Talk:Holy Fire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Note

"Local Christians - a tiny minority in a Holy Land racked by violence - certainly need something to cheer them up. But one Armenian torch-bearer, Soukias Tchilingirian, felt the truth had to be told. He said: "It's not a miracle. The Greek priests bring in a lamp - one that has been kept burning for 1,500 years - to produce the Holy Fire. For pilgrims full of faith who come from abroad, it is a fire from Heaven, a true miracle. But not for us. Of course the source of the fire is ancient and symbolic. I heard this from my father and I think he knew the truth." Miracles - the view of the sceptic (Russian) [1]

His claim relies entirely upon hearsay. He himself does not know that it is not a Miracle, he relies upon the report of his father which he supposes to be truthful.

Indeed, it would be almost more miraculous to keep a lamp burning for 1500 years. The church itself hasn't lasted that long! But really, an Armenian torchbearer is in no position to know the "truth" himself, since they never see the miracle either. No doubt it's common wisdom among the Armenians though. There must be some consolation for the events of 1579. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

To anyone who has seen this so-called "miracle," or even watched the videos, there's nothing even remotely miraculous about it. The fire acts perfectly normally, and the people exposed to it do as well. This is nothing but a pious joke. No one exposes their flesh to the flame for any appreciable length of time, and are always quite eager to switch hands, and move through the flame rapidly. - C.Neron

Science behind the Miracle

There is plenty of forensic and other analysis of 'immunity to fire' - firewalking for instance has been exhaustively written about. There seems to be no evidence submitted of modus of this miracel. Anyone enlighten us? Seems very POV at moment. Tiksustoo 22:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It's simply an observed fact that pilgrims to the Holy Fire ceremony can "bathe" themselves in the flames without singeing so much as a hair -- as the photo illustrates -- so it's hardly non-NPOV to report that fact. Why this happens in this case has not been investigated scientifically (nor has the miracle itself) so there's nothing to report but the belief as to why this is possible. Note that the physics of fire-walking does not apply here, since it depends on the nature of the heat source.

I have no idea what you mean by "modus of this miracle". TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If it is doubted that there are miracles in this world, it is a real miracle that the Holy Fire remains an unexamined miracle---after eons of its existence. --Roland 08:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been examined, so far as the available technology over the ages has allowed. The procedures of inspecting and sealing the tomb beforehand, and the divesting and search of the Patriarch before he enters for any fire-making tools, plus eyewitness reports, were pretty much the limit of what could be done to ensure authenticity before the invention of the television camera. Now all it would take would be for someone to do it. No doubt cameras would be unwelcome inside the tomb, but an important subsidiary claim is that flames also appear spontaneously outside the tomb, lighting the candles of individual attendees. One of these has been supposedly captured on tape [2], but becuase the camera was handheld it was impossible to get a clear, steady picture in that crowd. But a large number of fixed cameras ought to be able to cover the entire floor and spot any such incidents should they actually happen. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Csernica, for your reply. It looks so far that the examination is like that of a viewer in the audience in a theater watching a magician performing on the stage. It is understandable that stricter examinations are impossible for religious and political reasons. Otherwise, we may ask, for instance, 1.) Can we get the holy fire on days other than the Easter? 2.) Can the patriarch in the tomb chamber be observed? 3.) Can air samples be collected in the tomb chamber and the church when the holy fire occurs and chemically analyzed? 4.)Can you take any candle from outside made by anybody and get it spontaneously ignited? 5.) Can any candle from outside generate the non-burning flame? 6.) Can the candle that has generated the non-burning flame be chemically analyzed? 7.) Exactly how long can one put his finger in the flame without get burnt? 8.) What if you take the candle home and light it? Is the flame still non-burning? ...... --Roland 23:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

1) To my knowledge it has never been observed to occur on any day other than Holy Saturday. 2) The patriarch is observed; he's always accompanied by an Armenian bishop (with whom he is not in communion) who does not enter the tomb chamber itself, but remains in the Chapel of the Angel with a clear line of sight. There's also an eyewitness account by a monk who concealed himself in a difficult to reach niche near the ceiling and so evaded the search for fire-making material, which is always conducted by Muslims prior to the tomb being sealed and guarded (again by Muslims) in preparation for the ceremony. (I think this was early 20th century; I can't recall. It's in the source cited in the References section, not online. I can't find my copy; it may be in a box in the basement.) 3) Possibly. I don't know if this has ever occurred to anyone. It should be noted that the roof of the tomb is accessible (and plainly visible) during the ceremony and that there are open vents there communicating with the tomb chamber. 4) Yes. I believe all the candles come from outside the church in any event. The typical bundle of 33 thin white paraffin candles used by many pilgrims, as seen in the photo, are sold by street vendors. Those used by the patriarch himself are ordinary beeswax. 5) Yes. 6) Yes. 7) About 20 minutes to a half hour according to most accounts. 8) Not that I have ever heard. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Both the Patriarch and the Tomb are assuredly searched by the Israeli paramilitary for any lighting devices. Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99xvNIydfvQ that invalidates the criticism, and deems the criticism to be error, how long would take to erase the criticism? If there would be a hidden light then we should not see Holy Light moving through Church or igniting the candles. Also if phosphorous would be used, The Holy Light cannot travel through Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.135.101.28 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not TRADITION but MIRACLE. Other Orthodox Christian Miracles are: Jordan River Moving Back, and this happens almost yearly, in one year authorities did not allow people to be baptised on that date and miracle did not happen. Here is a movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfmrqZwUjCQ In this movie people can see Jordan river flowing in one direction and then the cross comming in other direction. People acclaim either Holy Spirit that comes as a dove. Another YEARLY MIRACLE IS the Cloud that comes YEARLY on MOUNT TABOR. Another miracle is HOLY WATER that is incorupted by time and that can not be drinked by possessed people. Other miracles:serpents of Theotokos, Flowers blooming in certain day even if brought at Church in bad shape. AND MANY more. THERE ARE MANY MIRACLES IN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. MANY. That people don't know about them or supressing truth, is bad. ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY IS THE TRUE CHURCH AND BEST RELIGION ON EARTH. You know why? If all religions wouldhave popl speaing with God as Orthodox Christians have : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap7kreDRzgQ then on Earth would be only one religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.135.101.28 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What about this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDaqVuP1QM&feature=related - seems that anybody can create holy fire in any time... 81.18.48.188 (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And this one is clear propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaI2hXyg-fM&feature=related - Everybody can do the same with ordinary flame. She should try to hold fire with her hand litle longer and she would be certainly burned by it. 81.18.48.188 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You should also know that I just performed the same trick with lighter and that I did not burned my hand - the point of all this is how long you keep your hand in flame. 81.18.48.188 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As for claim that "flame moving through the church", this clearly show that people run through the church with flame and that it does not move only by itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qihPpQF7pZE&feature=related 81.18.48.188 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally, how detailed is search in which Israeli police examine whether priest has pyrotechnic requisites with him? (I doubt that they look whether he have double bottom on his shoes or that they stick finger into certain part of his body where some drug smugglers love to hide things). All this is an big magician show that aim to keep this World in medieval darkness and this article itself is written in very POV way without real criticism of this event. 81.18.48.188 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And now please see this whole movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qihPpQF7pZE&feature=related - I see no proof of any miracle there. I only see a priest who hidenly started a flame, people that moving through the church with that flame and ordinary flame that burn on candles (logical explanation completelly in accordance with science, including known laws of physics and psychological knowledge about aims of the people who want to rule over others by lies and delusions). 81.18.48.188 (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No more a miracle than transessentiation during the Eucharist

Witness the Patriarch's prayerful petition during his enclosure in the Aedicule, along with the Armenian Dragoman, and prior to the distribution of the Holy Light: [forgive the absence of proper accents or subscript iotas, and consider every semi-colon as standing for a Greek ano teleia].

"Δέσποτα Κύριε Ιησού Χριστέ, η αρχίφωτος σοφία του ανάρχου Πατρός. Ο φως οικών απρόσιτον, ο ειπών εκ σκότους φως λάμψαι, ο ειπών γενηθήτω φως και εγένετο φως. Κύριε, ο του φωτός χορηγός, ο εξαγαγών ημάς από του σκότους της πλάνης και εισαγαγών εις το θαυμαστόν φως της σης επιγνώσεως, ο την γην μεν πάσαν δια της εν αυτή ενσάρκου παρουσίας σου, τα καταχθόνια δε δια της εις Αδην καταβάσεώς σου φωτός πληρώσας και χαράς, μετά δε ταύτα δια των αγίων σου αποστόλων φως καταγγείλας πάσι τοις έθνεσιν. Ευχαριστούμεν σοι, ότι δια της ευσεβούς πίστεως μετήγαγες ημάς από σκότους εις φως και γεγόναμεν υιοί δια του αγίου βαπτίσματος, θεασάμενοι την δόξαν σου πλήρη ούσαν χάριτος και αληθείας: αλλ' ω φωτοπάροχε Κύριε: ο το μέγα φως ων, ο ειπών, ο λαός ο καθήμενος εν σκότει. Δέσποτα Κύριε, το φως το αληθινόν, ο φωτίζει πάντα άνθρωπον ερχόμενον εις τον κόσμον: το μόνον φως του κόσμου και φως της ζωής των ανθρώπων, ου από της δόξης επληρώθη τα σύμπαντα, ότι φως εις τον κόσμον ελήλυθας δια της ενσάρκου σου οικονομίας, ει και οι άνθρωποι ηγάπησαν μάλλον το σκότος ή το φως: συ Κύριε φωτοδότα, επάκουσον ημών των αμαρτωλών και αναξίων δούλων σου των τη ώρα ταύτη παρισταμένων τω παναγίω σου και φωτοφόρω τούτω τάφω και πρόσδεξαι ημάς τιμώντας τα άχραντα πάθη σου, την παναγίαν σου σταύρωσιν, τον εκούσιον θάνατον και την εν τω πανσεβάστω τούτω μνήματι του τεθεωμένου σου σώματος κατάθεσιν και ταφήν και τριήμερον εξανάστασιν, ην χαρμονικώς ήδη αρξάμενοι εορτάζειν, μνείαν ποιούμεθα και της εν Άδου καθόδου, δι' ης τας εκείσε των δικαίων κατεχομένας ψυχάς δεσποτικώς ηλευθέρωσας τη αστραπή της σης θεότητος φωτός πληρώσας τα καταχθόνια. Οθεν δη αγαλλομένη καρδία και χαρά πνευματική κατά τούτο το υπερευλογημένον Σάββατον τα εν γη και υπό γην θεοπρεπώς τελεσθέντα σοι σωτηριωδέστατα μυστήρια σου εορτάζοντες και σε το όντως ιλαρόν και εφετόν φως εν τοις καταχθονίοις θεϊκώς επιλάμψαν, εκ τάφου δε θεοπρεπώς αναλάμψαν αναμιμνησκόμενοι, φωτοφάνειαν ποιούμεθα, σου την προς ημάς συμπαθώς γενομένην θεοφάνειαν εικονίζοντες: επειδή γαρ τη σωτηρίω και φωταυγεί νυκτί πάντα πεπλήρωται φωτός ουρανός τε και γη και τα καταχθόνια δια το υπερφυές μυστήριον της εν Άδου καθόδου σου και της εκ Τάφου σου τριημέρου αναστάσεως. Δια τούτο, εκ του επι τούτον τον φωτοφόρον σου Τάφον ενδελεχώς και αειφώτως εκκαιομένου φωτός ευλαβώς λαμβάνοντες, διαδιδόαμεν τοις πιστεύουσιν εις σε το αληθινόν φως και παρακαλούμεν και δεόμεθά σου, Πανάγιε Δέσποτα, όπως αναδείξης αυτό αγιασμού δώρον και πάσης θεϊκής σου χάριτος πεπληρωμένον, δια της χάριτος του Παναγίου και φωτοφόρου Τάφου σου: και τους απτομένους ευλαβώς αυτού ευλογήσης και αγιάσης, του σκότους των παθών ελευθερών και των φωτεινοτάτων σου σκηνών καταξιώσης, όπου φως το ανέσπερον της σης θεότητος λάμπει: χάρισαι αυτοίς, Κύριε, υγίειαν και ευζωίαν και τους οίκους αυτών παντός αγαθού πλήρωσον. Ναι, Δέσποτα, φωτοπάροχε, επάκουσόν μου του αμαρτωλού εν τη ώρα ταύτη και δος ημίν τε και αυτοίς περιπατείν εν τω φωτί σου και εν αυτώ μένειν, έως το φως της προσκαίρου ζωής έχομεν. Δος ημίν, Κύριε, ίνα το φως της προσκαίρου ζωής ταύτης έχωμεν. Δος ημίν Κύριε, ίνα το φως των καλών έργων ημών λάμπη έμπροσθεν των ανθρώπων και δοξάζωσί σε συν τω ανάρχω σου Πατρί και τω Παναγίω Πνεύματι. Εις φως γαρ εθνών ημάς τέθεικας, ίνα αυτοίς τη σκοτία περιπατούσι φαίνωμεν. Αλλ' ημείς ηγαπήσαμεν το σκότος μάλλον ή το φως, φαύλα πράσσοντες. Πας γαρ ο φαύλα πράσσων μισεί το φως κατά τον αψευδή λόγον σου: δια τούτο οσημέραι προσκόπτομεν αμαρτάνοντες, επειδή περιπατούμεν εν τη σκοτία. Αλλ' αξίωσον ημάς το υπόλοιπον της ζωής ημών βιωτεύσαι πεφωτισμένους τους οφθαλμούς της διανοίας ημών. Δος ημίν, ίνα ως τέκνα φωτός περιπατήσωμεν εν τω φωτί των εντολών σου: το του αγίου βαπτίσματος φωτεινόν ένδυμα, όπερ δια των έργων ημαυρώσαμεν, λεύκανον ως το φως, ο αναβαλλόμενος το φως ώσπερ ιμάτιον. Δος ημίν ενδύσασθαι τα όπλα του φωτός, ίνα δι' αυτών τον άρχοντα του σκότους τροπούμεθα, ος μετασχηματίζεται εις άγγελον φωτός. Ναι, Κύριε, και ως εν ταύτη τη ημέρα τοις εν σκότει και σκιά θανάτου καθημένοις φως έλαμψας, ούτω σήμερον λάμψον εν ταις καρδίαις ημών το σον ακήρατον φως, ίνα δια τούτου φωτιζόμενοι και θερμαινόμενοι εν τη πίστει δοξάζομέν σε το μόνον εκ μόνου του αρχιφώτου φωτός ιλαρόν φως εις τους ατελευτήτους αιώνας. Αμήν."

Source: Nea Sion (publication of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem), vol. 62, 1967, p. 235

please cite english version of above. wiki main language is english!

I have it in English somewhere, probably in an unmarked box in my basement. However, by my very rudimentary Greek and taking into account the context, the poster of the Greek text seems to think that because the Holy Fire is mentioned in terms of symbolic meaning and theological significance that it must therefore not be a genuine miracle. In this he is mistaken. Every genuine miracle is a sign pointing to some truth. This is indeed as true for the Holy Fire as for "transubstantiation" (the word he was looking for above, but which the Orthodox Church does not use -- but I think I know what he means) but it does not mean the miracle does not also literally happen. (As indeed the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ without changing their outward forms in the Eucharist, but I suspect the poster doesn't believe that either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect, the 'poster of the Greek text' begs to invoke John 20, 29. Were it not for the Crusades, the ancient Patriarchate of Jerusalem would scarcely have deemed it necessary tacitly to suffer the perpetuation of such a pious hoax. Incidentally, the proper orthodox term for transubstantiation is transessentiation - substance being υπόστασις, whereas it is actually a case of μετουσίωσις (q.v. Wikipedia article on the Eucharist). A translation of the Greek text into English will be provided in due course. 24 February 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.171.218.186 (talk • contribs) .

I strongly suspect, supported by anecdotal accounts, that it is precisely those who have "not seen, and yet believed" who tend to be blessed by receiving the fire directly.

Both "hypostasis" and "ousia" can be translated as "substance". As it happens, Orthodox councils have employed "metousiosis" as a direct translation for "transubstantiation", so obviously they regarded "ousia" as an equivalent for "substantio" as the Latins were using it, not "hypostasis". You'll have to excuse me if I assign them greater authority than I do you. As for "transessentiation" -- I have only been able to find it in Anglican sources when they talk about Orthodox eucharistic theology, never in Orthodox sources. I saw an occurrence of the word in a canonical commentary, but who wrote the commentary and who translated it I have no idea. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an embarrassing admission, but I just parsed "transessentiation" -- what a ridiculous word! I myself prefer "essence" for "ousia" rather than "substance" just for clarity, but this bizarre construction isn't at all useful. Although certain councils did use "metousiosis", it has not been generally received by the Orthodox in an unqualified sense anyway. (See Talk:Metousiosis) TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A translation of the highlighted exerpts from the greek text by yours truly, first in modern Greek and then in modern English:

Με αγαλλίαση της καρδιάς και χαρά πνευματική ετούτο το ευλογημένο Σάββατο τα θεοπρεπή σου μυστήρια που συνέβησαν επάνω και κάτω από τη γη γιορτάζουμε και σε ανάμνηση του χαρμόσυνου και φημισμένου φωτός που έλαμψε θεικά στα σπλάχνα της γης και πετάχτηκε μέσα από τον τάφο, σου αφιερώνουμε άναμα φλόγας, σε αναπαράσταση του ανάματος της φλόγας που έγινε για χάρη μας.

(...)

Γι' αυτό παίρνουμε με ευλάβεια από τούτο το φώς που κρατάμε με φροντίδα αναμένο μόνιμα επάνω στον φωτοφόρο σου Tάφο για να το μοιράσουμε σε όσους πιστεύουν σε σένα το αληθινό φως και σε παρακαλόυμε και σου προσευχόμαστε Πανάγιε Δέσποτα να το αναδείξεις σε δώρο προς εμάς της ευλογίας σου και της θεϊκής σου χάριτος, με τη χάρι του Πανάγιου και φωτοφόρου σου τάφου.

With ecstasy of the heart and joy of the spirit this blessed Sabbath celebrating your godlike mysteries that were held in godlike fashion above and below the earth and remembering your truly gay and famed light that shone in the bowels of the earth and divinely blazed from the grave, we practice the lighting of fire, representing your own lighting of the fire that was done with compassion to us.

(...)

Thus piously taking from this light, thoroughly kept and ever burning on your light-bearing Grave, we disseminate among those who believe in you the real light and beg and pray to you, Holy Lord, that you will raise this to a gift of blessing and of your every divine grace payed to us, by the grace of your Holy and light-bearing Grave.

It is clear that the ceremony blesses an already existing source of light which is then given to the believers, in symbolic representation of the light that shone over the Grave of Jesus on the good Saturday.

For the record, I have seen videos of the light "jumping around from head to head" after the ceremony. I have heard first hand accounts too. I have also heard first hand accounts of UFOs and ghosts. I understand why people believe in that nonsense, but it is nonsense. If this is what is needed to keep the Christian faith alive, then the faith is doomed, as more and more people grow up and stop believing in old wive's tales.

The holy fire doesn't burn indeed! I have seen the Anastenaria (fire-walking) and the men and women who dance on the fire put it out with the soles of their bare feet. That, I admit is a feat that defies skepticism (as very few skeptics would jump in the fire to prove their point.) Waving a bunch of candles in front of your face is a cheap trick that can be reproduced very easily by anyone and all the "pious believers" here should first see how hard it is to reproduce the "miraculous videos" linked to before they believe in every silly story they're told, just because someone wearing a cowl told it to them at sunday school. Stassa 01:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism

A healthy amount of skepticism is called for, but it's also not good to overstate the case.

In the case of the spontaneous ignition claims, there is the eyewitness testimony of numerous pilgrims who have both seen it and had it happen, so "no evidence" is putting it too strongly. With the video too: it does look as if fire is shooting across the room so you can't say "nothing of this nature can be discerned" -- however, it is true that the picture is far too jittery to say what is going on for certain.

"Flame baths" -- the documentary evidence is in fact ambiguous. Some say one thing, some another.

The Patriarch is not "said to be examined" he is examined. I have excised the word "carefully" though, since that's a subjective judgment.

Incandescence in the dome -- "documentation" means written records, and there certainly is ample documentation of this phenomenon. It is true that there's no clear video of it. I've seen video where something like this certainly looks like it's happening, but it looks just like a lot of camera flashes going off. Those who were there whom I've spoken to say there weren't anywhere near enough flashes going off to account for the effect, but that kind of thing is very difficult to judge so we can't take their word for it.

Some edit conflict occurred while I was editing, so I hope I picked up everything that should be retained. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've heard it said recently (by an Orthodox bishop no less) that the Israeli government planted a hidden camera in the tomb one year and has video of the Orthodox and Armenian bishops tussling to be the one who sets his match to the lamp inside. I could find nothing to back this up, but if anyone can it would certainly be important to mention. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am changing "Even some Orthodox Christians have been critical of the Holy Fire, such as Adamantios Korais who condemned what he considered to be religious fraud in his treatise "On the Holy Light of Jerusalem." He referred to the event as "machinations of fraudulent priests" and to the "unholy" light of Jerusalem as "a profiteers' miracle".

The wikipedia article on Adamantios says his religion was "Humanist," which rejects supernatural events altogether. Do you agree that would rule out Orthodox Christianity, which believes Jesus was God's physical son born of the Virgin Mary and resurrected? Rakovsky (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Link

See http://www.holyfire.org/eng/ - or better yet, go to Jerusalem and see.

St. Elmo's Fire?

Is this sourced? If not, I'll be cutting it, as it appears nonsensical. First, the church doesn't have a steeple, it has a dome. Second, the dome has not always had a gold-leafed interior, yet this phenomenon is recorded from the first millennium. On occasion the rite has even taken place while the place was completely unroofed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I cut the paragraph. After reviewing photos, I recalled that even now the dome isn't completely gold-leafed anyway. It certainly wasn't before the relatively recent remodel was completed. The premise of the paragraph seems to be contrafactual. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

About the Holy Fire and the Work of the Author and Researcher Michael Kalopoulos

Michael Kalopoulos is a great researcher and author trying to demythologize the Bible and Christianity in general, the Biblical Religion as he likes to call it. To this end he has written various papers and five books in Greek. These books have titles (translated into English): 1) The Great Lie (which is the only book of his translated into English). 2) The Armed Guile. 3) Abraham the Wizard. 4) The Theater of Salvation. 5) Miracle or Deception the “Holy Light” of Jerusalem?

We can briefly say that: Anyone who studies Kalopoulos’ books comes across a large number of imposing observations, patterns, questions, remarks, etc. Regardless of the historical value of various things the Bible presents as historical facts, all these observations, patterns, questions, remarks, etc. deal a decisive theological, ethical and social blow to Christianity as a whole and they put an end to the axiom of the divine inspiration of the “holy” Bible! The reader has to engage a lot of thinking about the numerous questions and issues that naturally and effortlessly arise from the study of these books.

His book Miracle or Deception the “Holy Light” of Jerusalem? deals with the self-lighted fire that “appears” every Holy “Great” Saturday night when it turns 12 midnight just before or a bit after Easter Sunday begins, during the celebration of Christ’s Resurrection in accordance with the eastern orthodox calendar and doctrine. (Note that: In Christianity, “the only true religion on Earth” of thousands sects and heresies, the Catholic and Protestant Easter is celebrated one week before the Orthodox Easter almost every year!). Michael explains how he has several times demonstrated experimentally that self ignited fire is easily achieved if you have the appropriate chemical substances at your disposal. He also explains how you can also control this type of fire by some other chemical bonds as to when to ignite and how much to burn. The author did not omit to refer several similar incidents of self ignited fires described in great detail in various biblical passages.

Besides the self-ignition, many claim this fire is holy for the additional reason that it does not burn you while touching it for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 minutes after the ignition. (I have happened to hear all these numbers by faithful people who have visited the phenomenon). But then we face the question that if this fire does not burn at all for the first 2 minutes, let us say, then it should not burn for the next 2 and then the next 2 and so on, by the same reason that it did not burn during the initial 2 minutes. Therefore it must never burn. But this does not happen this way at all. After some time it begins to burn your fingers. Hence the only logical conclusion is that when it stars this fire contains very low thermal energy. As time goes on it acquires enough thermal energy to the point that in 2 to 6 minutes can burn your fingers just as anything else.

Another extremely important point presented in this book is the denouncement of this thaumaturgy and theurgy by the great enlightened Greek author and researcher of international caliber Adamantios Koraes, in the 18th and 19th centuries. The denouncement of Koraes and all his arguments, data and elements are all very cogent. He was not remiss as not to provide the whole history behind this entire so called miracle from the day it started to his days. The history he presents is so clear and imposing so that no doubt can remain in anybody’s mind with impartial approach and attitude that there is a very deceptive trick behind this theurgy, which has been deceitfully devised and preserved by some especially appointed connoisseurs. That is also why the Greek Patriarch stays in a secluded vault with the doors closed so that nobody can see what happens inside while he awaits the lighting of the patriarchal candle that he holds in his hands. (One time he had to wait for several hours and he almost suffered dehydration by perfuse sweating. The trick did not go as planned…)

It is also beyond any understanding the fact that so many Muslims and Jewish of the area and so many other Christian denominations, who many times witness the “wonder”, do not convert to the Greek Orthodox Christianity, if this miracle is not spurious. Why then the Catholics and Protestants do not all switch to the Greek Orthodox Christian doctrine and faith, if the Greek Patriarch is the only divinely designated to perform such a godly wonder?!

I would like to express that this book is very important on this particular subject. I would also like to suggest that this book, as all of the other four books, be translated in many languages and be studied carefully. Regardless of how many things found in these five books you may agree or disagree with just keep in mind those you agree with. They will be sufficient to make you reconsider Bible and Christianity and see them from a totally different prospective. You will have a very interesting time until you find satisfactory answers to various questions and issues that naturally and effortlessly arise as a result of a careful study of these five books.

Ioannis M. Neoklis Philadelphos Roussos Dr and Professor of Mathematics Researcher of Christian and Biblical Issues.

For one thing, it is rather unnecessary of you to put everything you don't like in quotes, like saying "Holy" Bible, or "Great" Saturday. Sorry, that is the name of the holiday, it's like the people who say Eastern "Orthodoxy." Another thing, the theory of using chemicals doesn't really hold, because many common people bring their own candles and have the same result. Wouldn't it be a coincidence if everyone brought their own candles dipped in the correct chemicals every year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.161.40 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Kalopoulos is not a "great researcher". He has received no prizes or wide recognition. Most people don't know him, he is just a researcher like anyone can be a researcher, and if I am not mistaken, he is connected with the neo pagans. So he is not objective. He has also failed to explain a lot of things, like the fact that the candles in the Tomb are from many different people so they are not fake nor full with phosphorus, the thousands of witnesses that have seen the unnatural flashes and the candles that light on their own even when the Patriarch has just come out from the Tomb, etc.

So this is only a personal opinion and nothing more.Reddert (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reddert

White phosphorus

Actually, we do know that the Holy Fire doesn't ignite after 20 minutes like white phosphorus. This is kind of a straw-grasping criticism, since it really isn't applicable to anything that happens. It's not necessary to invoke this kind of trick for the lighting of the Patriarch's lamp and candles in the tomb, since he's by himself in the tomb chamber and can come up with some other method, concealed by some clever means from the pre-ceremony pat-down. It can't be used for the documented spontaneous ignition of candles outside the tomb, since it happens to random, unsuspecting people who have acquired their candles an indefinite amount of time before, often on the order of hours. (You have to show up very early to be guaranteed a spot in the church.) If white phosphorus were used in that case -- (Applied how? By the street vendors who sell the candles to the pilgrims?) -- we would expect to hear of some spontaneous ignitions before the ceremony even begins, but this never happens. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no reason why the Patriarch would resort to such convoluted tricks to light his λαμπάδα. A lighter can be concealed on his person or around the Grave in a previous time. From my visit to the Grave a long time ago, it's cluttered with all sorts of stuff and you could easily conceal a number of ways to light a fire in there.

As for the candles of the pilgrims "spontaneously" catching fire, it's easy to "spontaneously" light a candle without touching a flame to the wick, if it has already been lit before. You can try it this Easter Sunday: light a candle, then blow it off (but don't snuff it out with your fingers) then wave an open flame through the smoke wafting from the wick. It catches again, three times out of five and at a distance from the wick too. In Greece at least, most people will light their candles before the Holy Light comes out of the church and I seem to remember it was the same in the video from the Holy Grave I've watched. Otherwise "spontaneous" means the pilgrim accidentally lit the candle with the lighter they happenned to be holding...Stassa 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Porphiry-related issues

Csernica the translation is mine. I was in a hurry, thus the very sloppy English - thanks for your edits! Concerning the "eternal flame" - well, the Eternal Flame concept itself is not miraculous. Moreover, from the context it is rather clear that this lampada (which I have translated as an "icon-lamp") is _not_ supposed to be supernatural in any sense. What is interesting is that this "eternal flame" meme has been repeated quite recently - see the top of this (discussion) page. Perhaps this indicates some sort of eternal flame mechanism/trick. At worst, the reference is unclear, but no, it does not imply anything miraculous by itself.

More probably, though, an icon-lamp is meant which is tended perpetually by the clerics at the Tomb, and thus "never goes out". I think a little bit later I will re-add Tchilingirian's testimony and possible explanation of what he and Porphiry meant.

Re: Misail - acc. to the lecture of Dr. Rumanovskaya from Hebrew Uni. in Jerusalem [3] Misail (probably should be spelled "Misael" in English) had been a Bulgarian arch-bishop, and later had a title of metropolitan of Arabian Petra and Deputy of Jerusalem ("Namestnika Ierusalimskogo" - the word "namestnik" is also used in Porphiry's diary to describe Misail and others). Again, "Daniil" should be "Daniel". --Sergey Romanov 10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Csernica: "He was apparently an archimandrite. I don't understand the insistence of vagueness here" - later he was a bishop. This is important, he wasn't some insignificant cog. When he is mentioned, he is usually mentioned as a bishop. True, he wasn't one when he was in Jerusalem. And even though one sentence later it is mentioned that he became a bishop, the first sentence is the general characterization of him, so, if anything, he should be described as a bishop - or just a cleric/priest. --Sergey Romanov 09:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC) On a second glance, it doesn't matter that much, the current text is OK. --Sergey Romanov 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1099

I realize there is already a citation request for this, but the crusaders couldn't be responsible for anything happening at Easter in 1099, since they weren't in control of the city until July (and did not even arrive there until June). Adam Bishop 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Light

The blue light that is so often mentioned can be seen here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=j_gvLmDpsYk Notice the mens' white shirts glowing blue. 68.4.124.72 (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article is more spent on the criticism of the incident than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.161.40 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Very, very biased article and anti-Orthodox! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.169.71 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

odd sentence

"It has only been consecutively documented, previous mentions being sporadic." -- what does it mean? McKay (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a date omitted - it probably was meant to say something like "It has only been consecutively documented since 1873, previous mentions being sporadic." though not necessarily with that particular date. I noticed this as well and plan to dig through the page history to see if there was once a date in the sentence. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep - the "since 1106" was deleted in January of this year by Ranosonar, probably by mistake while deleting the superfluous word "however" from the sentence. Fixed. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXl56ikowUI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.189.178 (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The slowed down speed of video + wind EX - http://afaq.narod.ru/bo/78.mpg

☝What you show is not in the slightest bit comparable to the duration and contact of the flame showed in the video to which you responded. Recommended video: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.155.250 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC) http://video.mail.ru/mail/morfey_76/108/139.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.155.250 (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So, what's up with "for instance, that cold-handed pilgrims generally withstand the fire for the same very brief periods of time as can be achieved with any fire."? Last week, a very brief exposure to fire burned the hair on my hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.179.21 (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

There used to be much more in that section. It seems to have been edited by a biased individual interested in suppressing skeptical criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.100.5 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. I removed inaccurate tags. Furthermore, the story presented as "criticism" is apocryphal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.237.172 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Armenians bribed the Ottomans back in 1579

"It is also claimed that in 1579, the Armenian patriarch Hovhannes I of Constantinople prayed day and night in order to obtain the holy fire, but lightning miraculously struck a column near the entrance and lit a candle held by the Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius IV standing nearby"

Prayed day and night? It is well known that the Armenians who constantly create trouble, bribed the Ottomans in order to claim the Holy Fire. They made it and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch was left outside the Tomb. But the Fire was never given to the Armenians or any other Christian faith, because it never came out. It came out from the left column, when the Holy Light split this column vertically and flashed near the Orthodox Patriarch. This is why the Greek Orthodox Patriarch keeps the lawful right to bring out the Holy Light.

Nobody can bribe God...So this phrase about...praying day and night, and the luck of that historical event, must be added and corrected.

http://www.holyfire.org/eng/

Reddert (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reddert

Criticism

i think the criticism section is not good ,,,i mean relying on an "ottoman traveler" to question something that has been around for about a 1000years or so ,i don't know , even til this the orthodox patriarch is searched by the israeli police,are they bribed too? i don't think so ,the other references are crap too,some catholic pope ,some english guy and a "russian skeptic" who created some website ,,,,c'mon wikipidians u can do better.

De-emphasize the Thomas Tegg account.

I'm not a scholar, but as a Protestant pastor I feel giving the Tiggs account such a prominent position is unbalanced and even offensive. An account by an Orthodox religionist, particularly by a priest who currently/recently serves in the Holy Sepulcher, would be a welcome balance to the ugly tone of the Tiggs piece. I am reading this on Holy Saturday evening and find this to be sad entry, indeed. Poorly done, friends. Poorly done. Forrest Parkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.243.104 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you were disappointed. I hope you didn't come to wikipedia looking for a devotional text.Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia should NOT be used for atheistic apologetics either! Biased against Christians in general and the Orthodox in particular. Shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.169.71 (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I struggle with broad-based claims of bias without specifics. Also, if you have any NPOV sources that describe the ritual around Holy Fire you think would be useful to generate new wcontent, please suggest them! I looked for them awhile ago and all I could find were devotional-type sites, or sites written from the POV of the faithful, and they are not appropriate either. I agree that Thomas Tegg account is biased and will remove it. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Gregory IX

Sources about Gregory IX's alleged pronouncement are thin. I have added one source which says he banned Franciscans from participating. The Telegraph says he banned Roman Catholics from participating. Finding the text of the proclamation would be nice, or at least a source that wasn't a British tabloid. Elizium23 (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

1923

The claim that the Holy Fire did not appear in 1923 is not credible. As far as I can tell, the source cited is the only source that has ever made this claim. (My search for corroboration failed to turn up anything else.) While this source, in general, is heavily footnoted, the entire paragraph that includes the claim about the Holy Fire does not contain a single footnote. Rather, the claim is attributed to a third-hand assertion from an anonymous elderly monk in an unnamed monastery. Given the source's predilection for heavy documentation, it is safe to assume that this claim would have been documented if it were possible to do so.

In the context of this publication, the supposed absence of the Holy Fire is being cited as evidence of divine rejection of the New Calendar, which was adopted by some Orthodox churches in 1923. It is an example of the desperate depths to which Old Calendarist rhetoric can sink. - BALawrence (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

agreed, i removed it. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

#&##%# ??

Christopher Tyerman teaches Medieval History at Oxford and is published by OUP and Harvard University Press. See reviews [4], [5], [6]. He is manifestly a RS. It's perfectly fine for a user to disagree with him, but "...keep this fucking shit out of Wikipedia" as an edit summary just won't do. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

source please

an authoritative source to support the claim "The Holy Fire is described by Orthodox Christians as a miracle." Where is this blanket description made? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

wait a second...

Wait... there is no mention that the Patriarch uses the same type of lighters or candles, and the candles are bought from seller around the church and many of them ignite from themselves, while others don`t. also, there was a claim that the candles of the christians have a special compose and they produce the fire only in contact with the air there, and it has problems: 1. There are a lot of people there, in the church, at the time of the event. If there would be a special gas, as it is harder than the air would gather down, along the people and would produce damage to them. 2. There is a circle in the dome through where the light comes... air enters through it and it would affect any supposed gas manipulation. Secondly, that parts with a monk lightning the Holy Fire is impossible... the doom is too thin to make possible for any monk to ignite a hand-made fire from a secret chamber... it is to thin to make that chamber possible! Also, there was no monk on the dome, there is no wire to connect anything with the fire at all, and the fire comes from outside. Also, the Holy Fire doesn`t moves following a fixed path, but after getting to the believers it gets from one to another, upon entering the holy sepulcher. There are also reports of people having their normal candles ignited alone. And the stories that accuse this event as a fraud are mere stories. No base or proof that the model they give to explain the miracle fits the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.221.208 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy Fire delivery to America 2017

Ok, twice I've tried to add information anonymously only to have it removed! I finally signed up for an account and would like to imput the information, but I want to know exactly how should I put it in so that it doesn't risk getting removed again! Maybe the national mainstream media like the NY Times ignores it, but it has received notice from various US papers affiliated with USA Today/Gannett as well as on the websites of several Russian and Orthodox related media. There are also several youtube videos about the topic so it is well documented and yes, notable! This event is really a big deal for North Americans who are Orthodox Christians, and deserves to be included! So...Why is the criticism section longer than the one from inside the Church? Sounds a lot like this article is biased against the topic.Desertmother61 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. This is just a religious website. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holy Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170314223030/http://jerusalem.com/articles/chrisitanity/holy_fire_rite_brings_thousands_to_jerusalem-a2163 to http://jerusalem.com/articles/chrisitanity/holy_fire_rite_brings_thousands_to_jerusalem-a2163

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Kalopoulos

Τοo much text is dedicated to a certain M. Kalopoulos. He is a self-styled "researcher", who claims that he revealed all the forgery of the Bible, that Alexander the Great was poisonned by the Jews because he wanted to revive Babylon [7] and other funny things. He also appears dressed as "pagan" in a re-enactment of ancient Greek Promethea festival [8]. Does anybody feel that he is a "source"?--Skylax30 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Kalopoulos has described himself as a "mechanical engineer" and "researcher." He has stated that he's a member of an association titled "Skepticists of Greece," which challenges claims of religious miracles. Kalopoulos has demonstrated on Greek television the trivial case of fire produced by a time-delay mix of white phosphorus (P₄) and carbon disulfide (CS₂). In any case, I'm unable to find reliable sources in English that would allow us to quote Kalopoulos at length, if at all. The only sources in fact, appear to be Greek-language video clips from his appearances on Greek TV channels. Lame. -The Gnome (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No white phosphorus

White phosphorus was first used in the 19th century. It also burns, unlike the Holy Flame. Gio31188 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Holyfire.org and orthodoxinfo.com

Do not seem like a Reliable Source to me. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I give up

Due to WP:EW with so-called "saint" @Tounom:, I hereby throw in the towel. Today's addition is a blatant copyvio of at least two other websites. There is no justification for the unsourced and non-neutral addition to this article. I hope he is summarily blocked for his ignorance and possible block-evading sockpuppetry(?) Elizium23 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elizium23! There is no need to throw any kind of towel, this is not a battle. Tounom is a new user and most probable he is unfamiliar with the policies of WP. I have reverted his edit and asked him to use the Talk Page.[9] Cinadon36 10:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23, Please hang in there, we need editors like you. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the encouragement. What I meant was that I needed to take a time-out, and back off the edit-war because I wasn't gaining any ground. Obviously, it is always good to retreat here to the talk page and discuss things rationally. I hope Tounom will join us here! Elizium23 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you are possessed by deamons, thats why you dont want to accept the legitimate and well documented contribution regarding Martyr Tunom Tunom (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I dont think this is a personal attack. Martyr Tunom is a well known Saint who is closely related to the Holy Fire. Additionaly he is a person who gave a testimony of the existance of the Holy Fire, and paid this testimony with his life. You allow all other testimonies (mostly against Holy Fire), but you deny this one which was paid by a person's life. Some wikipedians dont want this perfectly legitimate and documented information to appear here. Not only they revert but also they delete the contribution fiercly. For this tottaly irrational attack what other reasonable explaination could you give, if not that they are possessed by deamons, the same deamons that caused Tunom's death? Tunom2 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

They are not only possessed by demons, but also against free speeech. Pathetic! Tunom4 (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been named sockpuppet and have been banned for defending a good purpose. So I should not be banned because I subscribe new account. I am not the illegal, illegals are the ones who delete legitimate contributions. Tunom5 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I also wonder why some people constatnly delete whoever mentions the name of a Saint who is closely related to the Holy File. What these people are afraid of? Who commands these people to censor Tunom? Are they paid to do that? Ffewfw (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The so-called holy fire of Jerusalem at Easter.

As a scientifically minded doctor I review hundreds are scientific papers each year. I am also board certified in forensic science and forensic medicine. I am obsessed with the absolute truth.Which includes various degrees of certainty and uncertainty. Evidence such as is recorded as: this group believes this or that group believes that is not considered even to be offered or mentioned in court as evidence. But it can certainly be mentioned to set the context for other evidence that is objective and worth consideration. The article to which I am referring in Wikipedia about the "holy fire" appears to have been written by someone attempting to explain some context for the terminology. That is reasonable but it is not evidence. I have been interested in and to a very limited extent researched this. I still want the very small amount of time I have spent on this project. I have encountered a large amount of objective evidence admissible in court in the form of video recordings. The first hand accounts of dozens of scientists who have personally witnessed this is still not equal to the verifiable objective evidence of videos. But not all videos are equal. Just as in court lack of one type of proof is not proof of its opposite. Is this article was written for legal purposes it would be thrown out of court. Since I have been able to see significant evidence that is objective within 30 minutes of encountering this article, my professional opinion is that it was not researched objectively or thoroughly or even reasonably well. Help someone with a objective point of view and willingness to spend at least a few hours what does Sol and replace the current article with something that is not a disgrace to Wikipedia. Charles Carttar (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, your credentials mean essentially nothing here on Wikipedia. We go by what reliable secondary sources say. (Videos are WP:PRIMARY sources and won't be any good for the kind of analysis you want to do.) If you have scholarly papers or better sources, feel free to add them to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A Muslim perspective

In the writings of Evliya Çelebi it is said: "The reason it burns on their notorious Festival of the Red Egg (Easter) is this: There is a zinc jar concealed in lead at the apogee of the dome. It contains olive oil mixed with a small amount of naphtha. During the days of the festival, because of the heat, the oil in the jar drips down through that highly-wrought chain and fills the lamp, with none of the infidels aware of it. The wall on the eastern side of the Church, above the prayer-niche which is their ‘qibla’ (i.e., altar), has been embellished by the clever master builder with panes of crystal and/or glass. At noon on the Red Egg days, the glass panes get very hot from the beating of the sun. This heat in turn affects the large lamp, which bursts into flame.

If the weather happens to be cloudy on those days, and the sun is not strong enough to produce this effect, one of the clever monks secretly climbs on top of the dome and kindles the oil mixed with naphtha at the tip of the chain. The fire runs down the chain, in plain view of the infidels standing below, who think that it is fire from heaven. Awestruck, they remove their hats and cry Kiryeleys, Kiryeleys!

In this manner the fire of Nimrod descends into that lamp and lights up the interior of the Church. The monks use the fire in that lamp to kindle the thousands of candles that the infidels have in their hands, and the infidels in turn take those nefarious camphor candles and distribute the fire throughout the Christian world. Vast sums are earned from this trade as well. It is indeed a strange art of the lamp. Even the monks who expend their lives in this church are not aware of it. Only the one who attends this lamp knows about it, and he keeps it to himself, only passing on the secret to another one before he dies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuslimKnight786 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Disputed"

"However, the authenticity of the miracle has long been disputed" - doesn't sound scientifically at all, wouldn't be better something like "the authenticity of the 'miracle' hasn't ever been proven, moreover, people involved in the procedure oppose any possibility of scientific examination of their actions"? 213.5.193.151 (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Missing: the results of the scientific studies from 2008, 2016 and 2018, which prove the annual miracle

Dr. Phys. Andrej Wolkow (RUS; Electromagnetic spectrum measurements and low temperature plasma), Holy Saturday, 2008; published in Russian Bepa on April 21, 2009

Biologist/Pater Gennadios Zaritze (RUS, Temperature measurements; confirmation of the measurements of 2008); Holy Saturday, 2016; published as “Father Gennadios: Is it easier to believe in a miracle when this is confirmed by science?”

Prof. Eng. Giulio Fanti (ITA—Univ. Padua; Thermal measurements, confirmation of the measurements), Holy Saturday, 2019

All scientific experiments confirmed the core statements. The fire went from 42° for ~20 minutes, no burns to skin or fabrics, to an unexplained temperature rise of 320°.

In addition, there is a book (APA: Skarlakidis, Haris K. (2021). The Holy Fire (first edition). Publisher: Elea.) in which 85 contemporary witnesses—4th-16th century—are documented and in which 23 reproduced medieval manuscripts from archives of history (Vatican, European, Arabic etc. pp.) prove the event for 1700 years. 37.24.180.63 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

lack of impartiality

seems to affirm that it is "false" using sources such as Muslims (of which none of their doctrine can be criticized because they accuse you of "Islamophobia" and people who had a political interest in prove it was false .It should narrate "what it is" impartially and then let everyone choose what to believe or point out that those who question it are Muslims and people with other political interests behind it! . 2803:9800:90B1:87E1:9829:451D:EB7D:8247 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with u .i.also The article says it is lit ..(twice).. by whom ?were u inside the tomb to witness it was lit by the patriarch ? With what ? It must be narrated honestly that the patriarch gets undressed and wears a white robe with no pockets to conceal any matches or lighter and enters the tomb wearing only the white robe and taking with him the unlit two candle torches.. this he does in front of thousands present.. I have put my hand inside the flame myself more than once also and it did not burn me. Why not also mention in your article that this is fire which started around year 1000..I.e .more than 1000 years ago each year..pls I agree there must be impartiality 94.187.10.152 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)