Our Lady of Guadalupe part 3/3
admin | Polaroid18 Feb 2012
The image of the Virgin Mary miraculously appeared on a cactus fiber ’tilma’ or cloak of Juan Diego in 1531 near what is modern day Mexico City. Is it a true miracle of the God of the Bible? You decide, better yet, read up on all the apparitions of the Virgin Mary that are approved as worthy of belief by the Catholic Church. Most remarkable is the Polaroid-like quality of the color and lack of brush strokes on the original image.
Tags: Apparitions Of The Virgin Mary, Belief, Bible, Brush Strokes, Catholic Church, Cloak, God, Guadalupe, Image Of The Virgin Mary, Juan Diego, Lady, Mexico City, Part, Polaroid, Tilma, True Miracle
@dingorex apparently everyone hates christianity even though christianity hates no one, it has been said even by Jesus himself that all who believe in him will be persecuted and that is exactly what continues to occur today. When i make the sign of the cross when passing by a church people laugh at me, when i make the sign of the cross before eating or for any other reason, people look at me strangely, when i start talking about god and religion, people become uncomfortable and lash out.
It just amazes me how almost all videos like this one, or anything religious for that matter, end up in an argument. Can’t we respect each other’s beliefs even if we don’t agree with them? I mean really….no amount of name calling and insults is going to convince the other side that you are right and they are wrong. Just saying….
Mary of virgin behind Satan…because everyone blind to Satan make you honor on Satan
fuck this video btw im mexican, Aztec/Mayan/Science ALL DAY EVERYDAY!
Woooooooooow. Wouldn’t it be considered idolatry? I’m confused “/
Okay Tizamole, I’ll let you go. May your days be well, and may you walk in virtue.
@COice Where have you harassed me? How about badgering me with posts after I’ve specifically told you we’re not talking anymore? What part of “Discussion closed” do you not understand?
You are now bordering on behavior for which you can be reported; you are not merely wrong, you are an obvious psychopath. I am blocking you, and ANY further contact will be reported to the YouTube authorities.
@Tizmaole What questions do you have, and where have I lied or harassed you. I asked you simple questions for clarification. And despite your assertions that other things have lasted a long time, it is unheard of that paintings would last as long as this one have without deteriorating. I’m sure that those cave paintings and texts that you have referred to are heavily worn out (as Lascaux is), yet the painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe is still vivid, with the face and hands without a blemish.
@COice I have already answered this question in a previous post. Now you’re not even LISTENING; you are repeating arguments that I have already refuted. Clearly you are dishonest in pursuing this matter, and I have defeated you in the argument.
I refuse to believe that this great work of art is the work of a supernatural miracle. I have refuted every assertion that it is, and you are now reduced to lies and harassment to prove it. I will not retract my opinion; discussion closed.
@Tizmaole Do you even know where the brush strokes were found? They weren’t even found, but only ascertained by indirect logic. Rosales found that the eyes &irises have outlines, and from there jumped to the conclusion that they must have been applied by a brush, since in real life eyes and irises have no outlines. Aside from these “brush strokes” outlining the eyes & irises, Rosales as well as Callahan failed to find even one brush. How do you color a painting without a making brush strokes?
@COice Cave paintings AND ancient religious texts (e.g. the 2,000-year-old bible texts at the Monastery of St. Catherine in Egypt) AND ancient buildings AND a million other human-made artifacts. The painting’s longevity, alone, is not nearly enough to make me swallow whole the absurd, bigotry-laced fairy tale of a supernatural miracle.
I reject your arguments, as you’ve refused to even answer mine, retreating into narrower and narrower rants about the painting’s age. I’m not backing down.
@Tizmaole Wait so you are comparing as relevantly comparable the longevity of cave painting (on stone rocks) to the longevity of a painting on organic cactus fiber? I hope you understand that those two would have completely separate deterioration rates. It is universally understood that the image of Guadalupe should have deteriorated–the fabric, let alone the painting itself–by now. But you are saying it is understandable that it has lasted so long, because cave paintings also do. Correct?
@COice Frankly, no, and I think that I’ve made that quite clear. Talking to me in a condescending tone does not make me wrong. It’s not supernatural… since it’s happened before. Lascaux, anyone?
Moreover, the image was not perfect to begin with: her hair-part is off-center, her irises have drawn-in outlines, etc. Darn fine work for someone painting without an undersketch, but hardly an immaculate, supernatural gift.
I stand by my opinion: the truth is a better story.
The most of the debates I’ve read talk about the origin or the context or the humans involved. The hard facts are: a) There is no previous drawing b) 4 different painting techniques were used c) Face, hands and body are drawn without a single paintbrush d) main body has not been restaurated e) the material was not prepared to recive pigments and is not varnished tho main body is intact… Explain that! I was in front of she I saw it with my own mortal eyes. Is out of mortal comprehension.
Im Named After Our Lady Guadalupe . My Mother Wanted A Little Girl (Me] So She Prayed To Her If She Had Me Then She Was Going To Name Me After Guadalupe . She Is My Hero <3
@Tizmaole So you are simply going to disregard as irrelevant the remarkable integrity that the image maintains, despite the nearly 500 years that have passed? That does not strike you as odd or perhaps supernatural (in that it goes beyond what is natural), despite the fact that reproductions of the image can barely last less than 20 years?
@COice I don’t have to explain it: I’m not the painter. I’m certainly not the one asking people to believe in supernatural magic.
Besides, painting without visible brushstrokes is an long-established technique; Leonardo did it all the time. I’ve just now found a website by a professional painter, which says it’s not even particularly hard!
As for the canvas, there are paintings, murals, and even books many times older, and intact, and they’re all human-made. Have some faith in humanity!
@Tizmaole but what about the lack of brush strokes on the original image? And you still haven’t explained how the image has not disintegrated on the coarse cactus fiber (which also should have deteriorated) after over 400 years
@COice You’re damn right that’s what I’m saying! It’s called “genius,” and it’s miracle enough for me, thank you. You see, unlike you, I have *faith* in the potential of the human race to accomplish great things; if there is a God, s/he can only inspire us to that potential that s/he gave us. If you deny this, and insist that only divine special effects can make anything happen, then you are a cynic, you insult humanity, and your standards for miracles are simply too high.
@Tizmaole Wait, so you are saying that some indian artist painted this whole thing perfectly without even and undersketch? And what about the painting’s lack of corruption (aside from of the gold rays that were added after-the-fact)? How would you explain that…. that a painting on coarse fabric could survive over 400 years without even a hairline of a crack of deterioration on the original?
@Tizmaole And by the way, research within the last few minutes has revealed a likely name for the artist: Marcos Cipac de Aquino. He was a native artist active in the area, often suspected to be the “indian painter Marocs” mentioned by the Franciscans. And it seems that a theory paralleling my own has been established among skeptics, for some time….
@dingorex For starters, the Franciscans claimed it was a human painting, as early as 1556, the first time it appears in records. (Look it up on Wikipedia). But even so, I never claimed to have anything more than a THEORY. It’s no more or less “proven” than the legend, and I never said it was, so you have nothing to call me out on, much less any business implying that I’m embittered and/or prejudiced, just for asking questions.
@Tizmaole
Specifics to this artifact. All I need are your facts–historical, scientific, that this is just an inspired painting. What is the exact documentation for the tilma of Our Lady Of Guadalupe being a purely human painting (native Mexican-Indian, at that)?
By the by, I’m no longer a Catholic, so it want offend me where you got your information. I just would like the source-data attribution.
@Tizmaole My point being (sorry for the long response), that The Church wanted to cling to stereotypes about Indians being “simple folk,” fit only for farming & labor, and to encourage them to be good, obedient peasants, instead of “uppity” artists. They also wanted to preach faith in God’s grace through supernatural miracles, instead of social mobility and invention. So they changed the story.
Every culture pulls this stunt to varying degrees; the Church is just one example.