Dna Tests On Eucharistic Miracles

[dairygirl4u2c]

i second what hasan and Laud have said, especially all of Laud's studious remarks. if we got one set that had the same DNA sequence as another set, when those sets were very probably or surely separate at all times, then that is almost irrefutable. plus as a lesser proof, that it'd be a jewish man from those days can be verified, and maybe some funky "goings on" with the "fathers v. mother" stuff given Jesus didn't have an earthly biological father.
AB etc tests do not necessarily prove much, it only proves the blood is human, and maybe some matches of AB with the miracles, but that doesn't mean it's definitive match as a DNA test would be.
and yes, as Laud said, the tests that have been done seem suspect, cause they were so long ago etc.

i dont think the burden is on nonbelievers to prove anything, at least if they are not allowed to test it themselves. which i highly doubt they are, or even reputable people like folks at the Vatican, on behalf of those skeptics (who you claim have that burden). (of course, if the Pope said "let us" then that might change things) which casts a lot of doubt on claims already made. of course, this is just my guess, but when it's so easy to do a DNA test, you have to wonder why it's not been done already etc....
if all you got is AB blood types etc, then perhaps the nonbeliever can accept there's human blood there etc, and maybe even that some devil's advocates were at the testing, but it's still not necessarily exhaustive proof.
like, that it becomes hard then soft later and bleeds... is this really just someone getting fresh material, or some chemical that allows this, and inserting it into the testing? i dont think the documentation really says enough about this sort of thing.
it's easy to say "experts have verified it... it must be true" and rest on that, when anything is further from the truth.

Edited May 10, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Ice_nine]

L_D y u so skeptial?

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336678942' post='2429520']
I don't understand. In particular, what do you mean by interfering with teh Church?
[/quote]

When dealing with the Blessed Sacrament, the Church needs to be in total charge.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1336684748' post='2429556']
L_D y u so skeptial?
[/quote]
I don't consider myself to be inordinately skeptical about this. To me it is not logical (in the Vulcan sense) to give extraordinary claims a pass just because they are in some sense Catholic. My standards of evidence are basically the same when it comes to the miraculous claims of other religions, paranormal phenomena, alien visitors, and so on. I think some of the purportedly miraculous Catholic artifacts actually have a chance of standing up to scrutiny, which is exciting. To the proverbial objective observer I probably appear biased toward credulity.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1336687490' post='2429567']
When dealing with the Blessed Sacrament, the Church needs to be in total charge.
[/quote]
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm sure there are a host of practical complications that would make such a project quite difficult. One does not simply cowbell their way to the laboratory with a Eucharistic miracle. Yousa point is well said.

Peace.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336674696' post='2429491']
It would enable definitive testing of the validity of the Eucharistic miracles. Assuming they are legit, it would be fascinating to learn about Jesus' genetics. If we could learn about the genome of a God-man, why wouldn't we want to!? Beats the pantaloons off the NT genealogies. Was Jesus genetically susceptible to specific diseases? How closely related are we to Jesus? What is his paternity like, given the non-human Father? And a million other fascinating questions. "Good news people: The supernatural is demonstrably real and Jesus is probably as advertised. Oh, and He's left us His holy genome to reverently explore. Amen." How would this not be teh amesome? lol.
[/quote]
Yer prolly right Captain but I have this feeling that nothing definitive will come of it on the hypothesis that God wants man to find him in his heart not his head.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1336684748' post='2429556']
L_D y u so skeptial?
[/quote]
To me he appears sceptical about scientific proof. Faith would be another matter. If that's what he's saying then I agree because the minute you definitively prove God you have removed free choice.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336687728' post='2429569']
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm sure there are a host of practical complications that would make such a project quite difficult. One does not simply cowbell their way to the laboratory with a Eucharistic miracle. Yousa point is well said.

Peace.
[/quote]

Thanks. But don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your points.

[dairygirl4u2c]

''Yer prolly right Captain but I have this feeling that nothing definitive will come of it on the hypothesis that God wants man to find him in his heart not his head.''

something has to come of it, right?
either it has the DNA evidence, or it don't. if it's human blood for the purposes of AB tests, it should be for DNA tests too.... which means something must come of it.

[i mean, the world might end before we did it.... as it'd take away all the mystery, sure. (that's the former catholic in me talking, and the current christian who gives much respect to catholics on this issue, in an almost Orthodox kind of way)]

Edited May 11, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mark of the Cross]

The last doco I saw on the shroud of Turin the debunk was debunked, and it is back where it started neither proven or disproven. Apparently the bit they carbon dated was found to be a later repair job and therefore wasn't as old as the shroud. And the keepers the Vatican I think won't allow any more sampling. If there's an update let know. Back on topic they might find DNA but so what? DNA can prove that it was human and nothing more. If the DNA is found to match from different sites and different times then as LD says that would be exciting, but these things have a habit of going nowhere. Unfortunately in the past people were so keen to prove God to bring people to faith that numerous forgeries, some very clever, were made by well meaning people. Modern science has revealed a plethora of these, so the effect has been to muddy the waters and hence do the opposite to their intention.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1336687526' post='2429568']
I don't consider myself to be inordinately skeptical about this. To me it is not logical (in the Vulcan sense) to give extraordinary claims a pass just because they are in some sense Catholic. My standards of evidence are basically the same when it comes to the miraculous claims of other religions, paranormal phenomena, alien visitors, and so on. I think some of the purportedly miraculous Catholic artifacts actually have a chance of standing up to scrutiny, which is exciting. To the proverbial objective observer I probably appear biased toward credulity.
[/quote]

I was just teasin' broski. Hence the winky face.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1336727880' post='2429708']
wouldn't shatter my faith, relics and token miracles are whatever they are i don't love or hate them, i'm gospel tobz, and the holy sacrements and prayer are biblical, thats enough for me
[/quote]

Now if you could proove my arse was actually my face than i may be in a spot of difficulty lol

Edited May 11, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[blacksheep]

1 yes, because nothing aggrivates me more than those who take advantage of the faithful. If a miracle is false it should be exposed and disposed. Along with those who perpetrated said miracle.

of course the miracle of the Eucharst cannot be tested and relies on faith alone....but I believe we are talking about instances where the host becomes physical earthly bloody gruesome flesh. right?

I tend to start posting before actually reading things....

Edited May 12, 2012 by blacksheep

[thessalonian]

One of the Eucharistic miracles was already tested to see what it was. Can't remember which one. The scientist was not told what he was observiing. His conclusion was that it was live heart tissue. I for one would like to see DNA tests between the shroud and the Eucharistic miracles. I think some tests have been done between some of them. Ie. the blood type is AB in the shroud and some of the miracles.

[thessalonian]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzN9-SQtccY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzN9-SQtccY[/url]


Tim Francis - Science tests faith.

[Groo the Wanderer]

any testing done would need to be double-blind. researchers could not know what they are testing and why. too many peeps with agendas out there. too easy to distort findings to prove a point

[dairygirl4u2c]

in a way, Laud is being the least skeptical.... cause he's proactively seeking the tests, while assuming they'll prove the miracles to be true. the skeptics are the ones who, whether fully conscious of it or not, would not have the tests done because they think they'll be proven false.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1337031010' post='2430599']
in a way, Laud is being the least skeptical.... cause he's proactively seeking the tests, while assuming they'll prove the miracles to be true. the skeptics are the ones who, whether fully conscious of it or not, would not have the tests done because they think they'll be proven false.
[/quote]
You're making a false judgement! I don't think the tests need to be done because I have faith and putting your God to the test is showing a lack of faith. However I'm with LD from a scientific point of view that if someone insists on putting it to the test and it gives an indisputable result then that would be exciting. But logic (mine) dictates that that won't happen. (indeterminate) The thing that I find inconsistent is that we are told that tests on the Eucharist will reveal the accidents of bread and wine. Logically the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is his supernatural body and blood of the resurrection which (is poured out for the remission of sins) will provide us with a way to salvation and eternal life. Since the Catholic Church teaches that tests including taste, sight and smell will reveal the accidents of bread and wine, then logically the transubstantiation (the change of one substance to another) is not concerning the physical substance. When we say a man is 'a man of substance', we are not implying that he is obese it is generally used to indicate his ethos! In the Eucharist we have a change of minuscule physical food which nourishes the physical body for a short time into the substantial food of the body of Christ's resurrection which lasts for eternity. This is my take on the Eucharist which is compatible with both the Catholic Church's teaching of the 'real presence' as well as the logic and reason of science. Now if God for reasons known to him should take a few isolated cases a step further and make a purely physical (no accidents) transformation into flesh and blood, I doubt that he will make that a world wide absolute proof, which would mean that what we have been doing all these years is somehow an incomplete transformation and therefore not a real Eucharist. BTW I don't believe that Jesus is contained in the Host like a Genie in a bottle. The host is the core, but Jesus is also present in the entire church and it's people as one in the body of Christ.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Ice_nine]

I just don't think something like this can ever be proven empirically. It's almost too easy you know? It's more of a defensive pessimism as to not get my hopes up

but who knows? If God wills it, it will happen. If not, then I guess add it to the other thousand "if God WANTS us to believe in Him why doesn't he prove/show x, y, or z?!"

[dairygirl4u2c]

"and maybe some funky "goings on" with the "fathers v. mother" stuff given Jesus didn't have an earthly biological father."

 

i wonder if Jesus had the XX XY chromosomal indicators of a female, with DNA that otherwise made him male. not having an earthly father would muck things up.

[Beati Pacifici]

I voted "no" and "other". Why? Because I don't feed trolls.