home
RSS
February 3rd, 2011
03:46 PM ET

soundoff (67 Responses)
  1. TRV

    CatholicMom, please email me if you are still reading this.

    shelovesus@hotmail.com

    December 31, 2011 at 2:49 am |
  2. louisiana jones act attorneys

    i did not know that condensation was of oil that smelled of roses; or human blood

    August 31, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
  3. WeepingAngels

    Beware the Weeping Angels!!!!

    http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Weeping_Angel
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_Angels

    February 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  4. GSA

    Maybe the store owner could put the statue outside a homeless shelter/park in need of cleaning/united way office/red cross office, etc. and this way when it draws all these ppl to come take a look they may also spend some time volunteering or donating some money and helping out their community.

    February 4, 2011 at 11:32 am |
  5. JOregon

    As we approach the end the bible predicted an infatuation with signs and wonders.
    Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
    During the last century that seems to be the focus of so many churches, especially the RCC and the Pentecostal.
    Only the Catholic seems to put the emphasis on statues and unimportant individuals such as Mary.

    February 4, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • CatholicMom

      JOregon,
      It sounds like you sort of believe in parts of the Bible but other parts not….how does that work for you?
      Why would you call Mary, the Mother of God, unimportant? The Bible says that all nations will call her blessed. But not you?
      Mary says that her soul magnifies the Lord. What does magnify mean? Made larger and easier to see…she brings us closer to Jesus. Are we not to imitate Jesus in every way? Does he not honor His Mother and Father? How can we go wrong if we do as He does…and as He asks us to do?
      How is it you think Mary is unimportant? Jesus gave Mary to you at the foot of the Cross when He said, ‘Behold your Mother’. We should take her into our home as our Mother and honor her as Jesus commands us to do.

      February 5, 2011 at 10:30 am |
    • joregon

      CMom
      I believe in the whole bible, I just don't agree with the misguided men that tell you what it means.
      All Christians are blessed. Mary is no more powerful or significant than any other Christian. She is no more important than the woman that threw in her 2 mites, or the thief on the cross.
      I didn't say she isn't blessed, I said she is unimportant. She is just your standard human, that became saved – thus blessed.
      Let's look at your full context of your verse.
      Luke 1:
      45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
      46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
      47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
      48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
      49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
      50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

      She is saying she is blessed because she has been saved.

      John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

      He loved his mother, as all children should. He also cared for her after his death by asking “that disciple”, John, to care for her. He is not asking us to take her into our home. Absurd twisting of the scripture.
      When someone becomes born again it is their soul that becomes alive – Magnified.
      Mary cannot save or grant prayer requests.
      The idea “statues” hold some kind of spiritual significance is blasphemy. Yet the RCC promotes the worshiping of idols. One of the biggest perversions of this is the Long Hair Jesus. Many churches have latched on to this false image.
      We have no idea what Jesus looked like, but we can be certain he did not have long hair.
      There was no sin in him. No shame.

      1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

      February 5, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      joregon,

      Your statement: ‘I believe in the whole bible, I just don't agree with the misguided men that tell you what it means.
      That is your decision; and my decision differs greatly from yours.

      Since Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and placed good men in charge of it, and because it was the Catholic Church which put the Books of the Bible in the Bible and coined the word ‘Bible’, and because the Bible tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, and because these good men [that you refer to as misguided] are the ones ordained and ‘sent’, [just like Jesus was ‘sent’ by the Father], are at the ‘helm’ of His Church and have the absolute authority to interpret the Bible, I am so inclined to be ever so thankful that Jesus Christ set it all up this way so that the burdens and crosses that I may bear will become as light as the yoke that Jesus Christ promised if we are willing to follow him, and not our will be done but His.

      There are already 38000 ecclesial communities and perhaps you belong to one of them or are ‘on your own in your thinking’ but regardless of where you stand, you are on unsure footing unless you are in the House of God, the Church that Jesus Christ founded, the pillar and foundation of Truth.

      February 6, 2011 at 9:46 am |
    • JOregon

      C Mom,
      All Christian Churches were founded on Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:11
      There is no evidence any denomination would remain faithful from it's beginning. Revelation 1, the 7 churches were already astray.
      Your faith in the history (genealogy) of the RCC puts your faith on man instead of God.
      RCC teaches fables.

      1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

      Following genealogy back for proof is NOT supported by scripture, the opposite is true.
      Catholics call Peter their foundation. Only fables place him at Rome.
      His teaching had error, is he is your foundation?

      Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
      Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

      The bible is from God, compiled by many men over centuries. Amazingly consistent, and unified. All before the internet. It is the source of truth. Not men, that is the lesson of Galatians 2.
      God raises churches up, men lead churches astray. The RCC is astray.
      The bible says the overseers of the church MUST have been married and had their training in raising a family. (1 Timothy 3:2-7)

      1 Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

      The RCC decrees ERROR – The priesthood is not allowed to marry.
      A horrible result of not following 1 Timothy 3 is the abuse scandal.

      1 Samuel 3:13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.

      The Pope knew, the Cardinals knew, the Bishops knew, or at least they should have known. Part of raising a successful family is communication. A responsible parent has an obligation to know what their child is doing, and to control their child. Nobody restrained the perverts.
      God would NEVER ordain such people. God wouldn't contradict 1 Timothy 3:2-7.
      In 1748 the Church declared Thomism, Molinism, and a third view known as Augustinianism to be acceptable Catholic teachings. Three different views, the first 2 are polar opposites.
      How can this be, if the church has infallible doctrine? And perfect understanding?
      Final point (at least on this post):
      The church is made up of believers. Believers are the pillars. The church organization is not a pillar.

      Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

      About Peter.

      Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

      Peter had just proclaimed Jesus as the Christ. All believers make that claim. Jesus is saying believers are the stones that make up his church. Peter symbolizes believers.

      1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

      Peter cannot be the cornerstone of the church because a building can only have one cornerstone. That Cornerstone is Christ.

      1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

      See Mom?

      February 6, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      JOregon,

      If your claim is true that the Catholic Church teaches fables then what you have is nothing but fables. Where do you think your Christianity comes from? If you wish to defame your Christian roots, Mother Church, how can you be helped? I guess you will have to start taking the Bible to mean what it says…..but that also, you received from Mother Church, which, btw, is not a denomination….all those who split of their own freewill from the Catholic Church, are denominations. [derivatives with less than the fullness of Truth]

      Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God's people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; Gen 17:5). Of course, Christ is the head of the Church, no one is deny that, however, Peter was asked to feed Christ’s sheep 3 times….saying feed MY sheep, not THE sheep of the Church, or YOUR sheep, …but…..MY SHEEP. Yes, Peter, was to be Christ’s hands and feet so that He could continue His High Priesthood until the end of time.

      The House of God is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.... human beings are not pillars…humans are sinful and cannot be trusted. The House of God, Mother Church, the dispenser of grace [of which you are not], is safe-guarded by the Holy Spirit against evil….we are not forced to be holy because of our freewill….we can choose evil or good… but the Church remains without stain, wrinkle or any such thing. Can you say that positively about yourself? Are you not a sinner? Do you not need a Savior? We are the ones who need to find shelter against evil in the House of God…

      1 Timothy 3:5 means:
      "Of one wife"... The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once.

      ‘the churches’ just means the many churches over all the world and they are in every nation and they all are in unison as The Holy Catholic Church…the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTLIC CHURCH.

      Who should you be listening to?

      John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [who is HE talking to here? His Apostles!]

      John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [You did not receive the Holy Spirit just then, but the Apostles did.]

      John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. [He had passed His power on to the Apostles whom He entrusted His Church to, the House of God.]

      Romans10:14-15 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
      ["Unless they be sent"... Here is an evident proof against all new teachers, who have all usurped to themselves the ministry without any lawful mission,(lawful mission derived by succession from the apostles), to whom Christ said, John 20. 21, As my Father hath sent me, I also send you.]

      Romans 10-9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
      ["Thou shalt be saved"... To confess the Lord Jesus, and to call upon the name of the Lord (ver. 13) is not barely the professing a belief in the person of Christ; but moreover, implies a belief of his whole doctrine, and an obedience to his law; without which, the calling him Lord will save no man.]
      St. Matt. 7. 21. Not everyone that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

      [And what is the will of the Father…that we obey the Word of God …. and not take His Word out of proper meaning so as to make it work for our personal interpretations….that is, to go off and preach another gospel other than the one He wills we hear through whom He has sent.]

      February 7, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
    • JOregon

      C Mom, (repost #3 and broken down to find the bad word)

      Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity.

      1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

      The RCC teaches:
      Peter was in Rome – Fable
      Ever Virgin Mary – Fable – She “knew” her husband (Matthew 1:24-25). She had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32)
      The Immaculate Conception of Mary – Fable
      Assumption of Mary – Fable
      Papal infallibility – Fable
      Teaching Paul was never married – Fable. In those times being married as a teen and widowed was common.
      Acceptance of apparitions, such as crying statues, as a divine sign or wonder – Fable
      Purgatory – Fable (1 John 1:7)
      There are more RCC fables, but you get the point. If you don't have scripture or historical proof, and you teach it as truth, you are teaching Fables.
      The Catholics try to tie their authority back through the generations all the way to Peter. Their “endless genealogies” with lots of problems. Corrupt Popes, torture and persecution of the opposition, graft, illegitimate children, nepotism.
      Benedict IX is one of several Popes that sold or bought the papacy. He did it more than once. He has was involved in best-iality, murder, and ra-pe, hom*ity.
      There have been several per-verted and corrupt Popes in the RCC.
      That is your genealogy.
      The RCC has been around so long because of money, political and military power, and corruption.
      The Catholics aren't alone in following their heritage all the way back.
      -C.H. Spurgeon:
      We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prosti-tute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.-

      February 8, 2011 at 2:04 am |
    • JOregon

      Post continued

      C Mom are you a lifetime Catholic? Born into it?
      Catholics believe that truth is to be found within Catholicism. It is not. You were taught that.
      The RCC structured their own truth then feed it to you.
      Any opposition was beat down with aggression and might. The RCC grew by fear. If you weren't Catholic you died, often slowly and painfully.
      Today it is indoctrination, they have gotten to be very good at what they do.

      From the verses you gave I don't see how Peter is paralleled to Abraham. He cannot be the Rock the church is built on because Jesus is the Rock the Church is built upon. There can't be 2 cornerstones.

      Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
      1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

      Jesus is the cornerstone. The apostles and prophets make up the foundation that the church is built upon. They did this by going into all the world and preaching the Gospel (feeding the sheep), building churches, and giving up their lives. It is the same command given to all believers and when someone speaks for Christ they are Prophets. Someone with divine inspiration or revelation is just one definition of Prophet.
      You say, “humans are sinful and cannot be trusted”. In addition to Benedict IX I can give you many more such Popes.
      The Bible calls believers pillars, You Can Trust the Bible. (Revelation 3:12 )
      You have 1 Timothy 3:5 confused with 1 Timothy 3:2.
      You are right you can't be divorced and oversee the church. The RCC doesn't allow ANY marriage not even one.

      1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
      1 Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

      Do you see the difference? In verse 5 he makes it Chrystal Clear being successful with your personal family gives the necessary training to oversee the church.
      It is really quite clear.

      Catholic means Universal. The Universal church of God is made up of believers found all over the world from different denominations, including even the Catholic. It is a divine church not found on earth it an eternal Church.
      Before Jesus went to the cross the Holy Ghost was not available to man. So in John 20 he presents it to man for the first time since the fall. It was presented again in dramatic fashion in Acts 2:4 to the general populace. Every believer recieves the Holy Ghost when they become born again.

      Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

      Romans10:14-15 is not proof of anything other than all believers are commanded to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

      All believers are lead by God.

      1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

      Because the RCC has added to the bible, and looked to men for truth they have added to the word of God. Truth comes by comparing scripture with scripture. The scripture is the only spiritual authority available to us today.

      1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
      1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
      1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

      February 8, 2011 at 2:05 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Honestly, JOregon, where did you get your Bible...how do you know you have the correct holy Scripture?
      Where does it tell you in the Bible that the Bible you have is the correct one? What doc-uments and historical facts, not fables, can you point to for your proof other than a few hundred year old writings by heretics?

      Your statements tell me you do not believe the Bible...otherwise you would know that Jesus Christ is doing exactly as He promised. If you say He is not guiding, guarding , and bringing His Church into the fullness of Truth as we can bear it through His Church of which there is only ONE, then you are calling Him a liar.

      February 8, 2011 at 10:11 am |
    • JOregon

      C Mom,
      The Original Catholic foundation was made of men that were honorable, and devoted to Christ. Through time men perverted that foundation.
      Even if they weren't honorable, God can use those in power to serve his needs. To preserve his word and create the bible God can use any tool he chooses.
      When the time came to get the bible into the hands of the masses God used The Church of England which left the RCC in 1534 (maybe you followed the wrong branch) to do it.
      The RCC didn't want the masses to have a bible. It served their purpose to control what people learned.
      The King James bible became the first bible that even a common man could own for himself.
      I am afraid YOU are the one that doesn't believe in the bible. You put your faith in men that should not lead, and fables and genealogies that create questions and pervert the truth.
      You can have the last word, if you wish, on this topic. If you wish for me to respond just say so. I will check back.
      I only pray you look honestly at your church.

      February 8, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
  6. tallulah13

    By forbidding cameras, they've pretty much confirmed that close scrutiny is not welcome. Hmmm. I wonder why?

    February 4, 2011 at 1:32 am |
    • tallulah13

      Bah. I meant to say video cameras. Obviously they allow still cameras.

      February 4, 2011 at 1:32 am |
    • David Johnson

      Someone should take a sample of the "tears". If they contain DNA, what a find! We can clone Jesus...

      Cheers!

      February 4, 2011 at 7:57 am |
    • Reality

      Dave,

      Good one!!!!

      February 4, 2011 at 8:16 am |
  7. Q

    Clearly, the proper expression of omnipotence is to make a statue weep. Why is it never to miraculously provide clean water, food or vaccines to impoverished, starving, sick children?

    February 3, 2011 at 11:58 pm |
    • Wutend

      God gives us freedom of choice. If you want to help sick and starving children, you should do that without question. The US, a "formerly" christian nation, has done more for sick, starving, and impoverished children than any other nation in history. Americans give to the Red Cross and other charities when a natural disaster hits. Which government is there when anything bad happens in the world? The US. Maybe, just maybe, God is asking us to do these things for others.

      February 4, 2011 at 12:53 am |
    • Evolved DNA

      Wutend.. Or maybe, just maybe, we are all humans and care about each other. Maybe, just maybe as society evolved those people who cooperated with each other when resources were scarce survived to pass on their genes, those that did not were filtered out of the gene pool.. That is still with us today.
      If god gave us free will, does he offer that choice to the starving infant? If god has free will he is very callous.

      February 4, 2011 at 1:11 am |
    • David Johnson

      Dude! The Almighty gave us a grilled cheese sandwich with his kids likeness! What more can we expect of Him?

      February 4, 2011 at 7:42 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Q,
      It is up to us to relieve the pain and sufferings due to starvation, poor water, lack of housing, loneliness, etc. It is through our loving our neighbor that we accomplish this through charities, helping hands, and prayer. We are the hands and feet of Jesus Christ…once Baptized, it is Him who works through us for the good of the world.
      If starvation, poor water, etc. is increasing in the world instead of decreasing…we are not doing all we should.

      February 4, 2011 at 10:29 am |
    • Bob

      > God gives us freedom of choice.

      Let me show you how you are wrong.

      If God knows the future then our actions are set in stone. If they're set in stone, we're unable to make any decisions.

      If God creates us to sin, knowing that we'll sin by his own design, then how can we be punished for it. How can anyone except God be responsible.

      It's like making a knife, sharpening it and then placing it in a spot where someone will cut themselves. And then blaming the knife for it.

      It's retarded.

      February 4, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Evolved DNA,
      With your theory, we should by mere gene pool ‘filtering’ have eliminated hatred, bigotry, and greed by now!

      February 5, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • Evolved DNA

      catholic mom.
      "ith your theory, we should by mere gene pool ‘filtering’ have eliminated hatred, bigotry, and greed by now" ..no accounting for religion I'm afraid. Just look at your own church.. you" dislike strongly" other faiths.. Mormons, JWs, Islam, and i bet you believe your church and dogma is the only" real one".. Bigotry... look at your churches record with respect to gays, the way it spin its problem with pe-dophile priests . Greed.. well I notice the pope has many fine things.. I would imagine selling one gold ring would help send thousands of shots of anti malaria medicine to Africa...

      February 5, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Q

      Wutend and CM – Precisely the point. Given these claimed "miracles" serve no function beyond a trivial "public relations" stunt, it has, does and will continue to fall upon us to address suffering in this world. Why is it that, despite apparently agreeing that it is wrong not to try and alleviate suffering when it is within our power, religious faith requires this position not be properly extrapolated? The apologetics here invariably sound like a battered wife defending her abusive husband, "...it's not his fault. I know he loves me. I shouldn't have made him angry...". Clearly we shouldn't judge the behaviors of the abusive husband because he might know something about her that we don't and it really was for her own good.

      February 6, 2011 at 12:38 am |
    • Magic

      CatholicMom,

      <"It is up to us to relieve the pain and sufferings due to starvation, poor water, lack of housing, loneliness, etc."

      Yes, no "God" or mystical mumbo jumbo necessary.

      <"Evolved DNA,
      With your theory, we should by mere gene pool ‘filtering’ have eliminated hatred, bigotry, and greed by now!"

      Don't forget, aggressive warrior genes were/are passed along liberally also.

      February 6, 2011 at 3:30 am |
  8. CatholicMom

    This could be a miracle. If it were condensation it would be on all parts of the statues not just coming from the eyes. What they will do is most likely investigate it as they do other miracles.
    Here are some miracles for those who have not seen them yet.....
    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7uPLx8PM8c&w=640&h=360]

    February 3, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
    • Reality

      Or just maybe the owner is trying to increase traffic in his store by making the "eyes" out a material that stays cold longer than the rest of the statue. And again why does your god even bother with such stupid tricks when she could send angels to deliver the message? She helped Joe Smith, Mohammed, and your buddies JC and Joe so why does she limit you to a few weepy statues to express herself?

      February 3, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Reality,
      If you got the miracle you wanted...you would still be unhappy.....you really don't want miracles because then you might haave to realize how wrong you have been in your thinking.
      However, it is never to late to come to your senses!

      February 4, 2011 at 10:23 am |
    • Reality

      Mom Nature has granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, if there is a god, she is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request/miracle might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of life.

      So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping/revering cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings.

      February 4, 2011 at 11:36 am |
    • Evolved DNA

      Catholic mom... I would accept a miricle if it could be verified. weeping statues are not and science has looked at few and they either are hoaxes or there is a natural explanation for them. You are so desperate for miracles that anything goes. If an amputee grew anew leg or arm instantly that would be a miracle.. or at least could be considered the act of a skilled magician. But we will not see anything like that will we..because they do not exist. How do you know that this statue weeping is god talking to you, rather than some other supernatural being.. possibly some alien with abilities that match what you understand your god to have.?

      February 4, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • Maybe

      CatholicMom,

      "However, it is never to[o] late to come to your senses!"

      You are seemingly a very lovely, caring person, so I sort of feel like an ogre dispelling your claims. You are an incorrigible, inveterate romantic [as is often found in artistic people]. Your fantasy daydream gives you peace and happiness... kind of like Elwood P. Dowd's rabbit, Harvey. I just wish that you wouldn't proclaim that it is reality.

      February 4, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  9. tallulah13

    It kind of looks like the paint is bubbling on the statues. Maybe they repainted them, using acrylic-based over oil-based. That makes some strange distortions.

    February 3, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
  10. David Johnson

    Finally! Something I can believe in. A weeping Mary and Jesus you say? Stellar!

    February 3, 2011 at 9:10 pm |
    • Anglican

      Dave. Peace and calm my friend. Peace and calm.

      February 3, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
  11. josh

    This im sure will get investigated.
    Have you ever encountered a weeping statue and/or picture other than mary or jesus?.
    Ifyour suggesting that no-one delibrately made this happen and that it was the result of condensation then there should be cases like this all over the world and in peoples homes where condesation is everywhere. Nope happens to only happen with mary and/or Jesus. It would have to be deliberate or sabatoge. OOOPS sorry forgot science looks at these things and cant explain them either. Not to say that people dont sabatoge or try to make profits off of things like this because there is always th ehuman element. But science has always struggled to explain Mary apparations, signs, and miracles, and often explain a scenerio but can use science to prove it didnt happen. For example Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Kibeho. Her message is for catholics, evangelicals, jews, and muslims if you study the messages. Her goal is tio bring every one to Jesus her SOn. This Jewish Mother of The word is the New Ark of the covenant, The tabernacle of God and the key to world wide religious conversion to Jesus Christ her son. She has appeared in Cairo in front of muslims and christians. Listen to her message . Our Lady of Kibeho message was for the world not just rhawanda nor just Africa. She says Repent and Forgive each other else we renail her son on the cross over and over again.

    February 3, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Josh

      The supernatural does not exist. Once science explains something, it is just a natural occurrence.

      Let's let a team of scientists investigate this claim. I bet they can get those old tears dried up, in no time!

      A while back, India reported that several of the statues were drinking milk. The faithful were astounded! Mesmerized!

      Turned out to be a natural phenomenon. Nothing supernatural.

      Anytime you hear of crying or eating or bleeding statues, remember that there is no god. Jesus and Mary have both been dead for ages. There is always a natural explanation.

      Love and Prayers!

      February 3, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @josh

      You shouldn't just read information that supports your silly beliefs. There're lots of counter arguments for the so-called miracles you mentioned. I'm confident that no alledged miracle has stood up to the investigation of independent scientific review. The shroud of turin is a great example, and I'm confident that the medical review panel that helped push pope-a-dope jpii towards sainthood will turn out to be church stooges.

      February 4, 2011 at 12:27 am |
    • Mike, not me

      "The supernatural does not exist"– Explain the resurrection of Jesus
      Remember you can’t use the cop-out that the burden of proof is on believers, because the burden of proof is on non-believers to explain the growth of the church in the first century. Why years of Jewish tradition were transgress for this new theology?
      You can’t use the cop-out the body was stolen because we know that is inconsistent with 1st century Jewish and Greek belief. The followers of Jesus at the time believed that a “messiah” was better off if the soul left the body. And you can’t use we are more “enlighten” then the dark ages, for they did not believe in bodily resurrection just as us but for different reasons.
      You can’t use that it was fabricated 50 years after the fact because Paul mentions the empty tomb 5-15 years after the event, and invites people to call him out on it to the entire church body.
      3For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
      So you see there were skeptics in the first century as there are now? So what is it about the event that was able to break through years of Jewish tradition and turn the world on it’s head. What is it that they saw that we today cannot see?

      February 4, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • Bob

      > "The supernatural does not exist"– Explain the resurrection of Jesus

      The resurrection of Jesus has never proven to have occured. Sorry if a book that's obviously flawed tells you so.

      > Remember you can’t use the cop-out that the burden of proof is on believers, because the burden of proof is on non-believers to explain the growth of the church in the first century.

      By that logic, then Islam would have to be valid because it grew quickly too. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

      > Why years of Jewish tradition were transgress for this new theology?

      I don't know. There could be many reasons. Maybe people were tired of being opressed.

      > You can’t use the cop-out the body was stolen because we know that is inconsistent with 1st century Jewish and Greek belief.

      Inconsistent with a belief doesn't mean it didn't happen. Plus there's tons of other possiblities that you're not considering.

      > The followers of Jesus at the time believed that a “messiah” was better off if the soul left the body.
      So what?

      > And you can’t use we are more “enlighten” then the dark ages, for they did not believe in bodily resurrection just as us but for different reasons.

      If you don't think the average education level of individuals is higher now then in the dark ages, you're delusional.

      > You can’t use that it was fabricated 50 years after the fact because Paul mentions the empty tomb 5-15 years after the event, and invites people to call him out on it to the entire church body.

      5 years is more then enough to come up with a clever story. Hell, it's also long enough that people probably wouldn't remember all the exact details. Odd how that happens eh?

      > 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

      Dear Sir, it is with great urgency that I write to you. I am unable to get a hold of my family funds due to a war in my africian nation. If you would send me $20,000 dollars or your mastercard number, I would be able to release the funds and give you a sum of $20 million dollars. I expect your expedient reply.

      Just cause it's written doesn't mean it's true.

      > So you see there were skeptics in the first century as there are now?

      When you watch infomercials, don't you see personal testimonials from people saying how great this product is. It's like "Wow, that sham really picked up 8 gallons of water in 2 seconds!" Doesn't mean it's true. Think about it. If you wanted to get people to believe in what you said, why wouldn't you put in people being skeptical. It only strengthens your case. Well, to people who are silly that is.

      > So what is it about the event that was able to break through years of Jewish tradition and turn the world on it’s head. What is it that they saw that we today cannot see?

      Who knows? What was it about the event of Muhammad that was able to break through years of middle eastern tradition and turn the world on it's head? You will remember that Islam is only slightly behind Christianity for population, has less factions (4000 christian denominations vs. a few hundred).

      So, that means Islam A) grew faster, B) keeping closer to the original teachings.

      Doesn't that mean, by your "logic" that Islam must have something to it? And I would suppose it's your responsibility to prove me wrong, as you stated above.

      Mike, you're too easy man.

      February 4, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Mike, not me

      You said: "Explain the resurrection of Jesus"

      There is no secular evidence that Jesus ever existed, that is not disputed as being a later insertion or here say. All we have, is the Gospels. The Gospels were written to "prove" Jesus was the Messiah and son of god. They were written decades after Christ died, by unknown authors.

      Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.

      Many think Paul, not Jesus, was the "father" of most of the Christianity practiced today (Pauline Christianity) . Paul never, ever met Jesus. In fact, there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

      If Jesus ever existed, and was crucified, He was not resurrected. He died. Sorry, to be the one to tell you.

      Cheers!

      February 4, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Dave,
      You know better than that, first Jesus is in the Qur’an. Also the “disputes” are far from reliable. So if I dispute every comment you make, does that nullify your existence or validity of any statement. A simple search through historical doc-uments shows that the statement “There is no secular evidence that Jesus ever existed” to be true.

      “They were written decades after Christ died, by unknown authors.” John was not unknown and the first letters of Paul was maybe one decade after the Christ died.
      Dead Sea Scrolls
      To the great joy and surprise of many scholars, the scrolls contain definite references to the New Testament and, most importantly, to Jesus of Nazareth. In the last few years several significant scrolls were released that shed new light on the New Testament and the life of Jesus. One of the most extraordinary of these scrolls released in 1991 actually referred directly to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

      Dave please use reason, I know you have it in you. You don’t put in a doc-ument that is meant to be read in front of the entire church “Ask the witnesses”. You don’t put in Mark reference to people of the time still living. Knowing in that time travel across the meditation was safe and active.
      Imagine if CNN says so and so testifies to this? Even without the internet how quickly that would get dismiss if it never occurred?

      February 4, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Bob,
      Islam is growing but is still mostly centralized in the middle east for the most part. It has not transcended cultures like Christianity continues to do.
      You missed the point, what is the point of stealing a body to promote an idea which, one the thieves don’t believe and two the potential audience is not going to believe in or is looking for.
      >“So what?” This is the most important part of critical scholarship today. Take the writings in their context and genre
      > If you don't think the average education level of individuals is higher now then in the dark ages, you're delusional.
      Try following this again, it’s not about education level it’s about belief, the secular argument is that people of that age were not skeptical and that is just not true to think otherwise is “chronological snobbery”
      >Just cause it's written doesn't mean it's true.
      Great argument, try it in court. Or don’t pay your taxes, after all the tax law is “written”. Again you cannot use the same context and genre as a spam email. If you do then this whole blog is “not true”
      So what was quoted was read to the entire Macedonian region. And what was written was verified by people of the time.
      Again in numbers you may be correct, but Islam has not transcended like Christianity has. What tradition did Muhammad turn on it’s head? Did it not just reinforce the ones that were there
      Bob, a puzzle you never solve always looks easy to you. I bet you school was easy for you if you never do the work.

      February 4, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      BOB BTW,

      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/12418/#comment-229253

      February 4, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • Bob

      Have to break up responses due to the moron moderator filter on this crappy blog.

      > Islam is growing but is still mostly centralized in the middle east for the most part. It has not transcended cultures like Christianity continues to do.

      Geographically there is an explaination for this. North america was colonized by christians, this was not the case for Islam.

      > You missed the point, what is the point of stealing a body to promote an idea which, one the thieves don’t believe and two the potential audience is not going to believe in or is looking for.

      Just because you can't think of a motive does not mean it didn't take place. Come on, this is basic logic here.

      >“So what?” This is the most important part of critical scholarship today. Take the writings in their context and genre

      > Try following this again, it’s not about education level it’s about belief, the secular argument is that people of that age were not skeptical and that is just not true to think otherwise is “chronological snobbery”

      It's not snobbery. If a person has less education then another, then their arguments are not going to be as developed and rich as someone that does. So, just because "skeptics" if they existed were satisfied, doesn't mean we should be.

      Great argument, try it in court. Or don’t pay your taxes, after all the tax law is “written”. Again you cannot use the same context and genre as a spam email. If you do then this whole blog is “not true”

      What I wrote was: Just cause it's written doesn't mean it's true. Try reading and thinking. And by the way, doc-uments are in fact challenged and disregarded in court. Might want to research stuff before making silly claims.

      > So what was quoted was read to the entire Macedonian region. And what was written was verified by people of the time.

      If it was verified, it was verified by peasants with little to no education. Not convincing.

      > Again in numbers you may be correct, but Islam has not transcended like Christianity has. What tradition did Muhammad turn on it’s head? Did it not just reinforce the ones that were there

      So your argument about growth is baseless according to your own words. Fantastic. That's progress. I would submit that you can't compare the "penetration" of the religion as a qualtiy of validity because these two religions had different opportunites and hardships.

      > Bob, a puzzle you never solve always looks easy to you. I bet you school was easy for you if you never do the work.

      BS. I can look at a puzzle and tell that it's complex. This is inane rambling.

      February 4, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Bob

      > BOB BTW, https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/12418/#comment-229253

      Making a reply now! 🙂

      February 4, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Bob
      I agree the filter makes it hard to discuss a topic openly.

      >Geographically there is an explanation ...
      Please, explain explosive growths in China, Latin America, Africa and Russia for Christianity?

      Just because you can't think of a motive doesn't preclude, the answer of it did take place. Great as-sertion.

      What was silly about my claim and why do you not think that the OT, epistles and gospel's not challenged, again "Just cause it's written doesn't mean it's true" an a-ssertion not an argument.

      "If it was verified, it was verified by peasants with little to no education. Not convincing" which is funny circular argument because you state that everyone of that age "average education level of individuals is higher now than in the dark ages" so by your standard nothing of that age can be verified? But again you are incorrect we see from history that Christianity was embraced by Kings, high-servants of kings, roman officials and military, other people of "great influence"

      "So your argument about growth is baseless according to your own words."
      Please explain, my argument is in growth in numbers over converting over a very short time 3 years maybe? and growth over the transcending of region. You are arguing growth over population?

      What exactly qualifies this as insane?

      February 4, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • Bob

      Bob
      I agree the filter makes it hard to discuss a topic openly.

      > Please, explain explosive growths in China, Latin America, Africa and Russia for Christianity?

      North American influence. First world nations are primarily Christian.

      Just because you can't think of a motive doesn't preclude, the answer of it did take place. Great as-sertion.

      What was silly about my claim and why do you not think that the OT, epistles and gospel's not challenged, again "Just cause it's written doesn't mean it's true" an a-ssertion not an argument.

      > Which is funny circular argument because you state that everyone of that age "average education level of individuals is higher now than in the dark ages" so by your standard nothing of that age can be verified?

      It's not a circular argument. You don't know what a circular argument is. You cannot verify anything through personal subjective evaluation. Evaluate this statement "I'm somewhat leery about the president's motives." Does that mean that the president was committing crimes? Does it mean he was good at his job? Of course not. And for the people that think one way, there will be others that think differently.

      > But again you are incorrect we see from history that Christianity was embraced by Kings, high-servants of kings, roman officials and military, other people of "great influence"

      So what? You're using subjective personal opinion to somehow link that Christianity is true. it doesn't follow. Please tell me how you logically get from "high ranking people adopted it" to "therefore it must be true".

      > Please explain, my argument is in growth in numbers over converting over a very short time 3 years maybe? and growth over the transcending of region. You are arguing growth over population?

      Unless you can provide me with accruate and verifyable information about how many Christians there were afterwards, then you really don't have a leg to stand on. We therefore can only rely on the concept of 1 to man over a number of years. And if we rely on that Islam has a higher growth rate.

      > What exactly qualifies this as insane?

      The fact that you consider things that are subjective as reasonable methods for determining reality.

      February 4, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Bob,
      This has become to entangle to follow with the quoting and re-quoting.

      I will leave you with

      "tell me how you logically get from "high ranking people adopted it" to "therefore it must be true"."
      I did not go logically from here to there but to refute your statement of fallacy that "If it was verified, it was verified by peasants" which you hold to be true but when crushed you shrug and say "So What"

      And
      "Unless you can provide me with accurate and verifiable information about how many Christians there were afterwards, then you really don't have a leg to stand on. "

      I cannot, just like I cannot give you an accurate number of people protesting in Egypt, number of people in during the Spanish armada, people that joined the French Revolution, but yet we both stand on the fact that these things are and did happen.

      February 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • Bob

      > I cannot, just like I cannot give you an accurate number of people protesting in Egypt, number of people in during the Spanish armada, people that joined the French Revolution, but yet we both stand on the fact that these things are and did happen.

      That's not the statement you made. You said "the nonbeliever has to account for the explosive growth of christianity". You now say you don't know how fast the church grew and you conceded that islam grew faster. Therefore, your argument works for Islam, not Christianity.

      Are you ready to drop this silly argument yet?

      February 4, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Bob

      > I did not go logically from here to there but to refute your statement of fallacy that "If it was verified, it was verified by peasants" which you hold to be true but when crushed you shrug and say "So What"

      I meant in the mindset term. It was a poor choice of words.

      Let me state the point. The verification was taken on by people who had a very low level of education.

      February 4, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • Bob

      > This has become to entangle to follow with the quoting and re-quoting.

      More like that I've whittled your arguments down to nothing.

      You want to believe in the Christian God. Your bias allows you to place far more value into things that support your cause then those that don't. A perfect example is the "explosive growth" argument you provided. Another is when you try to defend the skeptics in the bible to confirm, in your own mind of coruse, that they were invalid then and invalid now.

      "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

      The reality is that the fool is the one who accepts any premise that hasn't been demonstrated to him.

      February 4, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Mike Not Me

      @Mike Not Me

      You said: "You know better than that, first Jesus is in the Qur’an."

      The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D.
      Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament. http://www.gci.org/CO/dsscrolls

      You said: "John was not unknown and the first letters of Paul was maybe one decade after the Christ died."

      Source: Wikipedia
      "John was reportedly illiterate, virtually precluding him from having written the gospel. The Gospel of John is an account composed by an unknown writer who may have never met Jesus. Geza Vermes sees the claim of John's authorship as falsified and not backed by any solid historical evidence. Since the author was fluent in Hellenistic philosophy, he says it could hardly have been John, described in Acts as "unschooled and ordinary."[Ac. 4:13] Scholars like Bart Ehrman view the Gospel as a largely historically unreliable written account by an author posthumous to the Apostle who was not an eyewitness to the historical Jesus. Harris argues the traditional identification of the book's author, denoted in the text as the "beloved disciple", with the apostle John is false. Scholars who disagree with the traditional view believe it likely that John was martyred around the time James was, as suggested by Mark 10:39 and Acts 12:1-2."

      Source: Wikipedia
      "The first letter to the Thessalonians was likely the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of AD 52, making it, so far as is now known, the oldest extant Christian doc_ument."

      Not 1 decade, but 5 decades. Also note that Paul NEVER met Jesus. LOL

      The gospels (Mark first) were written about 65 CE. The other gospel writers, copied heavily from Mark.

      No Primary Source (First-Person) Accounts of Jesus Exist. No eyewitness accounts. All the gospels are written in the 3rd person. Any secular mentions are forgeries, later insertions or here say.

      You quoted Grant R. Jeffrey on the Dead Sea Scrolls From his book "The Signature of God" (Or his website):
      "To the great joy and surprise of many scholars, the scrolls contain definite references to the New Testament and, most importantly, to Jesus of Nazareth. In the last few years several significant scrolls were released that shed new light on the New Testament and the life of Jesus. One of the most extraordinary of these scrolls released in 1991 actually referred directly to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ."

      Jeffrey is an idiot and a crackpot. He pulls "facts" from his... hat. LOL

      Source: The Signature of God by Grant R. Jeffrey Reviewed by Stephen Meyers, Th.D.
      "Jeffrey claims that Jesus is mentioned in the scrolls. This is not true. There are prophecies about the messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but no specific mention of Jesus. Most date before Christ was born. The "Pierced Messiah" text, 4Q285 is highly questionable (See BAR 18:4, 80-82). 4Q246 is a Messianic pseudo-Daniel fragment in Aramaic that mentions "son of God" who is extremely warlike (Eisenman & Wise 1992, 68-69). This is hardly a description of Jesus and his ministry.

      Jeffrey claims that the New Testament is quoted in the Dead Sea Scrolls. He claims there is a fragment of Mark 6:52-53 and several other New Testament verses. He refers to an article in Bible Review (December 1995), but this article is refuting his view. The best scholars who have analyzed the texts do not see any New Testament quotes in the Dead Sea Scrolls."

      Conclusion:
      There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. No eyewitness accounts. No undisputed mention of Jesus in any secular writing. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any mention of Jesus.

      If God existed, and Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, don't you think this fact would be more obvious?

      Cheers!

      February 4, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Mike Not Me

      Notes on Jeffrey:

      Source: Wikipedia
      In 1982, Jeffrey earned a Chartered Life Underwriter Certification from the University of Toronto's Extension Program. He later received his Master's Degree and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Louisiana Baptist University. The university holds no secular academic accreditations, though the school has a number of accreditations from groups which accredit Christian schools.

      This is just another guy writing books and getting rich off the Evangelicals. He has no real credentials, just like Kent E. Hovind.

      Like, the left behind guys, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, Jeffrey makes a ton of money telling the fundies what they want to hear.

      Cheers!

      February 4, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Dave
      Qur’an not Qumran.

      You really have to come stronger then Wikipedia as your scholar source. Even that says Ehrman's a scholor but no mention of his lack in studies in NT studies.

      1 Corinthians was written by 55 or 56. This is less than a quarter century after the crucifixion around ~30-33. 25 years not 1 decade not 5 decades.

      Galatians around 45-50.

      How much more obivous do you want it, the event the reshaped the roman empire and the entire region.

      February 4, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • Mike, not me

      Bob, let me restate so there is no confusion and you can't be accused of taking the conversation out of context.
      You stated Islam is growing at a fast pace and going to surpa-ss Christianity. You then ask me to get you exact numbers. Which you know I can not give.
      Never remember conceding the Islam grew at a faster pace, just that it is growing large. But I will state again that Christianity transcendent the region from Judea to Spain and then to other countries with mass conversions
      while all other religion Islam, Buddhism and such have not and manly stayed centralize in their origins.
      But to debate the explosive growth of Christianity in the first century and pass it off as an argument and not recognized it as historical fact recognized by any historian.... I just didn't see you going there. Please if I am wrong find me a source that states otherwise.
      All I can tell you is thousands by the day, that this new thing Christianity exploded from Judea to Spain that all historians agree on this. That is what the non-believer has to wrestle with.
      That now two-thousand years later Islam may pa-ss Christianity by pure population growth over conversions based on a change in belief is not a comparison.
      --–
      The reality is that the fool is the one who accepts any premise that hasn't been demonstrated to him.
      Again like 90% of all historical events you were not present at?
      ---
      You wore me out Bob, I would ask one last thing of you to put the same "so what" bias and scrutiny on every other historical doc-ument that you put on the Bible. And even your own beliefs and see if they hold up to such arguments as well as the Bible.

      February 4, 2011 at 8:08 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Re: explaining the resurrection of jc – that's easy – it didn't actually happen. It's called fiction folks, and bad fiction at that!

      February 5, 2011 at 1:21 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Mike, not me

      Paul NEVER met Jesus. Twenty-five years is more than enough time, especially in a superst_itious Bronze Age society, for the Jesus myth to grow. And remember, Paul is the father of what most Christians believe – Pauline Christianity.

      So, what Paul says, is heresay or as some think, Paul's words not Jesus's.

      There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. The Gospels were written by god knows who in the third person. The Gospels were written with an agenda i.e., Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.

      We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
      -Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

      The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
      -Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

      Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
      -C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

      There are no known secular writings about Jesus, that aren't forgeries, later insertions, or heresay. NONE!
      Most of the disputed writings came from people who lived AFTER Jesus was dead. Can you say heresay?

      We don't even have a wooden shelf that Jesus might have built. Or anything written by Jesus (He was probably illiterate).

      The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention Jesus or have any New Testament scripture.

      Jesus, if he existed, was not considered important enough to write about by any contemporary person. The myth hadn't had a chance to flourish.

      Questions on the Crucifixion story:

      "Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save." Mark 15:31

      "Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe..." Mark 15:32

      It would appear, that the chief priests are admitting that Jesus "saved" others. If they know this, then there is no reason for them to demand that Jesus descend from the cross, in order for them to believe. They already admitted to knowing of Jesus's "miracles".

      I'm sure you will apply Evangelical gymnastics to these verses, but taken literally it would seem that this is just an embellishment by Mark. A work of fiction.

      Here is some more:

      According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."

      Yet not a single mention of a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone. 'Cause it didn't happen!

      Mathew 27 51:53
      51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

      How come nobody wrote about zombies running through the cities? 'Cause it is all b.s.

      You said: "How much more obivous do you want it, the event the reshaped the roman empire and the entire region."

      Are you arguing the existence of Christ, or that Christianity had great influence on the Roman Empire?

      The fact that Christianity did have great influence (mostly because of Constantine), does not mean Jesus ever existed. It just means people bought into the myth. At one time, everyone thought you could fall off the end of the earth. Didn't make it so.

      If Jesus was the Messiah, why wouldn't god/Jesus have left tons of evidence? Multiple Writings by contemporary eyewitnesses – Jews and Romans.

      There are thousands of different denominations of Christianity. Why couldn't an all knowing, all powerful, all good god "inspire" a bible that no one could misinterpret? Why are there multiple religions, with their own god(s)?

      Does God strongly desire that everyone, or almost everyone, believe that he exists?

      Cheers!

      February 5, 2011 at 11:58 am |
  12. Saphire

    DON'T MAKE FUN OF GOD ! SHE IS WATCHING YOU!!

    February 3, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  13. Reality

    The bottom fell out of using "visionary" and brainwashed children, so parish priests and business owners are turning to weeping statues!!! Hmmm, "me wonders" if said statues (the Jesus' statue is also "weeping") are placed outside everynight, the humidifier is turned up and the statues brought inside and "bingo" tears.

    February 3, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  14. Bob

    > Reports of weeping Mary statue in Ohio draws visitors

    Reports of weeping Mary statue in Ohio draws suckers.

    Fixed it for you CNN.

    February 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
  15. Brian of Ohio

    It's called CONDENSATION you fools. A physical property known well to all people. Oh my God....I have tears too. It's a miracle. Oh wait. I'm not a statue, and thank God I'm not Catholic. I can feel safe eating bread with melted cheese.......

    February 3, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Johny

      haha thats actually really funny. Ya I'm from the Toledo/Metamora area and we have the exact same BS goin on here, God for bid common sense be reintroduced unto our community.

      February 3, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • Fysh

      Well, I understand why you would say that, but I did not know that condensation was of oil that smelled of roses; or human blood.. How would you explain that?

      April 3, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
  16. MicheleG

    Here we go again........

    February 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.