DNA Proves Lanciano and other "blood miracles"


#1

Hi Everyone,
The following site below documents DNA proof, linking “blood miracles” (such as Lanciano) within the Catholic Church. Using the retorical “if” (not “the doubting if?”), I speculate that in addition to linking geographically diverse tested blood miracles to the same blood type and the “perfect” nature of the common DNA, it strongly suggests that Mary’s DNA had to be perfect (and therfore different from the rest of us humans). This factual evidence strongly suggests that her conception was indeed “Immaculate”, as the church teaches, otherwise the DNA, by which Our Lord “took on his human flesh” would be indicated in the findings. Either Mary’s womb hosted a fleshly unrelated clone, or the flesh Our Lord took on was indeed from an Immaculatly Concieved human. I believed the church in Faith before this finding and it only reinforces my belief.

spiritdaily.org/Sign_Wonders/bolognastudy.htm

Cheers-Bill Bronson


#2

I would love to hear that the analysis is true (and I would like to see a similar analysis on other Eucharistic miracles) but one detail bothers me.

It says that blood from the tears of Mary’s icon are identical. Should that blood not be slightly different ??? - as with Mother and Son not all genes are identical, and Mary’s blood unlike Jesus blood should have some remnant in the gene bank. (unless all of Mary’s distant remote relatives are no longer alive.)


#3

Dear W.C. Knight,
Aside from what the laboratory in Bolonga Spain reports as factual, I have my own conjecture. The lab describes their common findings as a flawless DNA, with no preceeding parent or offspring DNA anywhere in the world DNA records (goodbye DaVinci Code).

Since Our Blessed Mother is The Spouse of The Holy Spirit and The Flesh of her egg is That Human Flesh, which God chose, it would be fair to reason that the belief in her Immaculate Conception also proved by this finding.

If the church is right in telling us that Mary was concieved without Origonal Sin (and we believe in Faith that it is), then she would have the same Perfect DNA that Adam and Eve were endowed with prior to The Fall. Protester say that; “God does not create Perfect People” and I respond that Adam and Eve were created by God as perfect (and they screwed it up with their “proclivity for choice”). Enoch and one other Old Testament person were both “carried up to heaven” in their Flesh, which points to the possiblity that God did create them pure also. If Mary was perfect in her Immaculate Conception, the “umblemished (by origonal sin) flesh of her egg” would have provided this Perfect DNA for the union of God and his creation on earth. Therefore, in my own notions, I see not only no obstacle to Christ’s human perfection, but also see that his Flesh, which came from Our Blessed Mother was also “made perfect” by God, to prepare Mary, The Ark of The New Covenant to be The Christbearer and First Christian.

Christ is fully Man and fully God, therefore is not “just human”, (but infinately more). Mary on the other hand, was concieved without the stain of sin and is therefore “on par with Adam and Eve before The Fall”. Eve said no to God and Mary said yes to God. Therefore, of all “purely human beings” upon the earth, she is the most important purely human being in all of time. If I can pray for you and you can pray for me, then how much more effective are prayers on our behalf from The Saints in Heaven? St. Paul tells us in The Holy Bible that; “the saints in heaven are cheering us on as we run the good race”. These Living in Christ are praying to The Living Christ to help us on our pilgrimage down here, which is more effective than me asking you for your prayers. Since The Saints are from our sinful blood and yet their prayers are helpful, how much more the prayers of the most perfect “human being” who walked our good earth. I therefore think that this DNA stuff “strongly points a finger” towards the probability of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (which I have taken on Faith, decades before I heard this DNA discovery).

While you and I on earth have long ago taken this Mary stuff “on Faith”, a miracle is simply “icing on the cake”. For “Protesters”, no miracle will do the trick. It did not when Christ walked the earth and it will not change protesting minds in our own era. Nonetheless, I take miracles if they come my way, but do not need them to believe. I hope this helps.

Bill Bronson


#4

Uh… I read a lot of literature in molecular biology, and I have no idea what “flawless DNA” is. What is the difference between “flawless DNA” and “ordinary” DNA?


#5

I think the distinction is that ordinary DNA carries mutations of various forms, while flawless DNA does not.


#6

How could I tell if a DNA sample is “flawless” with only the knowledge of the nucleotide sequences.


#7

I have no clue. I know precious little about anything biological, especially molecular biology, but i’m just making a guess, based on the hypothesis that human DNA was at one time free of birth defects and such, and now it’s not. I will ask a friend of mine who knows much more than me, and if the question hasn’t been resolved, get back to you.


#8

Its not only a case that Mary is Immaculate but a stong case of proof against the flimsey and offensive theories put forth in Da Vinci code about offspring of Jesus.

Really fascinating! Thanks for telling us!


#9

That hypothesis not supported by any evidence. It is unambiguous that the lineages of humans and chimpanzees diverged about 6-8 million years ago.

We also inherited a disrupted gene in the pathway for l-ascorbic acid synthesis from our primate ancestors. See:
talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ . I do not consider that perfect in any sense.


#10

I am quite prepared to concede the possibility that various “blood miracles” reported from time to time are genuine.

the article cited does not however offer any proof of that, other than that blood submitted on two hankies submitted by the person who allegedly witnessed bleeding icons contains matching DNA. Number one there is no independent scientific confirmation of the test so it is useless as proof. Proof in this sense would be in the forensic sense.

there is no record of independent scientific sampling of the blood allegedly emitted by the icons, so at this point no verifiable statement based on disinterested scientifc testing is possible.

even if it were possible to prove that the blood shed by the icons is indeed human, and that it does indeed come from the image on the icons–and no other source (which is where my skepticism meter starts clanging) there is absolutely know way that would convince any scientist to prove that such blood is identical to that of Jesus and/or Mary, since we have nothing with which to compare those samples. Even a match with blood on the Shroud would not be proof, since no matter how strongly one wishes to believe the provenance of the Shroud, there is still no scientific way to prove its origin.


#11

This is all very fascinating, and I am general not so much of a skeptic, but it seems peculiar to me that an image of Mary would be weeping tears of Jesus’ blood and not her own. The report says that the blood contains male, not female, DNA.


#12

How was it proven unambigously?


#13

I think the statue of Mary was weeping tears of blood because Jesus is her only Son. She wants us to follow him. I think it was a gift by Christ for those woh rely on His mother’s intercession and to lead more people to rely on His mother’s intercession.


#14

The title of this thread is misleading. The article specifically says that no DNA tests have been performed on the Lanciano. It simply says that the blood type, AB, matches the alleged blood type of the Lanciano case.


#15

I wouldn’t get caught up on the term “flawless DNA”… that’s not in any of the links…

But this looks like a very interesting book on this subject…
ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0385488505.01.BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ.jpg


#16

My theory is this is because Mary never shed her blood. She was conceived without original sin because she was washed in the Blood of Jesus at her conception, and so I would say that it would be proper for her to cry Jesus’s blood.
(admittedly tho, I would have expected the blood to be hers;))


#17

I read this book a number of years ago. I can’t honestly remember most of it, but I seem to recall that there was nothing conclusive in the book.


#18

That is like saying that health is proof of holiness, & illness of sinfulness.

If the church is right in telling us that Mary was concieved without Origonal Sin (and we believe in Faith that it is), then she would have the same Perfect DNA that Adam and Eve were endowed with prior to The Fall. Protester say that; “God does not create Perfect People” and I respond that Adam and Eve were created by God as perfect (and they screwed it up with their “proclivity for choice”).

That was before they fell. As for Enoch & Elijah, those are not real events. What is needed is some examples of absolutely perfect people, who really existed, in a fallen world.

Enoch and one other Old Testament person were both “carried up to heaven” in their Flesh, which points to the possiblity that God did create them pure also. If Mary was perfect in her Immaculate Conception, the “umblemished (by origonal sin) flesh of her egg” would have provided this Perfect DNA for the union of God and his creation on earth.

Union with God is by His grace - not by an act of sexual intercourse. Only the latter needs biological perfection.

Therefore, in my own notions, I see not only no obstacle to Christ’s human perfection, but also see that his Flesh, which came from Our Blessed Mother was also “made perfect” by God, to prepare Mary, The Ark of The New Covenant to be The Christbearer and First Christian.

Christ is fully Man and fully God, therefore is not “just human”, (but infinately more). Mary on the other hand, was concieved without the stain of sin and is therefore “on par with Adam and Eve before The Fall”. Eve said no to God and Mary said yes to God. Therefore, of all “purely human beings” upon the earth, she is the most important purely human being in all of time. If I can pray for you and you can pray for me, then how much more effective are prayers on our behalf from The Saints in Heaven? St. Paul tells us in The Holy Bible that; “the saints in heaven are cheering us on as we run the good race”. These Living in Christ are praying to The Living Christ to help us on our pilgrimage down here, which is more effective than me asking you for your prayers.

This notion that the prayers of the Blessed in Heaven are* ipso facto* “more effective” than ours, is often stated, but no one ever tries to show that it is sound. All Christians - all creatures - are in God’s Presence at all times; even though we may not realise it. The Blessed pray for us; but that says nothing of any “inferiority” of our prayers; the two are not logically connected

Since The Saints are from our sinful blood and yet their prayers are helpful, how much more the prayers of the most perfect “human being” who walked our good earth.

…continue…]


#19

Blood is not sinful - & their prayers would be nothing if they were not the Prayer of Christ. Unless they have some source of grace within themselves - but that would make their salvation by God needless: why bother to save those who need no salvation ? But to have grace from oneself, is to need no salvation - it is to be God.

I therefore think that this DNA stuff “strongly points a finger” towards the probability of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (which I have taken on Faith, decades before I heard this DNA discovery).

Union with God is founded on grace, not biology - as for the prayers of the saints, they have no source of efficacy at all except the grace of Christ. Had Mary been a prostitute, her prayers would be of no less efficacy now: because the Life of the saints, in earth & heaven, is that same Christ. But as for biology - the NT is largely a protest against the notion that biology as such has any relevance to God’s favour. ## [FONT=Arial]

While you and I on earth have long ago taken this Mary stuff “on Faith”, a miracle is simply “icing on the cake”. For “Protesters”, no miracle will do the trick.

[FONT=Georgia]If that is aimed at Protestants - maybe they not convinced by miracles as such. If so, they are quite right not to be. ##[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]It did not when Christ walked the earth and it will not change protesting minds in our own era. Nonetheless, I take miracles if they come my way, but do not need them to believe. I hope this helps.
Bill Bronson[/FONT]

If Mary was so perfect that even her DNA - assuming, what there is no reason to think, let alone believe true in the first place - was affected: this line of reasoning makes her far too perfect; it exempts her entirely from the imperfections of the world of which she was a part.

If Jesus was not spared any of the consequences of the sinfulness of the world - why should she be ? We’re not - so neither was He. We are plunged in corruption - and so, for sakes, was He. To exempt His mother from being affected by the crappiness of the world, is to say she is too perfect to be really human. Which is either to deify her, or to turn her into a sort of incarnate Platonic Form, or to say she is sub-human; none of these are Christian. The servant is not greater than his Master - & neither is His handmaiden.

IOW, it seems we have a Chalcedonian Christ, but an Apollinarian Mary. Apolllinaris was so concerned to insist on the Godhead of Christ, that he ended by sacrificing His True Humanity to it: which is what has happened to Mary here.

Besides, miracles are of no importance - not unless they have an ethical purpose. Without that, they are mere “wonders” - & those are anything but characteristic of Christianity: antiquity is stuffed with wonder-workers.

As for taking things on faith - if we could prove what we believe, by specifically scientific means, faith would be needless. More than that - it would be destroyed. But science is no more capable of proving those things which are known by only by faith than one can use a thermometer to test whether a book is worth reading - people capable of doing that, would show only that they no idea of the right use of a thermometer, or of how to criticise books.

(BTW, being a Catholic does not oblige anyone to fall for every cock-and-bull story in which the word “miracle” occurs. Miracles are nothing, even if they metaphysically miraculous - a single real virtue in a man is worth ten thousand of them.) ##


#20

Blood type is not a DNA mapping. Why not try DNA mapping on the shroud and on all the Eucharistic miracles? :confused:

Despite the lack of a visible human form, numerous Eucharistic miracles have confirmed the fact that Jesus is truly present in human flesh. When the costume (figuratively speaking) has been removed, what typically has been seen is heart flesh with an O blood type. For the belief that the Consecrated Bread was truly Jesus’ Body, the early Church chose to suffer accusations of cannibalism and other calumny, persecution, and even torture and death. Their blood has witnessed that it is Christ’s Flesh we partake of when we celebrate the Mass.

gospa.org/pl/pages/articles/announcements.html?ra=1;id=301


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.