How do atheists explain the miraculous healing of saint Bernard?
>>18522368
This is obviously some antichrist "artist" bullshit.
>>18522459Alonso Cano was a christian.
>>18522368>How do deniers explain things they deny?They don't, they deny them./thread
>>18522368"For the reported healings involving Bernard of Clairvaux, the evidence is mainly historical testimony, not the kind of evidence that would satisfy modern scientific standards.What exists:Accounts written by Bernard's contemporaries and early biographers, such as William of Saint-Thierry and Geoffrey of Auxerre.Testimonies collected during Bernard's canonization process after his death.Medieval records describing people who claimed to have been healed through his prayers.What does not exist:Medical records.Independent scientific verification.Physical evidence that can be examined today.Multiple independent eyewitness accounts preserved in their original form for many of the reported miracles.The specific story of the Virgin Mary's milk healing Bernard is generally viewed by historians as a devotional legend or symbolic religious tradition rather than an event that can be historically verified.So, from a historical perspective, the evidence is that people in the 12th century recorded and believed these healings occurred. Whether the healings were miraculous is a matter of religious belief; there is no conclusive historical or scientific proof that they happened as described."
>>18522368This is a clear example of worshiping the jewish race, a heresy that unfortunately has begun seeping its way into most modern forms of christianity.
>>18522368>>18522789As for the testimony that exists, he simply pretended to be ill and then pretended to be healed. Oldest trick in the book. Jesus and his gang pulled that trick several times.
