The Guadalupan Myth

Versión en español: https://khristosanesti.blogspot.com/2020/12/el-mito-guadalupano.html

Although the "Virgin" of Guadalupe is best known as the patron saint of the Americas, the story of her "miraculous" appearance in Tepeyac, Mexico has its roots in the province of Extremadura, Spain. It was here that a Spaniard named Gil Cordero discovered a small Islamic image resembling the Virgin Mary on the bank of the Guadalupe River sometime in the mid-13th century. The wooden image had dark brown skin and was on top of a crescent moon, a symbol of Islam. In fact, the very name of the river "Guadalupe" had an Islamic influence, since it is derived from the Arabic word "guadale" which means "river," and "Lupo", which is Latin for Wolf. Both the image and the name of the river were the remains of the Moorish occupation of Spain. The discovery of the carved image was seen as a great sign from God, and in 1338, King Alfonso XI ordered a temple to be built on the spot where it was found. The image became known as "Our Lady of Guadalupe," and the temple was built in her honor. In order to help spread the veneration of "Our Lady," artists began painting replicas of the carving and they earned their money by selling copies of it.
In February 1495, Christopher Columbus started the transatlantic slave trade by sending 550 Native Tainos from the newly discovered American continent out of Spain. And since these strange and wild people were of the same complexion as the image of Our Lady, the King and Queen of Spain declared the Virgin "Protector of the Indians." In 1496, the native slaves were brought to the temple and baptized in honor of the Virgen del Río Lobo. The discovery of the Virgin was seen as proof that the expulsion of the Moors had been the will of the gods, and her temple quickly developed a loyal following. Among his devotees was a soldier named Hernán Cortes. Cortés was fanatically devoted to the worship of the Virgin, and carried an image of her on his flag, taking it with him wherever he went. In 1519, Cortés invaded Ana Wak, bringing the image of La Virgen with him to the New World. The Italian historian Lorenzo Boturini described the flag as follows: "A beautiful image of the Virgin Mary was painted on it. She wore a gold crown and was surrounded by 12 gold stars. She had her hands folded in prayer, asking his son to protect and give strength to the Spanish so they could conquer and Christianize the pagans." It was the flag of Cortés that served as the "official" flag of the Spanish until the first Spaniards began to arrive. How Cortés and his men carried out constructions in the Indigenous places of study, of papist churches on their ruins.

In 1520, the Spanish destroyed the Tonantzin temple in Tepeyac and in its place planted another temple glorifying the Virgin of Guadalupe - A reproduction of Cortés' banner was created and hung inside. The Spanish thought that they could easily replace the symbol of the earth (Tonantzin Koatlikwe) with the Mother of God.

On August 13, 1521 Mexico-Tenochtitlan fell to the invading forces. The genocide that followed was carried out under the pretext of religious conversion. The ancestors were given two choices: they could accept the new religion of the Spanish or face a death that went unnoticed for nearly a century, but when Father Sanchez's book came out, the story of the "miracle" spread rapidly and grew embedded. in the consciousness of Mexicans. The Church in Tepeyacac ​​would not be poor again. As the years passed, the Marcos Zipactli painting became badly deteriorated by mold and exposure to the elements. In 1751, Archbishop Rubio commissioned the famous painter Miguel Cabrera, a fanatical Catholic, to touch up the painting. In order to consolidate the idea that the image was a miracle, Cabrera published a book in 1756 entitled "American Marvel." But not everyone was convinced of Cabrera's lofty claims, and in 1787, José Ignacio Bartolache took it upon himself to examine the "miracle" of the image. Aided by a group of specialized painters, Bartolache discovered that the image had been "much retouched and covered in spots and that in some places it is crumbling due to the effect of fungus and humidity." In addition to this, the group came to the conclusion that the divine image was:

1. The work of more than one artist.

2. It was not made in maguey cloth, but in a blanket of fine palm

3. Glued to a wooden frame 4. Badly deteriorated

Bartolache was not the only one who doubted the divine origin of the image. In 1883, Joaquín García Icazbalceta was directed by Archbishop Labastida to investigate the matter. After an intense and meticulous examination of the tilma, Icazbalceta admitted that the image was actually a fraud. In his report to the Archbishop, Icazbalceta stated that "With all my heart, I hoped that this miracle which would prove to be a great honor for my country would turn out to be true, but it does not seem to me that it is. If we are forced to believe and proclaim the miracles that have occurred, we are also prohibited from publishing their falsehood." By the way, after Izcalbacet died, the Roman Church had a Jesuit historian write a book to refute what Izcalbacet had written. The result was the "Historical Album of the Virgin of Guadalupe", which had 25 worthless, unprovable and lengthy already discredited "proofs" of apparitions of the Virgin. Among the "evidence" presented in the album were different stories describing the event, and dates that do not match the events described. In 1895 the tilma was deteriorated beyond repair and Father Antonio Plancarte ordered it replaced with a new one. In Plancarte's statement can be read in the December 3, 1895 issue of El Universal. However, when the new image was put into place, the priests made a startling discovery - the artists had completely omitted the crown that rested on the head of "The Virgin"! In an attempt to cover up this mistake, the church declared that the crown had miraculously disappeared, and those faithful to the image actually believed it.


This total the sordid event was recorded in great detail in the book "Echoes of Oblivion", which was published in 1900 by Bishop Sánchez Camacho. In 1928 the new, crownless version of the image was examined by the great painter and Mexicanist Dr. Atl . Dr. Atl concluded that the image was definitely not made of maguey fiber as claimed, and went on to add that "The painting of Guadalupe is a parody of her image that is in Fuenterrabla Spain, which in turn is a parody of Byzantine images of decadence. The Virgin of Guadalupe is a purely decorative work, executed by a person with mediocre images." Despite all the historical documentation (not to mention common sense) that clearly illustrates how the Guadalupe hoax was removed, millions of devout Mexicans still pray to her image and dedicate themselves to her cult. But what possible evidence do they have that the image of the Virgin is authentic?


Well, the most often cited "evidence" of the Virgin's apparition is referred to as the "Valeriano Relation", or the Nikan Mopohua as it is often called. This document, supposedly written in Nahuatl by Antonio Valeriano in the mid-1500s, should serve as an official confirmation of the miracle at Tepeyacac. But let's take a look at the claims made by this piece of "evidence."

In the first place, the Nikan Mopohua begins by stating that Juan Diego was going to the parish in Tlatelolco to receive the sacraments and find a priest to confess his sick uncle before he died. It should be noted that sacraments, such as confession and communion, were not granted to indigenous people until the 1540s - since Mexicans were not thought to be human and possibly did not have souls. Not only that, but Tlatelolco did not have a parish until 1572! In fact, not even Father Sahagún's "Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España", which was written starting from Tatelolco, makes any mention of the virgin apparitions! There is not a single written document available from 1531 to 1648 that has a single record of Juan Diego or the supposed miracle! Spaniards such as Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Diego de Durán, Bernardino de Sahagún, Bartolomé de las Casas, Hernán Cortés, and even Zumárraga himself never mention the apparition at Tepeyacac.



This sounds strange considering how important the apparition would have been to the Catholic invaders. Another error in the Nican Nican worth mentioning is that the document reports events that occurred long after Antonio Valeriano died in 1605. This makes it impossible for Valeriano to have written the things for which he has been credited. And if this wasn't bad enough, the original Nican Mapohua document has never been shown to have existed at all. The only "evidence" of the existing original documents is a supposed copy of the manuscript published in 1649 by Luis Lasso de la Vega. But this copy, the "Huey Tlanahuikoltika," is nothing less than a Nauatl translation of the book written by Father Miguel Sánchez in 1648 - another bona fide fraud! But despite the painfully obvious truth, "La Virgen de Guadalupe" remains one of the most recognizable and revered symbols of Mexico. Literally millions of our people converge on the Tepeyacac ​​Basilica to waste their time, energy, money and resources in the hope that "La Virgen" will grant them eternal peace. But not all Mexicans are quick to bow down to the false image, and even some high-ranking Catholic officials are questioning the divine origin of the tilma. In 1996, William Schulenberg was overthrown by the Vatican after serving as Abott of the Basilica for 33 years. Schulenberg believes that the creation of the myth of The Virgin was justified, since it won an entire nation for the Catholic religion. His real crime, however, was doubting the existence of Juan Diego, and knowing the truth behind "The Virgin."

Bibliography: Trial of Spain - Xokonoschtlet The Guadalupan Myth - Rius Nikan Mopohua Echoes of Olvido - Bishop Sánchez Camacho American Marvel - Miguel Cabrera – Original titled “The Myth of La Virgen de Guadalupe” – Translated for www.historiaYverdad.org – Guatemala, December 2010

The Virgin of Guadalupe is as divine as a Daffy Duck postcard stuck to a lunch box. This image, which has millions of people plunged into idolatry, is not immune to criticism, since the so-called "Guadalupan believers" are not very reserved when imposing their vision of the world on others. It is true that having criteria in a world of religion is difficult, except when the religious are largely tolerant, although I do not intend to offend anyone, I will show verifiable facts that are proof by themselves of the inconsistencies of the Guadalupano miracle. But let's cut the roll and show the tests: Test 1: The Virgin of Guadalupe was not called Guadalupe As we saw in the article: Virgin of Guadalupe: Two images that definitively deny "The Miracle", the Mexican Virgin of Guadalupe is actually a copy of the Virgen del Coro de Extremadura, part of the Spanish cult of the "Virgin of Guadalupe de Cáceres" in Extremadura, where we can see the statue on which the painting is based, much earlier than 1531.



The Virgin of Extremadura, which is usually represented as a "brown virgin", has its origins at the end of the Islamic invasion of Spain in the 7th century. This is the statue supposedly found in the 7th century:




The typical story of the appearance and the request for the construction of a church that allowed the expansion of the church's properties for two millennia, whose basic function was the sale of documents related to the forgiveness of sins, alms and other economic benefits that highly percentage filled the coffers of the Vatican.

The main goal of the appearances of the Virgin Mary throughout time was to replace the gods of conquered civilizations, the same premise pursued by the saints whose role has been to replace the polytheistic cult. The very origin of the Virgin Mary appears to replace the worship of the goddess Isis that spread throughout the Mediterranean and Anatolia, reaching Rome with force.

Story
It is supposed that it was donated by Pope Gregory I the Great, who was then Bishop of Seville, the figure was hidden at the beginning of the "Moorish" invasion of Spain in 711, being lost for hundreds of years and then being rescued by a humble shepherd who acted under “heavenly influence” in 1326, found near the Guadalupe River in the Spanish province of Cáceres.

Meaning of Guadalupe
The figure is a representation of the Virgin Mary, named Guadalupe in reference not to the name, but to the region where she was found, in this case, the banks of the Guadalupe River, whose name means Hidden River in Arabic.

Brown Skin
The brown skin of the virgin is apparently due to discoloration of the wood due to humidity or simply due to the coating on the wood that has discolored to a dark color over time. All I want is a chapel The shepherd named Gil Cordero related that while he was looking for a lost cow, a radiant Lady emerged from the bushes. After indicating the place to dig to unearth the treasure, she asked that a chapel be built for her... how original.

Exhibit 2: Christopher Columbus
On his second trip to what would later be defined as "The Americas", let us remember that the discovery was attributed to a fraudster named Américo Vespucio, in 1493, on November 14, the island that Columbus would name "Guadalupe" would be discovered, the name is in honor of the Virgin of Extremadura.
It is said that Christopher Columbus prayed in the sanctuary of Guadalupe before carrying out his historic expedition, and upon discovering Karukera Island on November 4, 1493, he changed the name to Guadalupe in honor of the patron saint of Cáceres. Since 1635, the Island of Guadalupe has been a French colony. As we can see, the concept of Guadalupe was already around even before arriving in Mexico, if such a virgin were a divine fact, why then, would she appear as in the European traditions and not in the indigenous ones or those typical of Israel of the 1st century?

Exhibit 3: The missing crown of the Virgin of Guadalupe; The priest Hidalgo and his banner This is the current conception of the Virgin of Guadalupe of Mexico, note that it is an artistic representation of the current one, which shows the vision of the people in our country, not the "divine" painting that has a rarity, technically speaking:

As you can see in the image above, the head of the Virgin of Guadalupe is covered by her cape and the top of her head is surrounded by rays. In the lower image, the upper segment of the painting, supposedly divine, until before 1980 is hidden by the frame that currently shows a great retouching, the tilma is supposed to measure 1.72 cm, why then only show less than 1.47 cm that occupies the painting?

Once it was restored in the 1990s, note that unlike the bright and worn part of the hood, the upper part is a solid-colored paste with a rectangular shape at the junction of the zones:

Here you can see better that the entire head cap has a rectangular pattern, which if you see in the previous image looks blurred, a problem caused because the retouching settled poorly in the paint and was absorbed as it would be with a water-based paint:

Notice the changes of color in the area:

The recent return of the banner of Ignacio Allende by Spain to Mexico and another on loan, shows us another reproduction of the authentic version of the Virgin of Guadalupe, wearing the crown:

Old paintings showing the same singularity, where we can appreciate the drop shape, as if it were a fruit:




Hidalgo's banner
On September 16, 1810, when the insurgents arrived in the town of Atotonilco, the priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, who led them, took a replica of the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe that was in the sacristy of the sanctuary and placed it in hands of his improvised soldiers, to carry it as a banner in front of the people who followed him. The drawn virgin was a reproduction long before the time when part of the painting of the virgin was hidden, in which the original form could be seen, later Allende would make his own reproduction:


The Crown of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin Mary
The crown is the proof that shows in an obvious way that the virgin is painted by human hands, which is why it had to be hidden. What did a European-style crown have to do in a Marian apparition to indigenous people?, when it was not a symbol of pre-Hispanic royalty? Worse still, what is a crown doing that refers to the popular Saint Brigida of Sweden from the 13th century, with her Crown of Seven Sorrows of the Virgin Mary?

The Roses
This section is wrong, it has been removed, because in the first edition there was a confusion that I did not edit and I deleted due to forgetfulness in the final revision, thanks for clarifying it Anonymous. Book: "Cistiana Rule" by Fray Juan de Zumarraga For 1547, a year before his death, Fray Juan de Zumarraga, finished one of his books: Regla Cristiana, where he asked an absurd question for someone who experienced a portentous miracle 16 years ago: Why don't miracles happen anymore? responding to himself: Because the Redeemer of the world thinks that they are no longer needed. purely European symbols An objective historian would have to doubt the strange presence of strongly European elements that have little to do with Mary, mother of Jesus, but a vision typical of fifteenth-century Europeans, with all the distortions that implies. Test 4: Juan Diego's height It is amazing, not to say ridiculous, that no one questions that a tilma measuring 172 cm by 103 cm wide, which represents the front of Juan Diego's clothing, could be worn by an indigenous person, which at that time was not likely. that he measured more than 1.60 meters, even now it is rare to see indigenous people who are over 1.70 meters. It was also too big for the width of his body, which should not have exceeded 50 cm. It is assumed that the smock that she wore as a dress in the "miracle story" was like a gown that covered the front and back, so there must have been a blank area corresponding to the back area, did they cut it out?


Conclusion
A 160 cm tall person could only wear a 1 meter high x 1 meter wide Ayate that would cover from the base of the neck to the ankles, although it should be much shorter, but it is likely that an indigenous person like Juan Diego was smaller and with a thin waist. If we add the missing 72 cm, Juan Diego's height would be in the order of 2.30 and 2.40 meters in height, unless he was a prodigious Nordic, that height would be unlikely, in addition to the fact that the width of his body would be between 100 cm representing the front.
Exhibit 5: This is linen, this Ayate Everyone says that the virgin was made in Ayate, according to the study ordered by Guillermo Schulenburg, former abbot of the Basilica of Guadalupe, it is made of materials more suitable for painting, such as linen. Schulenburg was thrown out the back door when he refused to recommend and opposed Juan Diego's beatification process in 1996. The former abbot, who died in 2009, stated "Diego is a symbol, not a reality." This is Ayate: It degrades quickly due to environmental agents, insects, bacteria and fungi that destroy its fibers. Although it is very strong, it is not suitable due to the separation of its fibers to paint over:

This is Linen: It lasts a long time, even hundreds of years and its fibers are very close:

The painting of the Virgin -the white base can clearly be seen- and the closed fabric

If you believe that my purpose in life is to take away your beliefs, you are very wrong, I doubt that any scientific, historical or logical proof can do it, because "Faith" is an irrational fact, a belief, an unfounded expectation. I only give simple samples of how easy it is to find arguments against, behind the supposed divine origins of many Marian apparitions, science and logic show the cruel and objective side of things. Reality is a bucket of cold water that is received naked, you decide whether to get wet or stay dirty, objectivity is incompatible with religion. But as Cipher would say in The Matrix: Ignorance is bliss. One of the most shameful frauds perpetrated by our most holy male leaders of the Mexican Catholic Church is that of the Virgin of Guadalupe. The fraud began a few years after the Spanish conquest, apparently as a way to substitute the worship of the goddess Tonantzin for that of the mother of the son of God. One of the shrines of said Mother Goddess was located on the Tepeyac hill, where the Indians came from distant regions. It is no coincidence that the chapel of the Virgin of Guadalupe and her image were erected right there, which for decades was considered only as a painting that worked miracles.

 

The most shameful thing begins about a hundred years after the supposed apparition, precisely with the spread of the legend of the apparition of the Virgin to the Indian Juan Diego and the miraculous formation of the image on his tilma. This was followed by various manipulations to the simple original painting to make it more glorious. Alterations that the Mexican Catholic Church recognizes today because they are falling apart. 

 

Many are those who participated in exalting the myth. Some collaborated in good faith, with their ignorance, their naivety, or their lack of rigor in demanding proof. Others participated with their silence knowing the monumental deception. Others, moved by pity and with the healthy desire to magnify the faith of an orphaned people, simply added details to the painting to perfect the forgery. And finally there are those who investigated and knowingly, instead of correcting the error or at least leaving it as it was, they finished cooking up the fraud, adding titles to the Virgin and canonizing the non-existent Indian Juan Diego. We must also acknowledge the few who dared to oppose and question the myth, sometimes at the cost of their reputation and position.

 

THE EXTRORDINARY SIMILARITY WITH THE SPANISH VIRGIN OF GUADALUPE

 - The original Virgin of Guadalupe is originally from Extremadura. Hernán Cortez and many of his soldiers were from Extremadura. One of them brought an image of the said virgin with everything and frame, which he had to leave in the field for being injured in the famous flight of the sad night. 

 

- The Spanish Virgin of Guadalupe supposedly appeared in the Sierra de Guadalupe just over two hundred years before the Mexican (1322). Curiously, the Spanish legend is extremely similar to the Mexican one. The Virgin appears on the hill to a humble shepherd and asks him to build a church right there. The pastor takes the request to the clergy, who ignore him. The apparition and the request are repeated. A son of the shepherd boy is resurrected after being left for dead. The clerics go to the place of the apparition with the shepherd and find a hidden sculpture of the virgin, "sculpted without human intervention". They build the sanctuary and the virgin is also known as "morenita de las Villuercas" (nearby town) because the wooden image is brown. The first document that recounts the legend of the apparition of the virgin and the sculpture is from 118 years after the supposed apparition (in 1440).

 

FRAY JUAN DE ZUMARRAGA DID NOT KNOW JUAN DIEGO 

- In his multiple accounts, archives and letters, the first bishop of Mexico - supposedly the main eyewitness of the miraculous appearance of the image of Guadalupe in Juan Diego's cloak - does not mention Juan Diego or the miracle or the miraculous virgin or He doesn't even give a hint that he's ever heard of them. 

- Curiously, there is a sermon by Zumarraga (after the supposed apparition) that speaks of the fact that there are no miracles in his time, nor are they necessary to believe in Christ.

 

THE IMAGE OF GUADALUPE WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO HAVE A MIRACULOUS ORIGIN 

- There are documents that prove that the image of Guadalupe and the chapel of Tepeyac existed since before 1556 and the Indians considered the image "miraculous", in the sense that it performed miracles. But there is no mention of the apparition, nor of the Indian Juan Diego, nor the supernatural representation of the image. 

 

 - Zumarraga's successor, Bishop Fray Alonso de Montufar in a sermon (1556) adds to the rumors that the Virgin performs miracles to attract greater devotion from the Indians towards her. Which brings him severe criticism from the Franciscans, enemies of idolatry. 

 

- Fray Antonio de Huete (1556) asks the archbishop to at least stop calling her Our Lady of Guadalupe, but Tepeaca (Tepeyac), since in Spain there was already a virgin with that name because of the place that was called that (Guadalupe ). 

 

- Fray Francisco de Bustamante (1556) says in a sermon that "to tell the natives that an image painted yesterday by the Indian named Marcos (Marcos Cipac de Aquino) worked miracles, was to sow great confusion". 

 

- Archbishop Montufar (1556) orders it to be said through paid witnesses: "that no reverence be made to the canvas, or paint, or sticks of the images, but to the images for what they represent", a curious way of calling the product so mighty miracle. - Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (1570) calls the adoration of the Virgin of Guadalupe a satanic invention to hide idolatry, which only disguises the adoration of the goddess Tonantzin, "as the Indians also call Our Lady of Guadalupe."

 

THE CONFLICT OVER ALMS

 - In 1574, an inspection of the monastery of Guadalupe de Extremadura falls on the hermitage for the matter of alms that the Guadalupana de México house had to deliver to the Matrix house in Extremadura. Something like the rights of use (royalties) of the original image.

 

A CENTURY LATER THE MIRACLE BEGINS 

- A century later, some documents begin to mention the Guadalupano miracle. Few give the date 1531 as the year of the miracle, several give the year 1555 and 1556. 

 

- In 1648 the preacher Miguel Sánchez published a book with the story that gives its current form to the Guadalupana legend. It is there where all the details that we now know are given. 

 

- The first person surprised by the story of Miguel Sánchez is the vicar of the Guadalupe chapel, Luis Lasso de la Vega, who is in charge of the chapel and the image of Guadalupe and was ignorant of everything about the portentous print of the Virgin of Tepeyac before to read Sánchez, as he himself writes. 

 

- The vicar Lasso in a pious outburst decides to adapt the difficult text to a simple language and translates it into Nahuatl. This story is known as "Nican mopohua..." and is considered by many to be the greatest evidence of the Guadalupano miracle.

 

HE CANNOT FIND DOCUMENTS AND DECIDED TO WRITE A BOOK 

- In 1675 Luis Becerra Tanco, who investigates the miracle, writes that he regrets not having found any document in the archives that speaks of such an outstanding prodigy. Therefore, he feels compelled to write a book that corrects the omission and avoids oblivion. With a stroke of the pen he passes Juan Diego from living in Cuautitlán and puts him to live in Tulpetlac so that on his way to Tlatelolco he will have Tepeyac on the way.
 

THE VIRGIN WOULD BE CROWNED AND A NEW MIRACLE 

- In the middle of the 18th century, Lorenzo Boturini tries to obtain authorization to crown the Virgin of Guadalupe. Does not achieve it. 

 

- At the end of the 19th century, everything seemed to indicate that the virgin would finally be crowned, but an obstacle arose. The virgin already had a crown. A crown with spikes and it could not be crowned if it had already been crowned by heaven itself. 

 

 - All the painters of the three previous centuries portray her with a crown. Historians and the Nican Mopohua also testify that the virgin did have a crown. 

 

- The crown miraculously disappeared on January 20, 1887. Rumor has it that the painter Pina and the abbot of the Basilica of Guadalupe had erased it. 

 

- The painters Gonzalo Carrasco and Bartolomé Pina certify in a notarial deed of 1895 that the image never had a crown. 

 

- In 1895 as a result of the festivities for the coronation of the Virgin, the Bishop of Tamaulipas, Monsignor Eduardo Sánchez, resigned from his diocese for considering the Guadalupan cult as an abuse against a credulous and ignorant people.

 

IT COSTS THE POSITION OF THE ABBOT OF THE BASILICA AND JUAN DIEGO IS CANONIZED 

 - At the end of the last century, Monsignor Guillermo Schulenburg, abbot of the Basilica of Guadalupe, denied the real existence of Juan Diego and cost him his position. 

 

- A few years later, Pope John Paul II canonized Blessed Juan Diego. Where is the dogma of the infallibility of the pope if he has canonized a man who only exists in popular imagination?

 

MIRACULOUS PRESERVATION OF THE IMAGE OF GUADALUPANA 

- Although it is in very poor condition and many pieces of the painting's details have fallen apart, there is talk of the miraculous preservation of the image. 

 

- Given the obvious damage that the image has suffered, the church was forced to acknowledge that the angel, the moon, the embroidery, the stars, the golden rays, the neck brooch, the black bow were added to the original image , the ermine of the sleeves and the orange clouds. "This is all human work, albeit pious," says Gonzalez de Alba. 

 

- Attention is drawn to the black moon in the waning quarter at the feet of the Virgin, a symbol of Islam. It was originally silver, but since they used silver nitrate it soon turned black. It is not known if the symbol is of integration with the Moorish culture or if the virgin is trampling on the moon of Islam as a symbol of superiority. And this common symbol for the Iberians of the time is completely alien to Mexicans. 

 

- The worst damage was to the hands: "The hands were retouched to shorten the fingers and convert the originally formed slender-fingered hands into shorter indigenous fingers." Other crude alterations are the angel with disproportionate hands, a meaningless black stripe coming out of the angel's left hand, the golden stars that sometimes invade the black border of the cloak, the embroidery that does not follow the folds of the tunic, the rays gold leaf and cloud background. Even an Aztec hieroglyph known as a "tilma fold" was added, used to indicate the tilmas of a tribute. 

 

- With the infrared photography taken with the permission of the church and thanks to the multiple errors of the inexperienced painters who altered the image, it was possible to know what was added and in what order. In infrared light, the crown of peaks obliterated a little over a century ago appeared partially.

 

BUT THE MIRACULOUS IMAGE IS THERE 

- Removing all the "small" additions, restorations and erasures that were made to it, the original Guadalupan image remains, this one of inexplicable origin: "the beautiful face of the Virgin, the pink tunic without the embroidery, the blue mantle without the stars and perhaps a primitive glow." 

 

- To all this it should be mentioned that the pigments that make up the original image have not been recognized. Not because of a lack of desire or technology, but because of a lack of authorization from the church authorities, who for more than 40 years have not allowed any investigator to touch it. 

 

- Another mystery is why such a coarse fabric was chosen to make the painting. González de Alba ventures to speculate on a possible explanation: the first image could have been made of flowers and supported on the coarse fabric. The image could well be that of the Extremaduran virgin of the conquerors. Images of flowers were common at that time. The flowers withered and left a stain like the flashes of moisture that appear today due to natural phenomena. A skilled painter, Marcos Cipac de Aquino, gave the details to the face, the hands, the pink tunic and the blue cloak, taking advantage of the beautiful stain formed. That would be the image of unexplained origin. The phenomenon of adding details was repeated several times over the years and centuries by less skilled hands and with less durable materials. All this happened by the will of God and for the benefit of the Indians and the Mexican nation.

 

AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE MIRACLE CONTINUES TO APPEAR 

 - The religious fervor of some believers and a faith that is proof of any evidence to the contrary has made them continue to meet and when not, fabricate new evidence of the Guadalupan miracle. 

 

- From a small drawing of the miracle, the virgin, Juan Diego and the Tilma, made with paper and ink of the time with the signature of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, the most fervent enemy of Guadalupana idolatry that the believing "investigators" have used to redeem Fray Bernardino from his lack of faith. Forgery that would make the friar roll over in his grave. 

 

- The little white spots that can be seen in the magnified photo of the virgin's eyes, in which only very pious eyes full of blinding fervor can see human figures. In them they even recognize Fray Juan de Zumarraga. The photos can be seen in the same basilica in the corridor below the image of Guadalupana. 

 

- Not even to mention the badly drawn stars of the mantle of the virgin in which "astronomers" have recognized the stellar pattern exactly as it would be seen at the time of the apparition. 

 

- An email is circulating on the internet that ensures that the analysis of the image discovered that it is not in the tilma, but 4 millimeters in front of it, miraculously floating in the air. 

 

 - Images of the Virgin of Guadalupe continue to appear on the sidewalks, walls, griddles, fallen trees, on the marble of a subway station and even in the glow of used underpants.

 

 

Aztec Pagan Goddess Tonantzin - La Guadalupe

 

 

The 20 Guadalupan myths where the writer and historian Juan Miguel Zunzunegui (twitter @JMZunzu) tells us that "the miracle of Tepeyac" never existed, and it is duly documented and evidenced as the friars of New Spain confirm that this supposed apparition never existed and had the objective of manipulating the indigenous peoples in a political rather than religious way at that time when paganism and social-economic policy reigned in the ancient Aztec empire. 

 

1. Since before the arrival of Cortés, Tepeyac was already a pilgrimage center to venerate the goddess Tonantzin, mother of the gods. 

 

2. From the s. XIV already existed in Extremadura a Virgin of Guadalupe, of which Don Hernan Cortés was devoted, that is why he took her image to America. 

 

3. When Cortés took Tenochtitlan, he demolished the idols of the Templo Mayor and put up a cross and the image of the Virgin of Extremadura de Guadalupe. 

 

4. In 1531 Zumárraga was not in New Spain as he had to travel to Europe to be anointed bishop. He never had a temple built on Tepeyac. 

 

5. In all of Zumárraga's letters, memoirs, and writings, he never mentions Juan Diego, the apparitions, Tepeyac, or the Virgin. 

 

 6. NASA never investigated the image, it is a myth that the Basilica itself has helped propagate. NASA studies ASTROPHYSICS, not miracles. 

 

7. Schulenburg, abbot of the Basilica for 33 years, always made it clear that these NASA investigations were a myth and were never carried out. 

 

 8. In investigations made, from the s. XVII to the XX, the pigments of the paintings and the fiber of the canvas have been identified.

9. CHRONICLES OF THE TIME: BERNAL DÍAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNARDINO DE SAHAGÚN, DIEGO DE DURÁN, NO ONE MENTIONS THEM THE APPARITIONS. CULTURAL DATA, in fact Bernadino de Sahagún said that Guadalupanism was satanic, because it was a cult of Tonantzin. 

 

10. THE APPARITIONS WERE NOT DISCUSSED UNTIL 1648, 117 YEARS LATER, IN A BOOK CALLED “IMAGE OF THE VIRGIN MARY” BY FATHER MIGUEL SANCHEZ. 

 

11. THE CURRENT PAINTING IS NOT THE ORIGINAL, AS IT WAS CHANGED IN THE 19TH CENTURY. THE ORIGINAL WAS PAINTED BY THE INDIAN MARCOS CIPACTLI. Now we go with some phrases, such as the declarations of Fray Francisco Bustamante, Franciscan prior in 1556. 

 

12. FRAY FCO. BUSTAMANTE: IF IT'S A TRY TO TAKE AWAY THE INDIANS FROM IDOLATRY, WHY ARE THEY FORCED TO WORSHIP THE VIRGIN PAINTED BY THE INDIAN MARCOS. 

 

13. BY 1895, THE POOR STATE OF THE PAINTING FORCED IT TO BE CHANGED. IN THE UNIVERSAL OF DECEMBER 3, 1895 THE SCANDAL IS TALKED ABOUT.

 

In this regard, the bishop of Tamaulipas spoke out against the apparitions..., here are some phrases. 

 

14. EDUARDO SÁNCHEZ, BISHOP OF TAMAULIPAS: IT IS FALSE THAT THE MOTHER OF CHRIST APPEARED IN THE TEPEYAC, THE APPARITION OF GUADALUPANA IS FALSE. 

 

15. EDUARDO SÁNCHEZ, BISHOP OF TAMPAULIPAS. THE PAINTING THAT WAS VENERATED THERE AS THE WORK OF THE ANGELS, HAS DISAPPEARED AND A NEW ONE IS IN ITS PLACE. 

 

16. EDUARDO SÁNCHEZ IS IT GLORY TO IMPOSE A FALSE BELIEF ON THE INDIANS AND MAKE THEM SPEND THEIR MISERABLE WAGE ON GOING TO WORSHIP AN OLD RAG? 

 

 17. EDUARDO SÁNCHEZ: I AM NEVER MORE SURE LIKE TODAY OF THE DECEPTION AND EXPLOITATION THAT MY PEOPLE SUFFER BECAUSE OF THE GUADALUPANA FARCE. and remember that there was a failed attempt to canonize Juan Diego in 1982, promoted by Corripio Ahumada, at the time the Vatican ANSWERED... 

 

 18. SANDRO CORRADINNI, RAPPORTEUR OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE CAUSE OF THE SAINTS THE VIRGIN OF GUADALUPE IS A MYTH INVENTED TO EVANGELIZE MEXICO. 

 

19. THEY SAY THE PAINTING IS ON JUAN DIEGO'S TILMA; THE COMPLETE FRAME MEASURES 1.80, SO JUAN DIEGO MUST HAVE BEEN ABOUT 2.20 M. 

 

20. The legend of the apparitions to Juan Diego is identical to the legend of the apparitions of the Virgin in Extremadura. I also leave you 7 slides left by the writer and historian Juan Miguel Zunzunegui that tell us more about this millennial lie.

1.



2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

+++