as historically accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian

unless you're responding to something else?