So what would be your interpretation of that situation?

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

I have visited OLG twice with my family and once as a child. I am planning on being there in 2031 for the 500th anniversary. I figure the Pope will be there for it. CDMX is going to be a total mad house for that event. Told my wife I don't care if we have buy a condo or townhome years in advance just to have a place to stay, we are going. A snowfall on 12/12/31 in CDMX would be the ultimate cherry on top, but that is such a rare event.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

---

The disciples would have to be dying for that which they know is a myth that they themselves created. You're missing the King Kong in the room just like the fella above.

Yes, there's a general consensus among the religious historians that have opined on the topic - the actions of the disciples after Jesus' death show that they sincerely believed they saw him risen back to life.

---

First, as I recall, it is highly questionable whether any of the disciples other than Peter, possibly James died for their beliefs. Many scholars believe that "dying for their beliefs" is a theological embellishment that came later. Dying for something you mistakenly believe is true doesn't make the belief/message objectively true.

Second, there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims. Paul's writings and Acts attest to that. This isn't unique to Christianity.

---

Peter, James, and you're forgetting Paul. The rest is from tradition, against which I don't see you providing any counter evidence. Regardless, even you admit that it is true that at least some of the disciples were martyred - for what you would say is a myth they themselves created. And that absurdity is why your view will always lose.

And it doesn't have to be just dying. The disciples left their lives to give themselves fully to attesting to what they witnessed. They likely faced persecution and at least the threat of death. And why would they do this for a myth they themselves created?

You: "there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims" - It's straight from the Bible that the disciples thought at first Jesus was an apparition, but Jesus proved to them he was real. And yes, they did see him after crucifixion. And yes, many non-disciples who heard their testimony doubted their claims. Paul makes NO statement whatsoever that any of the original disciples doubted that Jesus had resurrected. So your statement here adds absolutely nothing to move the needle at all.

No one is saying that the disciples being martyred or persefuted makes their message objectively true. What it DOES say, is that the original disciples firmly believed it was true. And that is the consensus of religious historians, even atheist ones like your hero Bart Ehrman. And so the question becomes - do you believe in their witness? There is FAR more reason TO believe them, then not.

---

Paul doesn't support your case - rather he supports my case. First, he was not a disciple of Jesus. Second, he never met him. By his own account (Gal 1, 1 Cor 15), his experience was a vision years later, not meeting a walking body. He lists himself alongside the other witnesses in 1 Cor 15:3-8. That's not a counter-example to "visionary experience," it's the prime example.

The martyrdom evidence is pretty thin. James (Zebedee): one line, no detail (Acts 12:2). Peter: earliest source (1 Clement) just says he died - "crucified upside down" is 2nd-century legend (Acts of Peter). None of these accounts show what your argument actually needs: someone given the chance to recant a resurrection claim specifically, and choosing death instead. That confrontation isn't in the record. It's assumed, not attested.

I wouldn't cite Ehrman here - he argues against you on this exact point. He agrees they had experiences they sincerely believed were the risen Jesus. He explicitly rejects "they died for it so it must be true" as bad logic, and treats the legendary martyrdom stories as later embellishment, not history.

You're pushing a false dichotomy. It's not "literally true" vs. "they invented a myth and died for their own lie." Sincerely, mistakenly believing you saw something - through grief, vision, group reinforcement - is well documented (Sabbatai Zevi's followers, the Millerites). Conviction isn't evidence of accuracy. Nobody's calling them liars; the claim is that powerful but mistaken experiences produce exactly the fervor you're describing.
So yes - I believe they could have sincerely believed it, or for some could have made it up. That's compatible with more than one explanation. Only one of those explanations is a literal bodily resurrection, which is incompatible with the evidence of reality, and requires delusional psychosis.

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

What's fascinating is you have been written about for thousands of years.

Psalm 13:1

---

What does that even mean? Psalm 13:1 is out of context with the discussion.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

---

The disciples would have to be dying for that which they know is a myth that they themselves created. You're missing the King Kong in the room just like the fella above.

Yes, there's a general consensus among the religious historians that have opined on the topic - the actions of the disciples after Jesus' death show that they sincerely believed they saw him risen back to life.

---

First, as I recall, it is highly questionable whether any of the disciples other than Peter, possibly James died for their beliefs. Many scholars believe that "dying for their beliefs" is a theological embellishment that came later. Dying for something you mistakenly believe is true doesn't make the belief/message objectively true.

Second, there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims. Paul's writings and Acts attest to that. This isn't unique to Christianity.

---

Peter, James, and you're forgetting Paul. The rest is from tradition, against which I don't see you providing any counter evidence. Regardless, even you admit that it is true that at least some of the disciples were martyred - for what you would say is a myth they themselves created. And that absurdity is why your view will always lose.

And it doesn't have to be just dying. The disciples left their lives to give themselves fully to attesting to what they witnessed. They likely faced persecution and at least the threat of death. And why would they do this for a myth they themselves created?

You: "there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims" - It's straight from the Bible that the disciples thought at first Jesus was an apparition, but Jesus proved to them he was real. And yes, they did see him after crucifixion. And yes, many non-disciples who heard their testimony doubted their claims. Paul makes NO statement whatsoever that any of the original disciples doubted that Jesus had resurrected. So your statement here adds absolutely nothing to move the needle at all.

No one is saying that the disciples being martyred or persefuted makes their message objectively true. What it DOES say, is that the original disciples firmly believed it was true. And that is the consensus of religious historians, even atheist ones like your hero Bart Ehrman. And so the question becomes - do you believe in their witness? There is FAR more reason TO believe them, then not.

---

Paul doesn't support your case - rather he supports my case. First, he was not a disciple of Jesus. Second, he never met him. By his own account (Gal 1, 1 Cor 15), his experience was a vision years later, not meeting a walking body. He lists himself alongside the other witnesses in 1 Cor 15:3-8. That's not a counter-example to "visionary experience," it's the prime example.

The martyrdom evidence is pretty thin. James (Zebedee): one line, no detail (Acts 12:2). Peter: earliest source (1 Clement) just says he died - "crucified upside down" is 2nd-century legend (Acts of Peter). None of these accounts show what your argument actually needs: someone given the chance to recant a resurrection claim specifically, and choosing death instead. That confrontation isn't in the record. It's assumed, not attested.

I wouldn't cite Ehrman here - he argues against you on this exact point. He agrees they had experiences they sincerely believed were the risen Jesus. He explicitly rejects "they died for it so it must be true" as bad logic, and treats the legendary martyrdom stories as later embellishment, not history.

You're pushing a false dichotomy. It's not "literally true" vs. "they invented a myth and died for their own lie." Sincerely, mistakenly believing you saw something - through grief, vision, group reinforcement - is well documented (Sabbatai Zevi's followers, the Millerites). Conviction isn't evidence of accuracy. Nobody's calling them liars; the claim is that powerful but mistaken experiences produce exactly the fervor you're describing.
So yes - I believe they could have sincerely believed it, or for some could have made it up. That's compatible with more than one explanation. Only one of those explanations is a literal bodily resurrection, which is incompatible with the evidence of reality, and requires delusional psychosis.

---

What evidence is there that the resurrection did not happen? What evidence exists as to why the tomb was empty? I understand there are a variety of theories. What is the evidence? Based on many of your responses I look forward to reading your response, and although I don't always agree with you, I appreciate how you almost always ignore the snark-crap.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

BUDOS said:

---

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

---

Ive never read the tilmas materials lifespan is 1520 years. I wonder why so precise? It's a materialis fibrous and decays significantly in < 15 years typically.

This one's survived a bomb as well

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

What's fascinating is you have been written about for thousands of years.

Psalm 13:1

---

What does that even mean? Psalm 13:1 is out of context with the discussion.

---

Ummm. It speaks directly of you.

Fre3dombear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

---

Ive never read the tilmas materials lifespan is 1520 years. I wonder why so precise? It's a materialis fibrous and decays significantly in < 15 years typically.

This one's survived a bomb as well

---

Fre3dombear, you have apparently made a mistake which in not that uncommon.
The tilma itself is not 1,520 years old the cloth dates to 1531, making it about 495 years old.
What is true is that the agave fiber used in the tilma normally decays in 2030 years, yet the Guadalupe cloth has survived nearly five centuries with no scientific explanation.

What the Tilma Is Actually Made Of

• The tilma is woven from agave (ixtle/ayate) fiber, a coarse, fragile plant fiber.
• Under normal conditions, agave fiber disintegrates within 2030 years, or at most 60 years in unusually dry environments.
• Juan Diego's tilma has remained intact for 494495 years, despite:
  
  • 116 years with no protective glass
  • Exposure to smoke, humidity, touching, candle soot
  • A nitricacid spill in 1785
  • A bomb explosion in 1921 All without damage to the cloth or the image.

Confusion with the year 1520Some devotional materials mistakenly say the tilma is "from 1520," meaning 11 years before the apparition. This is unsupported the tilma is tied directly to Juan Diego & the events of 1531.

The Real Significance (and why people ask this question)
Its miraculous preservation is what carries theological weight:

1. Survival far beyond natural lifespan
Agave fiber should have decayed centuries ago. Its survival is scientifically unexplained.

2. Image properties that defy known techniques
Infrared studies show:

• No underdrawing
• No brush strokes
• No sizing layer
• No pigment flaking after 500 years These features are impossible to reproduce on raw agave fiber.

3. Optical phenomena in the eyes
The eyes contain:

• Reflections of people present at the 1531 unveiling
• Triple reflection (SamsonPurkinje effect) These effects require modern optical knowledge.

4. Astronomical alignment
The stars on the mantle correspond to constellations visible over Mexico on December 12, 1531.
None of these require the cloth to be ancient they point instead to a miraculous origin in 1531.

Thanks BUDOS, fascinating details.

BUDOS said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

---

Ive never read the tilmas materials lifespan is 1520 years. I wonder why so precise? It's a materialis fibrous and decays significantly in < 15 years typically.

This one's survived a bomb as well

---

Fre3dombear, you have apparently made a mistake which in not that uncommon.
The tilma itself is not 1,520 years old the cloth dates to 1531, making it about 495 years old.
What is true is that the agave fiber used in the tilma normally decays in 2030 years, yet the Guadalupe cloth has survived nearly five centuries with no scientific explanation.

What the Tilma Is Actually Made Of

• The tilma is woven from agave (ixtle/ayate) fiber, a coarse, fragile plant fiber.
• Under normal conditions, agave fiber disintegrates within 2030 years, or at most 60 years in unusually dry environments.
• Juan Diego's tilma has remained intact for 494495 years, despite:
  
  • 116 years with no protective glass
  • Exposure to smoke, humidity, touching, candle soot
  • A nitricacid spill in 1785
  • A bomb explosion in 1921 All without damage to the cloth or the image.

Confusion with the year 1520Some devotional materials mistakenly say the tilma is "from 1520," meaning 11 years before the apparition. This is unsupported the tilma is tied directly to Juan Diego & the events of 1531.

The Real Significance (and why people ask this question)
Its miraculous preservation is what carries theological weight:

1. Survival far beyond natural lifespan
Agave fiber should have decayed centuries ago. Its survival is scientifically unexplained.

2. Image properties that defy known techniques
Infrared studies show:

• No underdrawing
• No brush strokes
• No sizing layer
• No pigment flaking after 500 years These features are impossible to reproduce on raw agave fiber.

3. Optical phenomena in the eyes
The eyes contain:

• Reflections of people present at the 1531 unveiling
• Triple reflection (SamsonPurkinje effect) These effects require modern optical knowledge.

4. Astronomical alignment
The stars on the mantle correspond to constellations visible over Mexico on December 12, 1531.
None of these require the cloth to be ancient they point instead to a miraculous origin in 1531.

---

No

I Was quoting your post. I am clear on the age of the tilma. Your post says:

Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.

I said Ive never hesrd it suggested the tilmas normal lifespan is 1520 years and commented it was odd to be such a specific number

Juan's Diego's tilma if not umder super natural control would likely have shown major disintegration after about 15 years (i.e. about the 1530s AD)

Hopefully that clears it up

In fact I plan to Be in Mexico City again in 5 years for the 500th anniversary

BUDOS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

---

The disciples would have to be dying for that which they know is a myth that they themselves created. You're missing the King Kong in the room just like the fella above.

Yes, there's a general consensus among the religious historians that have opined on the topic - the actions of the disciples after Jesus' death show that they sincerely believed they saw him risen back to life.

---

First, as I recall, it is highly questionable whether any of the disciples other than Peter, possibly James died for their beliefs. Many scholars believe that "dying for their beliefs" is a theological embellishment that came later. Dying for something you mistakenly believe is true doesn't make the belief/message objectively true.

Second, there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims. Paul's writings and Acts attest to that. This isn't unique to Christianity.

---

Peter, James, and you're forgetting Paul. The rest is from tradition, against which I don't see you providing any counter evidence. Regardless, even you admit that it is true that at least some of the disciples were martyred - for what you would say is a myth they themselves created. And that absurdity is why your view will always lose.

And it doesn't have to be just dying. The disciples left their lives to give themselves fully to attesting to what they witnessed. They likely faced persecution and at least the threat of death. And why would they do this for a myth they themselves created?

You: "there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims" - It's straight from the Bible that the disciples thought at first Jesus was an apparition, but Jesus proved to them he was real. And yes, they did see him after crucifixion. And yes, many non-disciples who heard their testimony doubted their claims. Paul makes NO statement whatsoever that any of the original disciples doubted that Jesus had resurrected. So your statement here adds absolutely nothing to move the needle at all.

No one is saying that the disciples being martyred or persefuted makes their message objectively true. What it DOES say, is that the original disciples firmly believed it was true. And that is the consensus of religious historians, even atheist ones like your hero Bart Ehrman. And so the question becomes - do you believe in their witness? There is FAR more reason TO believe them, then not.

---

Paul doesn't support your case - rather he supports my case. First, he was not a disciple of Jesus. Second, he never met him. By his own account (Gal 1, 1 Cor 15), his experience was a vision years later, not meeting a walking body. He lists himself alongside the other witnesses in 1 Cor 15:3-8. That's not a counter-example to "visionary experience," it's the prime example.

The martyrdom evidence is pretty thin. James (Zebedee): one line, no detail (Acts 12:2). Peter: earliest source (1 Clement) just says he died - "crucified upside down" is 2nd-century legend (Acts of Peter). None of these accounts show what your argument actually needs: someone given the chance to recant a resurrection claim specifically, and choosing death instead. That confrontation isn't in the record. It's assumed, not attested.

I wouldn't cite Ehrman here - he argues against you on this exact point. He agrees they had experiences they sincerely believed were the risen Jesus. He explicitly rejects "they died for it so it must be true" as bad logic, and treats the legendary martyrdom stories as later embellishment, not history.

You're pushing a false dichotomy. It's not "literally true" vs. "they invented a myth and died for their own lie." Sincerely, mistakenly believing you saw something - through grief, vision, group reinforcement - is well documented (Sabbatai Zevi's followers, the Millerites). Conviction isn't evidence of accuracy. Nobody's calling them liars; the claim is that powerful but mistaken experiences produce exactly the fervor you're describing.
So yes - I believe they could have sincerely believed it, or for some could have made it up. That's compatible with more than one explanation. Only one of those explanations is a literal bodily resurrection, which is incompatible with the evidence of reality, and requires delusional psychosis.

---

What evidence is there that the resurrection did not happen? What evidence exists as to why the tomb was empty? I understand there are a variety of theories. What is the evidence? Based on many of your responses I look forward to reading your response, and although I don't always agree with you, I appreciate how you almost always ignore the snark-crap.

---

Alright, but I have to comment on the burden of proof. What evidence is there that the resurrection did not happen" upends the burden. A man coming back from being dead for three days is an extaordinary claim. The burden of proof doesn't to default to "disproving it." Rather, the burden should shift to "what is the empirical objective evidence for it strong enough to overcome the improbability of that kind of event." A need to explain an empty tomb doesn't default to "supernatural" just because there is no clear cut natural explanation. The default is we may not know how it came to be empty, assuming it was ever filled - big assumption.

The primary evidence is the evidence of reality. There is no empirical objective evidence of anyone ever rising from the dead. Biochemistry and physics (physical laws) tell us rising from the dead three days later is not possible.

It's plausible the body was moved or stolen (disciples, family, or even Roman/Jewish authorities had reasons to move it). Some have postulated that he was temparirly layed in the tomb until the Passover and Sabath ended in Jewish tradition, retrieved and relocated to a permanent tomb (Talpiot possibly) before the women arrived. Matthew documents notion the "the disciples stole the body" rumor (Matt 28:13), which tells us this explanation was already circulating in the first century, for what that's worth.

Maybe the women visited the wrong tomb - infimailiarity, in low light, grieving, they might either misremember or are be misdirected. The actual site of the tomb has multiple competing locations within Christian tradition today. Maybe there was no burial in a tomb at all, or at least permanently. Crucifixion victims typically were left for animals or buried in shallow common graves, not placed in a guarded, sealed, owned rock carved tomb. You have to consider the account in the context of the Gospels being written decades later. Some scholars argue the Joseph of Arimathea burial account appears as a later theological embellishment to fulfill a theological "no decay" expectation. There simply is no strong independent attestation of what happened to the body. There may not be a "missing body" puzzle to solve, because the empty-tomb tradition itself may be a later tradition.

It's more plausible it is a legendary development. As menitioned above, the gospels were written decades later for a theologic purpose to a particular audience. The earliest written Christian theology is by Paul. Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb story isn't in Paul's narratives. Paul argues for resurrection but never mentions an empty tomb as evidence. It shows up first in Mark, decades later, and the accounts get more elaborate and inconsistent in detail (number of women, number of angels, who they tell, in what order) as you move through Matthew, Luke, John. That pattern is what legendary accretion typically looks like in ancient texts, not just here. All we have is a much later narrative, written by believers, for believers, decades after the fact, with the kind of internal variation you'd expect from oral tradition, rather than eyewitness account written down at the time - that brings us back to the facts of reality. There is no empirical objective evidence of anyone ever rising from the dead, three days later.

" Paul argues for resurrection but never mentions an empty tomb as evidence."

This may come as a shock to you, but if a man rises from the dead, his tomb will be empty.

Paul argued from the moral point of view, not the legalistic one. And as I noted, the tomb condition is obvious if the event described happened.

TexasScientist said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

---

The disciples would have to be dying for that which they know is a myth that they themselves created. You're missing the King Kong in the room just like the fella above.

Yes, there's a general consensus among the religious historians that have opined on the topic - the actions of the disciples after Jesus' death show that they sincerely believed they saw him risen back to life.

---

First, as I recall, it is highly questionable whether any of the disciples other than Peter, possibly James died for their beliefs. Many scholars believe that "dying for their beliefs" is a theological embellishment that came later. Dying for something you mistakenly believe is true doesn't make the belief/message objectively true.

Second, there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims. Paul's writings and Acts attest to that. This isn't unique to Christianity.

---

Peter, James, and you're forgetting Paul. The rest is from tradition, against which I don't see you providing any counter evidence. Regardless, even you admit that it is true that at least some of the disciples were martyred - for what you would say is a myth they themselves created. And that absurdity is why your view will always lose.

And it doesn't have to be just dying. The disciples left their lives to give themselves fully to attesting to what they witnessed. They likely faced persecution and at least the threat of death. And why would they do this for a myth they themselves created?

You: "there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims" - It's straight from the Bible that the disciples thought at first Jesus was an apparition, but Jesus proved to them he was real. And yes, they did see him after crucifixion. And yes, many non-disciples who heard their testimony doubted their claims. Paul makes NO statement whatsoever that any of the original disciples doubted that Jesus had resurrected. So your statement here adds absolutely nothing to move the needle at all.

No one is saying that the disciples being martyred or persefuted makes their message objectively true. What it DOES say, is that the original disciples firmly believed it was true. And that is the consensus of religious historians, even atheist ones like your hero Bart Ehrman. And so the question becomes - do you believe in their witness? There is FAR more reason TO believe them, then not.

---

Paul doesn't support your case - rather he supports my case. First, he was not a disciple of Jesus. Second, he never met him. By his own account (Gal 1, 1 Cor 15), his experience was a vision years later, not meeting a walking body. He lists himself alongside the other witnesses in 1 Cor 15:3-8. That's not a counter-example to "visionary experience," it's the prime example.

The martyrdom evidence is pretty thin. James (Zebedee): one line, no detail (Acts 12:2). Peter: earliest source (1 Clement) just says he died - "crucified upside down" is 2nd-century legend (Acts of Peter). None of these accounts show what your argument actually needs: someone given the chance to recant a resurrection claim specifically, and choosing death instead. That confrontation isn't in the record. It's assumed, not attested.

I wouldn't cite Ehrman here - he argues against you on this exact point. He agrees they had experiences they sincerely believed were the risen Jesus. He explicitly rejects "they died for it so it must be true" as bad logic, and treats the legendary martyrdom stories as later embellishment, not history.

You're pushing a false dichotomy. It's not "literally true" vs. "they invented a myth and died for their own lie." Sincerely, mistakenly believing you saw something - through grief, vision, group reinforcement - is well documented (Sabbatai Zevi's followers, the Millerites). Conviction isn't evidence of accuracy. Nobody's calling them liars; the claim is that powerful but mistaken experiences produce exactly the fervor you're describing.
So yes - I believe they could have sincerely believed it, or for some could have made it up. That's compatible with more than one explanation. Only one of those explanations is a literal bodily resurrection, which is incompatible with the evidence of reality, and requires delusional psychosis.

---

What evidence is there that the resurrection did not happen? What evidence exists as to why the tomb was empty? I understand there are a variety of theories. What is the evidence? Based on many of your responses I look forward to reading your response, and although I don't always agree with you, I appreciate how you almost always ignore the snark-crap.

---

Alright, but I have to comment on the burden of proof. What evidence is there that the resurrection did not happen" upends the burden. A man coming back from being dead for three days is an extaordinary claim. The burden of proof doesn't to default to "disproving it." Rather, the burden should shift to "what is the empirical objective evidence for it strong enough to overcome the improbability of that kind of event." A need to explain an empty tomb doesn't default to "supernatural" just because there is no clear cut natural explanation. The default is we may not know how it came to be empty, assuming it was ever filled - big assumption.

The primary evidence is the evidence of reality. There is no empirical objective evidence of anyone ever rising from the dead. Biochemistry and physics (physical laws) tell us rising from the dead three days later is not possible.

It's plausible the body was moved or stolen (disciples, family, or even Roman/Jewish authorities had reasons to move it). Some have postulated that he was temparirly layed in the tomb until the Passover and Sabath ended in Jewish tradition, retrieved and relocated to a permanent tomb (Talpiot possibly) before the women arrived. Matthew documents notion the "the disciples stole the body" rumor (Matt 28:13), which tells us this explanation was already circulating in the first century, for what that's worth.

Maybe the women visited the wrong tomb - infimailiarity, in low light, grieving, they might either misremember or are be misdirected. The actual site of the tomb has multiple competing locations within Christian tradition today. Maybe there was no burial in a tomb at all, or at least permanently. Crucifixion victims typically were left for animals or buried in shallow common graves, not placed in a guarded, sealed, owned rock carved tomb. You have to consider the account in the context of the Gospels being written decades later. Some scholars argue the Joseph of Arimathea burial account appears as a later theological embellishment to fulfill a theological "no decay" expectation. There simply is no strong independent attestation of what happened to the body. There may not be a "missing body" puzzle to solve, because the empty-tomb tradition itself may be a later tradition.

It's more plausible it is a legendary development. As menitioned above, the gospels were written decades later for a theologic purpose to a particular audience. The earliest written Christian theology is by Paul. Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb story isn't in Paul's narratives. Paul argues for resurrection but never mentions an empty tomb as evidence. It shows up first in Mark, decades later, and the accounts get more elaborate and inconsistent in detail (number of women, number of angels, who they tell, in what order) as you move through Matthew, Luke, John. That pattern is what legendary accretion typically looks like in ancient texts, not just here. All we have is a much later narrative, written by believers, for believers, decades after the fact, with the kind of internal variation you'd expect from oral tradition, rather than eyewitness account written down at the time - that brings us back to the facts of reality. There is no empirical objective evidence of anyone ever rising from the dead, three days later.

---

we will know soon who is right. If you are right, we are still good people doing good things. If you are wrong, you got caught sleeping when the master returned home.

Now is the time, repent as the kingdom of God is at hand!

Fre3dombear, Looks like my mistake, for which I apologize.

TexasScientist, perhaps I expected too much and longer words. I have heard all but one of those theories before, but never all in the same narrative. You commonly refer to reality and logic. Perhaps you can use that to help me better understand creation, which I am pretty sure is a topic you have dealt with on multiple occasions.

As you are aware a common theory is the big bang, supposedly caused by some friendly gases being introduced to some gases who apparently were not as friendly, resulting in a hostile merger or explosion. Where did the gases come from? How were they created? If I recall correctly, somewhere in at least one science course I was told that something cannot be created from nothing. Admittedly, that was a long time ago and some new theories may now exist.

Get where I am coming from? Logic and reality are important, as are the wording in the theory and the premise something does or doesn't exist.

In philosophy, a professor asked the class if anyone could prove God exists; he was then asked if he could prove God did not exist. He was baiting us. We spent the whole term proving that neither could be proven by hard evidence. Later I learned about belief systems, how they are formed and how hard they are to change, especially core beliefs. Although neither one of us has any thoughts of changing beliefs, I appreciate that we can discuss our differences and present our arguments, and, in some cases, theories.

So, can you give me your thoughts on how those gases were logically formed, in reality?

BUDOS said:

---

Fre3dombear, Looks like my mistake, for which I apologize.

---

No worries. I was merely clarifying we were on the same page.

TexasScientist said:

---

It's plausible the body was moved or stolen (disciples, family, or even Roman/Jewish authorities had reasons to move it). Some have postulated that he was temparirly layed in the tomb until the Passover and Sabath ended in Jewish tradition, retrieved and relocated to a permanent tomb (Talpiot possibly) before the women arrived. Matthew documents notion the "the disciples stole the body" rumor (Matt 28:13), which tells us this explanation was already circulating in the first century, for what that's worth.

---

Guards were posted to prevent the body from being stolen. If it were the disciples or family, they would have been caught else the guards would have been executed. This is why the go to the chief priest to tell them what happened and they are bribed to spread lies.

It makes no sense for the Roman or Jewish authorities to take the body as it would be confirming a resurrection.

The whole Talpiot Tomb has been debunked by serious archaeologists, historians, and biblical scholars.

TexasScientist said:

---

Maybe the women visited the wrong tomb - infimailiarity, in low light, grieving, they might either misremember or are be misdirected. The actual site of the tomb has multiple competing locations within Christian tradition today. Maybe there was no burial in a tomb at all, or at least permanently. Crucifixion victims typically were left for animals or buried in shallow common graves, not placed in a guarded, sealed, owned rock carved tomb. You have to consider the account in the context of the Gospels being written decades later. Some scholars argue the Joseph of Arimathea burial account appears as a later theological embellishment to fulfill a theological "no decay" expectation. There simply is no strong independent attestation of what happened to the body. There may not be a "missing body" puzzle to solve, because the empty-tomb tradition itself may be a later tradition.

---

If the women got the wrong tomb, how did Peter and John get the wrong tomb? None of them were thinking about resurrection immediately. They assumed the body was stolen. Why didn't they keep looking for the correct tomb? It's doubtful that the women would have gone to the wrong tomb when they would have been their to watch them take the body to the tomb.

The competing sites claim is very weak. The site that Catholics and Orthodox venerate is the same site that has been used since the 4th century. We know this is the correct site because the Roman emperor Hadrian, in order to stop devotion, built temples to Christian holy sites. One of those temples (either Aphrodite or Venus) was built over Christ's tomb. The irony is that Hadrian didn't stop devotion there. He actually ended up preserving the site for Christians today.

The reason for the second (protestant) site today is because nineteenth-century scholars such as Charles Gordon believed this area "looked" more like Golgotha. He didn't like the fact that a church was built on top of the burial site. Archeologists have stated that this site was actually constructed 6-7 centuries before the crucifixion. This site is in contrast to scriptures that state that Joseph of Arimathea built a new tomb.

TexasScientist said:

---

It's more plausible it is a legendary development. As menitioned above, the gospels were written decades later for a theologic purpose to a particular audience. The earliest written Christian theology is by Paul. Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb story isn't in Paul's narratives. Paul argues for resurrection but never mentions an empty tomb as evidence. It shows up first in Mark, decades later, and the accounts get more elaborate and inconsistent in detail (number of women, number of angels, who they tell, in what order) as you move through Matthew, Luke, John. That pattern is what legendary accretion typically looks like in ancient texts, not just here. All we have is a much later narrative, written by believers, for believers, decades after the fact, with the kind of internal variation you'd expect from oral tradition, rather than eyewitness account written down at the time - that brings us back to the facts of reality. There is no empirical objective evidence of anyone ever rising from the dead, three days later.

---

What you call contradictions can be easily understood as different authors telling versions of the same story from their viewpoint.

Remember, the different authors never say that ONLY one angel was seen or ONLY Mary went to the tomb. It's all together possible that the author chose that language based on their viewpoint.

Documentation decades after the fact is a poor example of lack of proof. If we reject this, then we should reject Hannibal crossing the Alps on elephants (decades later) and Alexander's the Great campaigns written hundreds of years later.

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

BUDOS said:

---

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

---

So.... are you saying that you believe the tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe is, like the Shroud of Turin, miraculous, and hence it and the message it validates came from God?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

---

The disciples would have to be dying for that which they know is a myth that they themselves created. You're missing the King Kong in the room just like the fella above.

Yes, there's a general consensus among the religious historians that have opined on the topic - the actions of the disciples after Jesus' death show that they sincerely believed they saw him risen back to life.

---

First, as I recall, it is highly questionable whether any of the disciples other than Peter, possibly James died for their beliefs. Many scholars believe that "dying for their beliefs" is a theological embellishment that came later. Dying for something you mistakenly believe is true doesn't make the belief/message objectively true.

Second, there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims. Paul's writings and Acts attest to that. This isn't unique to Christianity.

---

Peter, James, and you're forgetting Paul. The rest is from tradition, against which I don't see you providing any counter evidence. Regardless, even you admit that it is true that at least some of the disciples were martyred - for what you would say is a myth they themselves created. And that absurdity is why your view will always lose.

And it doesn't have to be just dying. The disciples left their lives to give themselves fully to attesting to what they witnessed. They likely faced persecution and at least the threat of death. And why would they do this for a myth they themselves created?

You: "there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims" - It's straight from the Bible that the disciples thought at first Jesus was an apparition, but Jesus proved to them he was real. And yes, they did see him after crucifixion. And yes, many non-disciples who heard their testimony doubted their claims. Paul makes NO statement whatsoever that any of the original disciples doubted that Jesus had resurrected. So your statement here adds absolutely nothing to move the needle at all.

No one is saying that the disciples being martyred or persefuted makes their message objectively true. What it DOES say, is that the original disciples firmly believed it was true. And that is the consensus of religious historians, even atheist ones like your hero Bart Ehrman. And so the question becomes - do you believe in their witness? There is FAR more reason TO believe them, then not.

---

Paul doesn't support your case - rather he supports my case. First, he was not a disciple of Jesus. Second, he never met him. By his own account (Gal 1, 1 Cor 15), his experience was a vision years later, not meeting a walking body. He lists himself alongside the other witnesses in 1 Cor 15:3-8. That's not a counter-example to "visionary experience," it's the prime example.

The martyrdom evidence is pretty thin. James (Zebedee): one line, no detail (Acts 12:2). Peter: earliest source (1 Clement) just says he died - "crucified upside down" is 2nd-century legend (Acts of Peter). None of these accounts show what your argument actually needs: someone given the chance to recant a resurrection claim specifically, and choosing death instead. That confrontation isn't in the record. It's assumed, not attested.

I wouldn't cite Ehrman here - he argues against you on this exact point. He agrees they had experiences they sincerely believed were the risen Jesus. He explicitly rejects "they died for it so it must be true" as bad logic, and treats the legendary martyrdom stories as later embellishment, not history.

You're pushing a false dichotomy. It's not "literally true" vs. "they invented a myth and died for their own lie." Sincerely, mistakenly believing you saw something - through grief, vision, group reinforcement - is well documented (Sabbatai Zevi's followers, the Millerites). Conviction isn't evidence of accuracy. Nobody's calling them liars; the claim is that powerful but mistaken experiences produce exactly the fervor you're describing.
So yes - I believe they could have sincerely believed it, or for some could have made it up. That's compatible with more than one explanation. Only one of those explanations is a literal bodily resurrection, which is incompatible with the evidence of reality, and requires delusional psychosis.

---

Of course Paul supports my case. Paul was indeed a disciple of Jesus. He wasn't one of the original twelve, but he was one nonetheless, and even more, he was the apostle to the Gentiles. And Paul would most ardently disagree with you that he "never met" Jesus. In 1 Cor 15 he speaks of his encounter with Jesus in the same terms as the encounter the disciples had. And he absolutely KNEW that Jesus' appearance to the disciples was bodily in nature, since he had close contact with them and heard what happened. And what did Paul do? Go preach about the resurrection into a "visionary experience"? No, he passionately preached about the bodily resurrection, a "spiritual body" as he calls it, which does NOT mean it's without physical substance. Again, Paul knew about the disciples touching the risen Jesus, and how they even watched him eat food. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Paul did not believe his encounters with Jesus were with this same bodily Jesus. And there is no doubt that Paul was heavily persecuted and killed for preaching it. Paul most certainly does NOT make YOUR ridiculous case.

The historical evidence is good for James being martyred. Josephus, Hegesippus, and even Eusebius, the "Father of Church History" gave accounts that support this. We have Paul's testimonies about his persecution and tribulations. We know Stephen was stoned for believing what the apostles taught him. We know John was exiled for his faith. You are engaging in a ridiculous denial of the historical reality that the early Christians were heavily persecuted by Rome and the Jews. And if they did that to the Christian followers, is there any doubt they did the same or even worse to the apostles who taught them?

You must not be a careful reader or thinker - my citing of Ehrman was to support the point that even atheist scholars believed that the disciples fully believed that they saw the risen Jesus. You even acknowledge this point. So citing him was perfectly appropriate. I wasn't citing Ehrman to support my point that the apostles dying for their faith meant it was true. You're apparently confused here or you're attempting a straw man. You're actually confused about the whole point, rather. The argument is NOT that because the apostles died for what they believed, therefore it is true. The point was that because the apostles died for what they believed, that is significant evidence against your claim that they concocted a myth. And so, as the consensus of scholars agrees with, the disciples truly believed they saw the risen Jesus. The question then becomes - do you believe them?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

---

So.... are you saying that you believe the tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe is, like the Shroud of Turin, miraculous, and hence it and the message it validates came from God?

---

Perhaps, you have misinterpreted my comments on this issue. Neither of these items are "proof" in the scientific sense. As has been said on this thread before, there is a point where 'faith" enters in. I think no matter how much evidence, proof, of any type, that there will always be those who refuse to believe there is a God. In my opinion, I believe that the scientific evidence that has been proven and that which cannot be explained indicate that something occurred or is occurring which is beyond our understanding. To me they are things with I can use in my discussions with others and hopefully get them to pause and think about possibilities, instead of just blowing the Bible off as a bunch of myths and exaggerated events. They may or may not be miracles, I tend to believe that the Shroud of Turin may be, based on what I have found; I am not as acquainted with the other. If science proves otherwise, I'm open to changing that facet of my beliefs.
The information I presented above was to allow some of us a better background of what was being discussed, as I knew very little about the Lady of Guadalupe, and I thought others might be in the same situation.

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

---

So.... are you saying that you believe the tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe is, like the Shroud of Turin, miraculous, and hence it and the message it validates came from God?

---

Perhaps, you have misinterpreted my comments on this issue. Neither of these items are "proof" in the scientific sense. As has been said on this thread before, there is a point where 'faith" enters in. I think no matter how much evidence, proof, of any type, that there will always be those who refuse to believe there is a God. In my opinion, I believe that the scientific evidence that has been proven and that which cannot be explained indicate that something occurred or is occurring which is beyond our understanding. To me they are things with I can use in my discussions with others and hopefully get them to pause and think about possibilities, instead of just blowing the Bible off as a bunch of myths and exaggerated events. They may or may not be miracles, I tend to believe that the Shroud of Turin may be, based on what I have found; I am not as acquainted with the other. If science proves otherwise, I'm open to changing that facet of my beliefs.
The information I presented above was to allow some of us a better background of what was being discussed, as I knew very little about the Lady of Guadalupe, and I thought others might be in the same situation.

---

I haven't misinterpreted anything. I'm merely asking if that is what you believe.

My question to you is twofold: 1) Do you believe the message from the Lady of Guadalupe is from God? And 2) do you believe it is possible that the apparition and the tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe is miraculous, i.e. beyong our current understanding?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

---

So.... are you saying that you believe the tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe is, like the Shroud of Turin, miraculous, and hence it and the message it validates came from God?

---

Perhaps, you have misinterpreted my comments on this issue. Neither of these items are "proof" in the scientific sense. As has been said on this thread before, there is a point where 'faith" enters in. I think no matter how much evidence, proof, of any type, that there will always be those who refuse to believe there is a God. In my opinion, I believe that the scientific evidence that has been proven and that which cannot be explained indicate that something occurred or is occurring which is beyond our understanding. To me they are things with I can use in my discussions with others and hopefully get them to pause and think about possibilities, instead of just blowing the Bible off as a bunch of myths and exaggerated events. They may or may not be miracles, I tend to believe that the Shroud of Turin may be, based on what I have found; I am not as acquainted with the other. If science proves otherwise, I'm open to changing that facet of my beliefs.
The information I presented above was to allow some of us a better background of what was being discussed, as I knew very little about the Lady of Guadalupe, and I thought others might be in the same situation.

---

I haven't misinterpreted anything. I'm merely asking if that is what you believe.

My question to you is twofold: 1) Do you believe the message from the Lady of Guadalupe is from God? And 2) do you believe it is possible that the apparition and the tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe is miraculous, i.e. beyong our current understanding?

---

2) yes
1) I dont know.. if it leads them to Jesus, yes. If it leads them to alternate gospel, no.

For instance, Jonah was spit out from the fish on the shore where the people believed in sea gods. The one true God in heaven set it up perfectly to get the people to repent..


The test for me is does it lead people to Christ Jesus..

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

---

Usually around the time one stops attacking Christians.

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

So is your idea of good dialogue to avoid answering a question by asking your own question?

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Waiting for a response to the above question, I decided to do a bit of research on the side.

Knowing nothing about the Lady of Guadalupe, but observing that the two topics were together, I decided to try and discover their relationship. It was quite interesting, whether or not either can be proven. Here is a brief summary of what I found. I would especially appreciate feedback from those with a Catholic background.

Why Guadalupe Matters Today
Our Lady of Guadalupe remains one of the most influential religious symbols in the world. Her message of compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and Christcentered hope continues to shape Christian devotion across continents. As the Catholic Church approaches the 500th anniversary of the 1531 apparitions (2031), global preparations have intensified.
International Pilgrimage Begins

• A pilgrim imagea cloth replica that has physically touched the original tilma in Mexicoarrived in Manila on June 13, 2026.
• It will visit 50+ churches across the Philippines through December.
• President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attended the opening Mass, highlighting the event's national significance.

SecondClass Relic Touring 54 Churches

• Mexico sent a secondclass relic (another tilma replica touched to the original).
• It will visit 54 churches nationwide.
• A commemorative statue and an official portrait of St. Juan Diego accompanied the relic.

Global 500th Anniversary Preparations
The pilgrimage is part of a worldwide nineyear program leading to 2031, including:

• A national Filipino pilgrimage to Mexico (Nov 2026)
• A pilgrimage to Guadalupe de Extremadura, Spain (2028)
• National Guadalupan congresses beginning in 2027
• A major historical volume on Guadalupe devotion to be released in 2031

Key Teaching Themes

• Mary's solidarity with the poor
• Evangelization rooted in compassion
• The unity of global Christianity
• Preparing hearts for the 500th anniversary

SCIENTIFIC COMPARISON: The Tilma of Guadalupe vs. The Shroud of Turin

The Tilma of Guadalupe (1531)
Material

• Made of ayate, a coarse cactusfiber cloth.
• Normal lifespan: 1520 years before disintegration.
• The tilma has survived nearly 500 years without expected decay.

Image Characteristics

• The image is not painted in any conventional sense.
• No known pigments, dyes, or brush strokes.
• Under magnification, the fibers appear uncolored the image "floats" above the surface.
• The colors do not fade, crack, or flake.

Scientific Anomalies

• Infrared photography (1936): No sketch lines or underdrawing.
• Ophthalmological studies: The eyes contain PurkinjeSanson reflections, the same reflections seen in living human eyes.
• Temperature stability: The tilma maintains a constant 98.6F, the temperature of a living human body (reported in multiple studies).
• Survived a 1921 bomb placed beneath it; the glass shattered, but the tilma was unharmed.

Scientific Consensus

• No natural or artistic method fully explains:
  
  • the image's formation
  • its preservation
  • its optical properties
• Many researchers describe it as nonrepeatable and nontechnological.

The Shroud of Turin (1st Century?)
Material

• Linen cloth, consistent with firstcentury Jewish burial practices.

Image Characteristics

• The image is a negative, only fully revealed in 1898 through photography.
• The image is superficial affecting only the top 200 nanometers of the fibers.
• No pigments, dyes, or binders detected.

Scientific Anomalies

• 3D spatial encoding: The grayscale intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
• Bloodstains: Real human blood (type AB), with serum separation consistent with trauma.
• Radiation hypotheses: Multiple studies (including the 2025 McAvoy paper) argue the image was formed by a burst of radiation from the body.
• No known technology can replicate the image's superficiality and 3D encoding.

Scientific Consensus

• The Shroud's image formation remains unexplained.
• The leading hypothesis among imageformation researchers: A short, intense burst of energy or radiation from the body.

---

So.... are you saying that you believe the tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe is, like the Shroud of Turin, miraculous, and hence it and the message it validates came from God?

---

Perhaps, you have misinterpreted my comments on this issue. Neither of these items are "proof" in the scientific sense. As has been said on this thread before, there is a point where 'faith" enters in. I think no matter how much evidence, proof, of any type, that there will always be those who refuse to believe there is a God. In my opinion, I believe that the scientific evidence that has been proven and that which cannot be explained indicate that something occurred or is occurring which is beyond our understanding. To me they are things with I can use in my discussions with others and hopefully get them to pause and think about possibilities, instead of just blowing the Bible off as a bunch of myths and exaggerated events. They may or may not be miracles, I tend to believe that the Shroud of Turin may be, based on what I have found; I am not as acquainted with the other. If science proves otherwise, I'm open to changing that facet of my beliefs.
The information I presented above was to allow some of us a better background of what was being discussed, as I knew very little about the Lady of Guadalupe, and I thought others might be in the same situation.

---

I haven't misinterpreted anything. I'm merely asking if that is what you believe.

My question to you is twofold: 1) Do you believe the message from the Lady of Guadalupe is from God? And 2) do you believe it is possible that the apparition and the tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe is miraculous, i.e. beyong our current understanding?

---

2) yes
1) I dont know.. if it leads them to Jesus, yes. If it leads them to alternate gospel, no.

For instance, Jonah was spit out from the fish on the shore where the people believed in sea gods. The one true God in heaven set it up perfectly to get the people to repent..


The test for me is does it lead people to Christ Jesus..

---

Hmmm. Has that apparition actually led people to Jesus, or has it led them to Roman Catholicism, which distorts the gospel (and thus away from Jesus) and leads millions to Mary worship (as it actually has done in Mexico and South America)?

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

---

Usually around the time one stops attacking Christians.

---

So when are you going to stop?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

---

BTD, so what would be your interpretation?

---

If you're saying that person is saved, then their name is in the Book of Life. I'm not sure why you couldn't figure this out.

Are you saying a saved person can be removed from the Book of Life based on their actions regardless of their faith? If so, then at what point does "failing to reflect a Christian life" occur? What's the cutoff point between adequately living a Christian, and failing to?

---

As an example, a nonbeliever, becomes a believer (is saved), and for a while believes and acts in accordance with those beliefs and faith in Christ, but after a period of time leaves the faith and returns to being a nonbeliever and his actions reflect his lack of faith in Christ. In my opinion, that person will not be in the Book of Life, because they will be headed for Hell. What is your opinion? I ask this because I have come across some who people in "once saved, always saved," but often avoid how that plays into free will. Although I don't believe that, I am open to discussing it with those who do, hoping to have a better understanding of the whole issue. I may be in error, as I thought you may have addressed this issue some time ago and I have the impression that you might that belief, and if so, would be willing to share some dialogue.

---

You are presenting a different scenario than what you did initially. Here, you're saying the person actually "leaves the faith". In that case, the person never did have true faith, and was never written in the Book of Life to begin with.

Your new scenario makes it more unclear about what it is you believe: are you saying 1) that a person can intitially be in the Book of Life, but then be removed due to their works not being reflective of a "Christian" life, or 2) a person can be intially be in the Book of Life, but they are removed because they no longer have faith, or 3) you believe both these things?

I've never avoided the issue of free will and "once saved always saved". I don't think the loss of free will is even in the equation. In fact, I think it's the opposite - salvation and the Holy Spirit FREES a person from bondage and thus accentuates their free will, not diminishes it.

---

So do you believe that once a person is saved that they are always saved?

---

God is faithful and will complete the work he started in you. The real question is when are you saved..

---

Usually around the time one stops attacking Christians.

---

So when are you going to stop?

---

Thanks for proving my point again, BTD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Hmmm. Has that apparition actually led people to Jesus, or has it led them to Roman Catholicism, which distorts the gospel (and thus away from Jesus) and leads millions to Mary worship (as it actually has done in Mexico and South America)?

---

Well, an estimated 9 to 10 million indigenous people (pagans) were converted to Christianity within a decade of her appearance.

In the previous ten years, Christianity barely made a dent into the population after Cortex reached the new world.

Her apparition and those conversions helped to end the Aztec practice of human sacrifice.

Catholicism does not preach the worshipping of Mary, and you know that.

(Cue the "Glories of Mary" and your famous list that you have saved and love to post.)