The Holy Fire - Myth or Miracle?

[Dimi95]

"Holy Fire, flame lit at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Holy Saturday, the Saturday before Easter, as calculated according to the Julian calendar. The paschal ritual takes place annually in Jerusalem, where it is conducted by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem with the participation of the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem. The day of the ritual is referred to as Sabt al-Nūr (“Saturday of Light”) in Arabic, the primary language of the local Christian community.

On the afternoon of that Saturday, the Greek and Armenian hierarchs enter alone into the Edicule, which encloses the tomb in which Jesus was said to have been buried. The Edicule is then closed while the Greek patriarch kneels and prays inside. After some time, a glimmer of light flickers from inside the Edicule, followed moments later by the emergence of the patriarch with a bundle of candles that bear a flame in each hand. The patriarch then blesses the crowd before the flame is rapidly (and at times chaotically) distributed. The event bears similarities to the midnight lighting of the paschal candle in the Eastern Orthodox liturgical tradition.

Delegations representing Eastern Orthodox countries carry the flame that same day to their home countries, where it is presented in cathedrals in time for the Easter service. It is also carried locally to cities in the West Bank and Israel with sizable Christian communities—such as Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Nazareth—where crowds gather with fanfare in the city centres to receive the flame.

Many celebrants over the centuries have attributed the lighting of the candles to a spontaneous spark that descends miraculously from heaven, a belief affirmed by many Eastern Orthodox Christians today. That interpretation is perpetuated by the theatrics of the event, which include the searching of the patriarch by civil authorities to demonstrate to observers that he is not carrying any means of combustion into the Edicule. Popular belief in the miraculous nature of the event stirred considerable controversy by the turn of the 11th century and may have been the reason al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh, the Fatimid caliph, ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009. In 1100, months after the Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem and took control of the church, the Latin patriarch Daimbert led the ceremony but was unable to obtain the Holy Fire through miraculous means. The Holy Fire subsequently became a tool of polemic between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy, and in 1238 Pope Gregory IX issued a papal bull denouncing the ritual as a fraud and forbidding the participation of Roman Catholic clergy in it."

Holy Fire | Jerusalem, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica

Holy Fire, flame lit at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Holy Saturday, the Saturday before Easter, as calculated according to the Julian calendar. The paschal ritual takes place annually in Jerusalem, where it is conducted by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem with the participation of

www.britannica.com

The popular understanding is that the Patriarch of Jerusalem enters the edicule without any means to light the candle. He says a prayer, the candle lights on its own, and he brings the flame out to the faithful. For several minutes, the flame isn't hot, so it doesn't burn. You can hold it up to anything, and it won't ignite. However, after several minutes, it becomes hot like any other flame.That's what most eye-witnesses agree on.

There is so much conflicting information out there,even to me as Orthodox.
I've seen claims that the church never said the way the fire lights is a miracle. I've read articles that claimed it's a proven hoax. I've seen videos where people show that the fire doesn't burn them. I've seen an interview with a supposed Orthodox clergyman who said it was lit by artificial means, but then he also later called it a miracle. I've seen a video where there are flashes of light and candles lit as it passes over them. I've read about people's experiences after they've been there themselves. Yet, I'm still not sure what's going on.

Something miraculous does happen, of that I'm sure, but past that, it's not so clear.

Is the miracle that the flame lights on its own?
Is it that the nature of the flame is different than regular fire (it has been demonstrated that the flame doesn't burn for several minutes)?
Is it what happens among the faithful?
Is it something else?

 

[danieldemol]

"Holy Fire, flame lit at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Holy Saturday, the Saturday before Easter, as calculated according to the Julian calendar. The paschal ritual takes place annually in Jerusalem, where it is conducted by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem with the participation of the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem. The day of the ritual is referred to as Sabt al-Nūr (“Saturday of Light”) in Arabic, the primary language of the local Christian community.

On the afternoon of that Saturday, the Greek and Armenian hierarchs enter alone into the Edicule, which encloses the tomb in which Jesus was said to have been buried. The Edicule is then closed while the Greek patriarch kneels and prays inside. After some time, a glimmer of light flickers from inside the Edicule, followed moments later by the emergence of the patriarch with a bundle of candles that bear a flame in each hand. The patriarch then blesses the crowd before the flame is rapidly (and at times chaotically) distributed. The event bears similarities to the midnight lighting of the paschal candle in the Eastern Orthodox liturgical tradition.

Delegations representing Eastern Orthodox countries carry the flame that same day to their home countries, where it is presented in cathedrals in time for the Easter service. It is also carried locally to cities in the West Bank and Israel with sizable Christian communities—such as Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Nazareth—where crowds gather with fanfare in the city centres to receive the flame.

Many celebrants over the centuries have attributed the lighting of the candles to a spontaneous spark that descends miraculously from heaven, a belief affirmed by many Eastern Orthodox Christians today. That interpretation is perpetuated by the theatrics of the event, which include the searching of the patriarch by civil authorities to demonstrate to observers that he is not carrying any means of combustion into the Edicule. Popular belief in the miraculous nature of the event stirred considerable controversy by the turn of the 11th century and may have been the reason al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh, the Fatimid caliph, ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009. In 1100, months after the Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem and took control of the church, the Latin patriarch Daimbert led the ceremony but was unable to obtain the Holy Fire through miraculous means. The Holy Fire subsequently became a tool of polemic between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy, and in 1238 Pope Gregory IX issued a papal bull denouncing the ritual as a fraud and forbidding the participation of Roman Catholic clergy in it."

Holy Fire | Jerusalem, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica

Holy Fire, flame lit at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Holy Saturday, the Saturday before Easter, as calculated according to the Julian calendar. The paschal ritual takes place annually in Jerusalem, where it is conducted by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem with the participation of

www.britannica.com

The popular understanding is that the Patriarch of Jerusalem enters the edicule without any means to light the candle. He says a prayer, the candle lights on its own, and he brings the flame out to the faithful. For several minutes, the flame isn't hot, so it doesn't burn. You can hold it up to anything, and it won't ignite. However, after several minutes, it becomes hot like any other flame.That's what most eye-witnesses agree on.

There is so much conflicting information out there,even to me as Orthodox.
I've seen claims that the church never said the way the fire lights is a miracle. I've read articles that claimed it's a proven hoax. I've seen videos where people show that the fire doesn't burn them. I've seen an interview with a supposed Orthodox clergyman who said it was lit by artificial means, but then he also later called it a miracle. I've seen a video where there are flashes of light and candles lit as it passes over them. I've read about people's experiences after they've been there themselves. Yet, I'm still not sure what's going on.

Something miraculous does happen, of that I'm sure, but past that, it's not so clear.

Is the miracle that the flame lights on its own?
Is it that the nature of the flame is different than regular fire (it has been demonstrated that the flame doesn't burn for several minutes)?
Is it what happens among the faithful?
Is it something else?

I dont see why you are so sure something miraculous happens.

The clergy enter the chamber alone, so there is nothing to prevent there already being a means of combustion inside the chamber in my view.

If they want us to believe its a miracle how about instead of lighting it in secrecy let them light it in public with a team of forensic investigators amongst whom are prominent confirmed skeptics.

After all that's how the prophet Elijah is alleged to have done it with Baal (minus the forensic investigators) in my view.

 

[Dimi95]

I dont see why you are so sure something miraculous happens.

Observations as i said.
First-hand witnesses.
I mean , i understand the doubt, it is very normal to say it , but...
You don't understand maybe the clergy of Orthodoxy and the importance of their testimony.
I have seen people projecting theories and ended up being sued.
If you go and offend any member of the clergy(personally) , most probably is that he won't care,regardless of what you say.
But reporters just want to write and have something to be talked about.
Some care about the truth , yes , but they are not so many..
Everything about it just maked me curious and i started up digging a little bit.Then when you procces a little bit of data around it , it starts being weird.The weird in the sense that it pushes you to investigate more on how to refute it.
I have seen testimonies of people who claimed that that this is a scam in some sense.
I have seen testimonies also that say otherwise and are a lot more honest.

The clergy enter the chamber alone, so there is nothing to prevent there already being a means of combustion inside the chamber in my view.

So , is it intented then? - if we are being honest to the question.

If they want us to believe its a miracle how about instead of lighting it in secrecy let them light it in public with a team of forensic investigators amongst whom are prominent confirmed skeptics.

No , no that is the problem in the very begining that you think that 'they want you to belive'.
They have nothing to prove to nobody.
Eastern Orthodoxy is different from Western Roman Catholic and Western Protestantism.

After all that's how the prophet Elijah is alleged to have done it with Baal (minus the forensic investigators) in my view.

With Baal?
Are you sure that you have read the Bible?
I see reading 1 Kings 18:21 and it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[danieldemol]

Observations as i said.
First-hand witnesses.

First hand witnesses are unreliable in this case as their livelihood as clergy depends on people believing in miracles, they have motive to lie in my view.

I mean , i understand the doubt, it is very normal to say it , but...
You don't understand maybe the clergy of Orthodoxy and the importance of their testimony.
I have seen people projecting theories and ended up being sued.
If you go and offend any member of the clergy(personally) , most probably is that he won't care,regardless of what you say.
But reporters just want to write and have something to be talked about.
Some care about the truth , yes , but they are not so many..
Everything about it just maked me curious and i started up digging a little bit.Then when you procces a little bit of data around it , it starts being weird.The weird in the sense that it pushes you to investigate more on how to refute it.

There is no need to refute a claim unsupported by reliable evidence in my view, Hitchens razor applies.

I have seen testimonies of people who claimed that that this is a scam in some sense.
I have seen testimonies also that say otherwise and are a lot more honest.

Without knowing how the fires are being lit the honesty of either side is not known, the only thing known is that as clergy they have motive to lie about miracles in my view.

So , is it intented then? - if we are being honest to the question.

Was that a typo? I'm not sure I understand your question.

No , no that is the problem in the very begining that you think that 'they want you to belive'.
They have nothing to prove to nobody.
Eastern Orthodoxy is different from Western Roman Catholic and Western Protestantism.

If they don't want you to believe in their miracles why tell anyone about them? Something doesn't add up in my view.

With Baal?
Are you sure that you have read the Bible?
I see reading 1 Kings 18:21 and it doesn't make sense to me.

Certain. Read not just 18:21, read through to verse 39, it was certainly done in front of a sceptical crowd according to the story some 450 Prophets of Baal who believed Baal to be the true God in my view.
I'd post it from the NIV but it is long and I've forgotten how to hide things behind a spoiler.

 

[HonestJoe]

Something miraculous does happen, of that I'm sure, but past that, it's not so clear.

Doesn't that demonstrate the obvious issue of confirmation bias though? Even as your rational logic tells you it is unlikely to be everything it has been claimed to be, you can't shake your desire to believe there is "something miraculous" (with apparently zero idea what that could even be).

Is the miracle that the flame lights on its own?

I see no reason to believe so, given that the "miracle" conveniently occurs where nobody can see it, that there are plenty of plausible mundane explanations, historically and contemporarily, and there is even some evidence directly supporting mundane explanations.

Is it that the nature of the flame is different than regular fire (it has been demonstrated that the flame doesn't burn for several minutes)?

Demonstrated or claimed (note that videos created by believers are claims, not demonstrations)? For something so fundamental to humanity, most people in the developed world have limited understanding or experience of naked flames and they can have all sorts of weird properties and quirks. To truly demonstrate anything special about this flame would require more specific and independent study (which I'm sure wouldn't be permitted).

Is it what happens among the faithful?

Wishful thinking (much like your own), maybe even an element of mutual delusion or a more simple case of people deep down knowing it isn't really miraculous but enjoying the communal religious experience regardless (maybe also like you?).

Is it something else?

I don't think it needs to be. Things like this aren't uncommon throughout history and across religions (and other religious-like practices). This is just a rare example of one which has continued, apparently largely unchanged.

 

[Dimi95]

First hand witnesses are unreliable in this case as their livelihood as clergy depends on people believing in miracles

Doctors also don't belive in miracles when one should die according to diagnosis , but sometimes they happen as they themselfs say.
But you wouldn't trust first hand witnesses,or?

, they have motive to lie in my view.

Yes , if you see it as you see it, it could mean that.
I understand your position however,it's the normal thing to say.
If i didn't know much of History maybe i would've said the same.

There is no need to refute a claim unsupported by reliable evidence in my view, Hitchens razor applies.

What do you consider as reliable evidence?

Maybe Scienctiest to investigate all that? Who is stopping them? Or invitation is needed ? Or maybe they don't want to go in the Heart of Israel ?
Eastern Orthodoxy is not so popular as you might think.

Here are some comments :

"The 'Holy Fire' is a religious phenomenon observed by some Christian denominations, particularly in the Orthodox tradition. It is said to occur annually on the day before Easter Sunday at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. According to tradition, the Holy Fire is considered a miraculous event where a blue light emanates from the tomb of Jesus Christ.

From a scientific perspective, there is no empirical evidence to support the miraculous nature of the Holy Fire. Many scientists and skeptics attribute the phenomenon to natural causes, such as the ignition of flammable gases or materials within the church. The specific details of the event are often surrounded by controversy and debate, with religious beliefs playing a significant role in how it is interpreted.

It's important to note that discussions about religious phenomena often involve deeply held beliefs and should be approached with sensitivity and respect for diverse perspectives."

Without knowing how the fires are being lit the honesty of either side is not known, the only thing known is that as clergy they have motive to lie about miracles in my view.

And what is then the motive ?
Religious beliefs ?


Read this:

Skepticism and the Holy Fire. Fr. Lawrence Farley

orthochristian.com

Have you read the Book , 'We saw the Holy City' by Leslie Farmer?

I don't know what else to tell you except go and see for yourself as you have taken such an aproach to the topic.
But you probably have better things to do.

Was that a typo? I'm not sure I understand your question.

Sorry , Eastern problem with transliteration in what i wanted to say.

Do you think that what the Church is doing is some kind of projection?

If they don't want you to believe in their miracles why tell anyone about them? Something doesn't add up in my view.

To belive ?
Nono , you have been disinformed.
Eastern Orthodoxy don't do the 'evangilize' part.
They do it for the communion and for the Church.

I just posted this here to see some honest critic.
I mean , i consider your comments honest however , since i would have said them if i were in your place.

All the Orthodox that you see in the world have been descended from Eastern Christian lands.You will rarely find 'convert'.You can check that if you like.

I don't see your 'to belive' rational however.It doesn't fit up with Eastern Orthodox History , it is the total oposite of it.
Since you know maybe too little of the evidence , no razor aplies here..

Certain. Read not just 18:21, read through to verse 39, it was certainly done in front of a sceptical crowd according to the story some 450 Prophets of Baal who believed Baal to be the true God in my view.
I'd post it from the NIV but it is long and I've forgotten how to hide things behind a spoiler.

Yes , but it is an old Christian tradition vs. Ancient Jewish tradition.

The time gap is a bit too large.

I dates to the 3rd/4th Century AD , i am sure of that.

There is some 'evidence' to be even earlier , but i don't know how reliable is the source.. (still).

 

[Dimi95]

Doesn't that demonstrate the obvious issue of confirmation bias though? Even as your rational logic tells you it is unlikely to be everything it has been claimed to be

That's is exactly what meant to me.Not rational and logical in which i understand Reality.
It just get any weirder then that..
If we are being honest , how much of an 'experts' we are on the field?
But the people who claim otherwise are so annoyingly confident when they testify to these irrational claims.
They have their candles , they play with the fire around their body and it does nothing to them.
And then you think, If you don't want to believe it that's fine. This isn't dogma; it's just a really cool thing that happens on Pascha.
I just could not figure out why just someone does not go there and take the neccessary tests.
It would solve many things.
If this is some real weird scam , then there will be changes in Orthodoxy.
That is the thing in Orthodoxy.
Each church is Autocephalous and the Patriarch answers to the comunion of Chirches in one land.
There have been always 'sites' in Orthodoxy.

But i am also very skeptic about it , since there is no such 'sign' that Orthodox is 'corrupted' in that sense.
That this will be some kind of projection.

, you can't shake your desire to believe there is "something miraculous" (with apparently zero idea what that could even be).

Don't do the 'ad hominem'

I see no reason to believe so, given that the "miracle" conveniently occurs where nobody can see it, that there are plenty of plausible mundane explanations, historically and contemporarily, and there is even some evidence directly supporting mundane explanations.

I know most of the evidence against it.
Not so convincing in oposite to what is considered to be tradition amongs Eastern Orthodoxy.

Skepticism and the Holy Fire. Fr. Lawrence Farley

orthochristian.com

Demonstrated or claimed (note that videos created by believers are claims, not demonstrations)?

Is History reliable then?

For something so fundamental to humanity, most people in the developed world have limited understanding or experience of naked flames and they can have all sorts of weird properties and quirks.

This is irrelevant , you say 'you are beliver' and you want that to not be counted as confirmation bias?
Let's be fair here.

To truly demonstrate anything special about this flame would require more specific and independent study (which I'm sure wouldn't be permitted).

I agree , i don't have a problem that to be done.

I don't think even that the Church will not allow it if someone capable tries to do that in reasonable circumstances where results can be made.

Wishful thinking (much like your own),

Please avoid 'ad hominem'.

maybe even an element of mutual delusion or a more simple case of people deep down knowing it isn't really miraculous but enjoying the communal religious experience regardless (maybe also like you?).

This is the definition of miracle:

"an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."

So no , i belive that those who testify to it are not liars.
I would like however to see it with my own eyes.I am not so sure about touching it , i am not into that staff...

They show no motive to lie.
That's what i think.

I don't think it needs to be. Things like this aren't uncommon throughout history and across religions (and other religious-like practices). This is just a rare example of one which has continued, apparently largely unchanged.

I agree however with the noted.
That was enough reason for me to look more deeper.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many celebrants over the centuries have attributed the lighting of the candles to a spontaneous spark that descends miraculously from heaven,

There is a pretty famous story in the Greek addition to the book of Daniel, where Daniel becomes a sort of super sleuth. There is a temple to an idol named Bel, where food is put out each day, and mysteriously vanishes overnight. The people believe that Bel eats the food. Daniel uses his ingenuity to uncover a secret door through which the temple priests came each night and ate the food themselves.

Perpetrating a fraud in order to bolster the faith of followers is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

 

[Dimi95]

There is a pretty famous story in the Greek addition to the book of Daniel, where Daniel becomes a sort of super sleuth. There is a temple to an idol named Bel, where food is put out each day, and mysteriously vanishes overnight. The people believe that Bel eats the food. Daniel uses his ingenuity to uncover a secret door through which the temple priests came each night and ate the food themselves.

Perpetrating a fraud in order to bolster the faith of followers is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Let's be honest here.

It has nothing to do with this case.

You don't have the 'over night' here.
And the evidence says otherwise.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let's be honest here.

It has nothing to do with this case.

You don't have the 'over night' here.
And the evidence says otherwise.

There are many ways to perpetrate fraud, and many people who are quite gifted at illusion.

The reason the story is relevant, is because it illustrates the willingness of religious authorities to perpetrate fraud.

 

[Dimi95]

There are many ways to perpetrate fraud, and many people who are quite gifted at illusion.

The reason the story is relevant, is because it illustrates the willingness of religious authorities to perpetrate fraud.

Yes , but the content is incompatible with the evidence.

 

[HonestJoe]

If we are being honest , how much of an 'experts' we are on the field?

Experts in which field exactly? Miracles or exothermic reactions? The latter is the only one we know is relevant.

They have their candles , they play with the fire around their body and it does nothing to them.

I saw the video example of that via the link you posted and I don't see anything out of the ordinary. There were people moving a yellow flame back and forth across a clothed arm. I'm confident you could relatively safely do that with any flame, given that yellow flames are generally less hot and modern clothing is typically designed not to be especially flammable.

I just could not figure out why just someone does not go there and take the neccessary tests.
It would solve many things.

I doubt many people care enough about disproving it and I'm sure the church leaders have no interest in having it tested, in part on the basis of "not testing God" and in part in concern of independent testing suggesting it isn't miraculous (regardless of whether that conclusion is accurate or honest).

Don't do the 'ad hominem'

No disrespect intended but didn't you write "Something miraculous does happen, of that I'm sure, but past that, it's not so clear."? Do you not want it to be divine, even as you're questioning whether it is or not?

I know most of the evidence against it.

I'm not talking about evidence against anything, I'm talking about evidence to support understanding of the physical processes and causes of the observed and reported events.

This is the definition of miracle:

"an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."

Sure, but just because something is apparently unexplained and therefore attributed to something divine doesn't mean that is actually true. Lots of things used to be attributed to gods that we now know have natural causes.

This is something that could be explained by natural means, it just hasn't been proven either way.

So no , i belive that those who testify to it are not liars.

I don't think they're liars either. That doesn't prevent them simply being wrong though.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes , but the content is incompatible with the evidence.

A gazillian people have watched David Copperfield levitate people with their own eyes. It's not evidence that's its anything except illusion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes , but the content is incompatible with the evidence.

Look if you want to believe a genuine miracle is going on, that's your right. I'm simply giving my own take, which is that no miracle is happening, that it is a fraud perpetrated by the religious leaders to bolster the faith of the followers.

 

[Dimi95]

A gazillian people have watched David Copperfield levitate people with their own eyes. It's not evidence that's its anything except illusion.

That's a poor comparison.

You argued some things , but none of them were the actual evidence.

 

[Dimi95]

Look if you want to believe a genuine miracle is going on, that's your right. I'm simply giving my own take, which is that no miracle is happening, that it is a fraud perpetrated by the religious leaders to bolster the faith of the followers.

Ofc , you belive what you belive.
No one is saying otherwise.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's a poor comparison.

You argued some things , but none of them were the actual evidence.

Neither one of us has any direct evidence. But what I have, and you don't, is probability on my side, not to mention Occam's Razor. Simply put, there is no reason to assume any supernatural explanation when there are a perfectly natural explanations. A guy goes into a room alone, without any discernable tool to create fire, and emerges from the room with lit candles, saying "It's a miracle." I mean, honestly, I can think of several ways to fabricate this, and I'm not even an illusionist.

Again, if this is your belief, knock yourself out. I'm not here to change you mind. I'm just sharing my take.

 

[Dimi95]

Experts in which field exactly? Miracles or exothermic reactions? The latter is the only one we know is relevant.

Why do you think that other sources do not matter?

I saw the video example of that via the link you posted and I don't see anything out of the ordinary. There were people moving a yellow flame back and forth across a clothed arm. I'm confident you could relatively safely do that with any flame, given that yellow flames are generally less hot and modern clothing is typically designed not to be especially flammable.

Well i have seen others that are more convincing and relate to what is written in the referenced link.
I will look up and share them here.

I doubt many people care enough about disproving it

I share that view.
I aporiciate the honesty

and I'm sure the church leaders have no interest in having it tested

Well , this is arguable
Why?

Because the Church doesn't bother about interest.It does show however that to be true.

I mean , you said yourself that 'to care enough' is a problem itself.

, in part on the basis of "not testing God" and in part in concern of independent testing suggesting it isn't miraculous (regardless of whether that conclusion is accurate or honest).

Can you show my any reference from the Church?

No disrespect intended but didn't you write "Something miraculous does happen, of that I'm sure, but past that, it's not so clear."? Do you not want it to be divine, even as you're questioning whether it is or not?

My personal belief is my personal belief , it only matters to me and i have no intent or any reason to show it as otherwise.

No , i don't want it if i am being honest.It makes me uncomfortable in the domain of Science.Light comes out of nowhere and there you have these annyoing claimsm

But i have faith that those who testify are being honest.

I'm not talking about evidence against anything, I'm talking about evidence to support understanding of the physical processes and causes of the observed and reported events.

No one has ever provided explenation , regardless of what belief he had(Orthodox or non-Orthodox).
The thing thtt is not so popular makes it more problematic for discussion since it is not propertly observed from different angles.

Sure, but just because something is apparently unexplained and therefore attributed to something divine doesn't mean that is actually true.

Yes , granted.
But the consistency and reliability of Eastern Orthodox tradition gives a different pespective.

Lots of things used to be attributed to gods that we now know have natural causes.

For example?

This is something that could be explained by natural means, it just hasn't been proven either way.

I would love to see more interest on the topic and more eyplenations..

I don't think they're liars either. That doesn't prevent them simply being wrong though.

Well , if the fire does apear as they say , then what you said would be problematic.

 

[Dimi95]

Neither one of us has any direct evidence.

I consider direct evidence as personal expirience.
The fire doesn't burn , then burns.
I mean , not so common rational claim , would you not agree?

But what I have, and you don't, is probability on my side, not to mention Occam's Razor.

What i have is not so scientifically proven claims - i agree on that.
But i have suspiciously annoying testimonies of people who are suspiciously agreeing on the main point.
And there is this suspiciously accurate tradition , passed from generation.
Maybe we see them differently
I understand that however.

Simply put, there is no reason to assume any supernatural explanation when there are a perfectly natural explanations.

Natural explenations?
Do you mean explained naturally or?

A guy goes into a room alone, without any discernable tool to create fire, and emerges from the room with lit candles, saying "It's a miracle." I mean, honestly, I can think of several ways to fabricate this, and I'm not even an illusionist.

You can also claim that there might be true.
But that doesn't say how can they be true.
I am just curious why do you give the burden of proof to the guy who goes into the room and not to the evidence or the effect of the fire the same critical thinking?
I mean is not more simple - to say it by what you sense?
It does not burn anything , then it does.
I don't know if something simular has happend..

Again, if this is your belief, knock yourself out. I'm not here to change you mind. I'm just sharing my take.

Yes , all legit , nothing personal from my side also.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I consider direct evidence as personal expirience.
The fire doesn't burn , then burns.
I mean , not so common rational claim , would you not agree?

I, like most people, tend to assume my experiences are good evidence. But the truth is they are not. There are so many different ways our minds can interpret what we sense that is misleading. This is one of the reasons why anecdotes are not evidence. For example, there are Catholics who claim to have seen the Virgin Mary. Do you think for one minute I think that's the actual case?

Natural explenations?
Do you mean explained naturally or?

Yes. God sent the earthquake -- supernatural explanation. The earthquake was due to Plate Tectonics -- natural explanation.

If a perfectly natural explanation does the trick, it just makes no sense to go for a supernatural cause.

I am just curious why do you give the burden of proof to the guy who goes into the room and not to the evidence or the effect of the fire the same critical thinking?

Because the guy that goes into the room is the one claiming that a miracle happened, and expects us to just trust him.

No one is doubting that the fire exists. The question is, rather, where did it come from.

I mean there is no simpler to say it by what you see?
It does not burn anything , then it does.
I don't know if something simular has happend..

In my research into many different religions, I have found claims of "miracles" in almost all of them. If I introduced you to someone in Yiguandao who had seen the Buddha channeled by a young girl, would you assume that it was true?

Good conversation, btw