Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL I just realized you and I are the only 2 discussing this. Kind of odd no Christians have taken part. I know I am not a Christian. I am under the assumption you are not a Christian, if I am wrong please accept my apology.
I can only give my own opinions and quote what others have said.
My own personal opinion is the Crown was not on the original. That was an after thought by Artists at different times. It does seem that at various times artists have added a crown on the original and others have removed it.
I really doubt the original still exists. This reminds me of a Tomahawk I heard about.
"A new England Family has a genuine Indian tomahawk that has been in the same family for over 300 years. It is in pristine shape. It has only had a few minor repairs, the head was replaced twice and the handle was replaced 3 times, but outside of that it is in original condition"
LOL I just realized you and I are the only 2 discussing this. Kind of odd no Christians have taken part. I know I am not a Christian. I am under the assumption you are not a Christian, if I am wrong please accept my apology.
I can only give my own opinions and quote what others have said.
My own personal opinion is the Crown was not on the original. That was an after thought by Artists at different times. It does seem that at various times artists have added a crown on the original and others have removed it.
I really doubt the original still exists. This reminds me of a Tomahawk I heard about.
"A new England Family has a genuine Indian tomahawk that has been in the same family for over 300 years. It is in pristine shape. It has only had a few minor repairs, the head was replaced twice and the handle was replaced 3 times, but outside of that it is in original condition"
RESPONSE:
>>My own personal opinion is the Crown was not on the original.<<
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but clearly it is not supported by the evidence. "I'll defend to the death you right to be wrong"
THhre must be some Catholic interest because I ran a similar thread a number of years ago on the Catholic Discussion Forum of Beliefnet and had 4780 hits. A more recent post had 1184.
Perhaps most readers accept the evidence I presented!
Incidently, I am Catholic but not gullible.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 10-21-2013 at 02:33 PM..
Reason: typo
This is the most recent attestation regarding the date prior to the Guadalupe crown's loss that I can find,
catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Portr...
The Image of Our Lady of Guadelupe
by Emmanuel Amor, 1885
"Our Lady of Guadalupe wears a gold crown, while a glorious halo of golden rays surround her from head to foot."
And this is the oldest:"The Codex Seville, called the "oldest book in America" is an Indian calendar in picture writing that was begun around 1407 and ends around 1540. It is reproduced to size in an overleaf of the Historical Records and Studies, Volume XIX, September, 1929, of the United States Catholic Historical Society. It is about three and a half feet long, with small paintings illustrating important events. Reading from the bottom up, just above the symbol for 1532, is a tiny figure of Our Lady of Guadalupe about an inch high. The codex was probably kept up to date year after year by Indian scribes and the tiny figure of Our Lady was entered in 1531, the year of the apparition. Demarest and Taylor describe it in The Dark Virgin:
"Under magnification, the tiny figure of the Virgin is startlingly similar to that of the Holy Portrait. The position in which she stands, her manner of dress, the way she holds her hands in prayer are the same; the colors are the same in tone, and figure is surrounded by clouds bordering the rays of the sun, indicated by thin streaks of yellow. When one considers that this miniature is painted on a very rough, thin, fibrous paper, it is astonishing that the likeness is so closely achieved. ... It is obviously intended as a figure of the Virgin ... as above her head there is a great crown, and there are the clouds and sunrays."
>>My own personal opinion is the Crown was not on the original.<<
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but clearly it is not supported by the evidence. "I'll defend to the death you right to be wrong"
THhre must be some Catholic interest because I ran a similar thread a number of years ago on the Catholic Discussion Forum of Beliefnet and had 4780 hits. A more recent post had 1184.
Perhaps most readers accept the evidence I presented!
Incidently, I am Catholic but not gullible.
I will remember in the future. For some reason I was thinking you were either agnostic or Atheist. I apologise for my error.
I am glad to see a Catholic input here.
I was Catholic until the age of 25. Oddly I had never heard of the tilma until the first time I visited Mexico. I appreciate you respect my right to be wrong. I have no issue with you not agreeing with my opinion. If we agreed about everything, life would be dull.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
