The Holy Fire

[Prodigal]

http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/holylight.htm



The Holy Fire is the most renowned miracle in the world of Eastern Orthodoxy. It has taken place at the same time, in the same manner, in the same place every single year for centuries. No other miracle is known to occur so regularly and so steadily over time. It happens in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the holiest place on earth, where Christ was crucified, entombed, and where He finally rose from the dead.

The first written account of the Holy Fire (Holy Light) dates from the fourth century, but authors write about events that occurred in the first century. So Ss. John Damascene and Gregory of Nissa narrate how the Apostle Peter saw the Holy Light in the Holy Sepulchre after Christ's resurrection. "One can trace the miracle throughout the centuries in the many itineraries of the Holy Land." The Russian abbot Daniel, in his itinerary written in the years 1106-07, presents the "Miracle of the Holy Light" and the ceremonies that frame it in a very detailed manner. He recalls how the Patriarch goes into the Sepulchre-chapel (the Anastasis) with two candles. The Patriarch kneels in front of the stone on which Christ was laid after his death and says certain prayers, at which point the miracle occurs. Light proceeds from the core of the stone - a blue, indefinable light which after some time kindles unlit oil lamps as well as the Patriarch's two candles. This light is "The Holy Fire", and it spreads to all people present in the Church. The ceremony surrounding "The Miracle of the Holy Fire" may be the oldest unbroken Christian ceremony in the world. From the fourth century A.D. all the way up to our own time, sources recall this awe-inspiring event. From these sources it becomes clear that the miracle has been celebrated on the same spot, on the same feast day, and in the same liturgical frame throughout all these centuries.

Watch the entire video, the footage is amazing.

[Strelok]

Technically it wouldn't be fire if the above claims are true, it would be light. To which it has the appearance of firelight.

Few problems I noticed with the presentation of the video:

1. Still images are easily edited (the video itself include subtitles and transitions into different events, so it's not the raw video file)
2. The people who were holding the candle would gently flicker the fire around their skin for a second at a time before moving it out for a second and then gently moving it back in for a second. If it doesn't burn, why not jam your hand in there for 10 seconds?
3. Saying "no one felt the presence of the fire" is not evidence that no one felt the presence of the fire.
4. Saying that faithlessness is a faith is an oxymoron. Not having faith is not restricting yourself, because if you can't find it in yourself to have absolute faith, it's not a conscious restriction.
5. There are no cameras inside the interior of when the priest goes inside it. Searching his body and only at the exact day right before he goes in is not a thorough search.

[basics]

The first thing I have to say about this event is that it is unusual for a few reasons, yet I cannot say, nor would I dare say that it is not happening when clearly something is. The second is that none of the Gospel writers, indeed no-one, from that period or witness has seen this strange event to hand down to us. Thirdly, it would appear that the very people who claim the thing are the same who indulge in idolatrous adventures and who seem to need these experiences where the born again creature does not.

Since the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is to the Jew first, then surely the sign that all Jews seek, is something like this yet nothing appears to them in their favour. But of course fire like flames did descend on Jews some forty days after Jesus left and the result of this fire was that no longer did they need any outward signs, the signal being that no longer were they as they were moments before, their lives taking on a complete new meaning. It is good to note that not once were they mentioned as ever carrying crosses or any other symbol to connect them to Messias.

So what is this thing that the Orthodox celebrate with claims of an attatchment to the stone on which Jesus' head was rested? For a start it is pure speculation that the stone never mind the tomb is the place of the resurrection and if it ever was Holy that Holiness left it when the body of Christ Jesus left it. Jerusalem resorted to being as a whole another part of cursed creation as revealed by the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ and which in the last day will be eradicated with the rest of creation. In other words it is not Holy ground. The Greeks in this case are therefore not wise to make it so.

Based therefore on all that Scripture brings us, is this an event connected to God? Well in my opinion if it were, the people who experience it would cast off the idolatry which they practise, but if the video is an example then its example is to make them indulge even more, to cling even more, to the system they follow in spite of the Scriptures and that cannot be right. That they are persuaded by an outwardly worldly sign and not the inward revelation of rebirth with all of its benefits marks out a distinct separation of the Gospel from what we have seen in the video. Therefore I am not saying it is not real. What I am saying it is not Gospel indeed is shown to lead away from that.

[Prodigal]

1. Still images are easily edited (the video itself include subtitles and transitions into different events, so it's not the raw video file)

What about all the eyewitness accounts?

2. The people who were holding the candle would gently flicker the fire around their skin for a second at a time before moving it out for a second and then gently moving it back in for a second. If it doesn't burn, why not jam your hand in there for 10 seconds.

I thought about that too, but if I were actually there, I would flicker the fire too at first. There are several parts in the video where it does show people holding their hand in it though. Did you see the part where the Patriarch came out and he was ing on fire? Like ENGULFED in flames. You couldn't see his body.

3. Saying "no one felt the presence of the fire" is not evidence that no one felt the presence of the fire.

He asked people there.

5. There are no cameras for when the priest goes inside that "thingy". Searching his body and only at the exact day right before he goes in is not a thorough search.

What would be then? They search him AND they searched the entire inside.

[Scorch]

What about all the eyewitness accounts?

People are very easily fooled; the human mind is a gullible thing.

If you use the same standards by which you claim this miracle to be 'amazing' and 'holy' and rationally analyse other claims of magic by those same standards, you end up with an absolute of amazing and holy miracles.

[Strelok]

What about all the eyewitness accounts?

There are eyewitness accounts for almost everything, they are unreliable, so I could consider them evidence and people are prone to misconceptions or dishonesty, so it's only a small fracture of evidence.

I thought about that too, but if I were actually there, I would flicker the fire too at first.

At first, but if you wanted to prove that it doesn't burn. To sort of test, I lit a match and was able to sway my hand very, very close to it for brief periods of time which even causes the fire to move a bit, if you do it very quickly you can withstand the heat.

There are several parts in the video where it does show people holding their hand in it though. Did you see the part where the Patriarch came out and he was ing on fire? Like ENGULFED in flames. You couldn't see his body.

That can be edited, especially since it's not the raw video file. However, I didn't spot that, where in the video is that?

He asked people there.

He didn't interview the specific people that he apparently asked, though. He just claimed he asked people there. Even so, interviews can be false anyway. The most credible form of evidence would be if I was there, I had a direct video feed of what was going on in the interior that has the priest, I apparently felt no warmth from the "fire" and I was able to convincingly not burn myself on the fire.

What would be then? They search him AND they searched the entire inside.

They do? If it is so apparently certain that nothing is in there, why are cameras not set-up in there?

Beyond that, I find it hard to believe that what by now must be hundreds of holy men that have held the office of Patriarch all kept up a centuries long fake.

Yes, this fact should be considered. Either way I need to examine as much detail as I can in order to believe or disbelieve in the validity of the event.

[Pontifex Maximus]

What about all the eyewitness accounts?

Either not credible or they simply see what they want to believe they saw. "I saw it happen!" is usually not a credible explanation for anything.

Like ENGULFED in flames. You couldn't see his body.

Its been done



Just because we don't know how something was done does not make it a miracle. There is an explanation for everything, it is just out of our reach at this moment in time. A scientific, methodical approach to explaining phenomenon like this is much more useful to the advancement of our species than relying on the simplified explanation that it was a divine act. All that does is make ignorance ok. We are a curious people and sooner or later, we will have more answers. Take the Northern Lights for instance. Native tribes worshiped the climactic laser show as a manifestation of their goddesses. Now we know what truly causes this natural phenomenon, and once again, science has proven to be more reliable than belief in the supernatural. Gaping at something amazing and then sputtering "ITS AN ACT OF GOD" discredits every intelligent gene in the body. It isn't enough to know that something happened. We need to strive to determine how or why something happened.

[Prodigal]

Even that many, with so many skeptics?

Beyond that, I find it hard to believe that what by now must be hundreds of holy men that have held the office of Patriarch all kept up a centuries long fake.

[Scorch]

Even that many, with so many skeptics?

Well, if you submit them to the criteria you submit your own miracle to, then yes.

Beyond that, I find it hard to believe that what by now must be hundreds of holy men that have held the office of Patriarch all kept up a centuries long fake.

Harder than you find it to believe that there is some magical blue fire that is summoned whenever one particular type of priest, and not others, deigns for it to appear?

[Prodigal]

Harder than you find it to believe that there is some magical blue fire that is summoned whenever one particular type of priest, and not others, deigns for it to appear?

I can't respond to this, far too many issues with the statement and inaccuracies with what actually occurs and why it occurs and how it occurs.

There are eyewitness accounts for almost everything, they are unreliable, so I could consider them evidence and people are prone to misconceptions or dishonesty, so it's only a small fracture of evidence.

Of course, but so many people, not only faithful, but skeptics such as yourself.. I don't know. It would be something I would like to check out myself.

At first, but if you wanted to prove that it doesn't burn. To sort of test, I lit a match and was able to sway my hand very, very close to it for brief periods of time which even causes the fire to move a bit, if you do it very quickly you can withstand the heat.

The flame they had was far larger, and and points it actually went around their entire hand. There are some points where they leave their hands in there as well.

That can be edited, especially since it's not the raw video file. However, I didn't spot that, where in the video is that?

I'll find it, it's pretty awesome.

He didn't interview the specific people that he apparently asked, though. He just claimed he asked people there. Even so, interviews can be false anyway. The most credible form of evidence would be if I was there, I had a direct video feed of what was going on in the interior that has the priest, I apparently felt no warmth from the "fire" and I was able to convincingly not burn myself on the fire.

It would be great to have an opportunity like that.

They do? If it is so apparently certain that nothing is in there, why are cameras not set-up in there?

Not sure, although I'm sure there is a reason, otherwise skeptics all over the place would be calling for it. Probably having to do with it being Christ's tomb and all...


I am just as skeptical as you are...

[Scorch]

I am just as skeptical as you are.

I would take issue with this statement. A skeptic is one who does not jump to supernatural conclusions in the absence of proper evidence, which is what you have done.

[Strelok]

Well Kaitsar didn't necessarily say he was jumping to a supernatural conclusion, but quite a few people do. I wouldn't mind if this event is valid, because it would be cool. It would be evidence to add onto the plausibility of the proposed Go - but it wouldn't be absolute. It could very well be a natural event. For example, it looks like firelight, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's fire. Fire is an exothermic reaction, so this could be a type of reaction that we don't know about with our current understanding of science. Especially since it happens in the same place at each time. For example, if that whole building didn't exist and there was no specific priest and no specific prayers were said - yet the event still happened, it would call even more so to investigate the possible science behind the matter, though I doubt people would be willing to give up the ceremony just to see if it still happens.

[Prodigal]

I would take issue with this statement. A skeptic is one who does not jump to supernatural conclusions in the absence of proper evidence, which is what you have done.

Have I?

Especially since it happens in the same place at each time.

I would use this as a counter-argument. Science doesn't adapt to our ways of measuring time, why would it appear every 365 days? Why not every 100? Or 204.6?

The Patriarch comes out a little after 7:20. You can't even see his body because he is so engulfed in the flames.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Clearly then, if the presence of many eyewitnesses does not confirm a miracle, then the active work of many scientists does not confirm a hypothesis even if it does. See how the "scientific" crowd deals with things that apparently flee from their strict mechanical abstractions?

[Strelok]

No it certainly does not, but we are still able to predict events and match them to when they happen on our calendar. Happening every year doesn't necessarily mean it is anything special, because that is something that only holds significance to us, it means nothing to the a natural event. Just as an example, it could be a result of a cycle of events on our Earth that would have to be investigated to confirm or deny the plausibility. We don't 100% understand and control the resources on the Earth, that knowledge is only attainable within a 100 years or so assuming we develop at the rate we develop now (I.E, not some major set back or boost due to a political event). There is no reason for it to be 365 and not 100, but there is no reason for it not to be 365 either. If the holy fire can be confirmed to be what I hear it is, it is an effect of a cause. We still wouldn't know for sure if that cause is supernatural or natural (yet?).

Clearly then, if the presence of many eyewitnesses does not confirm a miracle, then the active work of many scientists does not confirm a hypothesis even if it does. See how the "scientific" crowd deals with things that apparently flee from their strict mechanical abstractions?

A hypothesis is an educated guess, but the result of the scientific study is not necessarily that of only reaching a hypothesis. Are there many people in this "scientific crowd" that would hold as much water to a hypothesis as some people hold the holy fire as evidence for a supernatural causation?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

No it certainly does not, but we are still able to predict events and match them to when they happen on our calendar. Happening every year doesn't necessarily mean it is anything special, because that is something that only holds significance to us, it means nothing to the a natural event. Just as an example, it could be a result of a cycle of events on our Earth that would have to be investigated to confirm or deny the plausibility. We don't 100% understand and control the resources on the Earth, that knowledge is only attainable within a 100 years or so assuming we develop at the rate we develop now (I.E, not some major set back or boost due to a political event). There is no reason for it to be 365 and not 100, but there is no reason for it not to be 365 either. If the holy fire can be confirmed to be what I hear it is, it is an effect of a cause. We still wouldn't know for sure if that cause is supernatural or natural (yet?).

A hypothesis is an educated guess, but the result of the scientific study is not necessarily that of only reaching a hypothesis. Are there many people in this "scientific crowd" that would hold as much water to a hypothesis as some people hold the holy fire as evidence for a supernatural causation?

Science is stagnating in its root premises. The last true major scientific breakthrough in Physics, the field of our debate, occurred a full 80 years ago with the Theory of Relativity.

Otherwise the "progress" has been just as normal - minor refinements and things of a secondary sort, but nothing quite brilliant that justifies the caricature-sque image of great technological leaps, a typical modern myth.

Wake me up by the time they come with Superstring theory within the same broad scholarly consensus, and that will be the time where we'll probably reach the peak and the maximum limit of our knowledge. That's what our hard sciences have been aiming since the XVIII century in the very least.

Now, back to earth, all theory is based on hypothetical premises which are ultimately tenets of faith. It's just very naive to assume otherwise since the dispositions of our abstract mind always rely on preconceptions and always change, they are not the maximum of impartiality which we should attribute god-like powers to. In this case, the degree of "truth" that a Theory holds is directly related to its usefulness, and its usefulness alone, like a machine - and a machine which runs on distorted orders and incomplete programming can still produce many useful outputs .

Ultimately, the problem with Science is that it aims at a quantitative over-simplification of reality into a mathematical diagram.

[Prodigal]

Yes, but the odds of it happening every 365 days and just so happening to exactly match our dating system is....

[Scorch]

Yes, but the odds of it happening every 365 days and just so happening to exactly match our dating system is....

Something being unlikely shows simply that it was improbable and demonstrates nothing related to its cause or function. Improbable events happen all the time in the natural world.

Clearly then, if the presence of many eyewitnesses does not confirm a miracle, then the active work of many scientists does not confirm a hypothesis even if it does. See how the "scientific" crowd deals with things that apparently flee from their strict mechanical abstractions?

Once again you betray your total lack of understanding of such concepts.

[Strelok]

In a more "objective" sense, a natural event having relevance to our calendar wouldn't exactly differ it's odds, it serves only to differ in our thoughts and how we chose to interpret it.

[Prodigal]

The second is that none of the Gospel writers, indeed no-one, from that period or witness has seen this strange event to hand down to us.

Wrong, the Apostle Peter witnessed Holy Light in the Holy Sepulcher after the Christ's resurrection.