Part 2
Why do atheists and skeptics want to destroy faith?
In the long history of Christianity, there has not been a single miracle that atheists and skeptics would not try to deny. Any means have been and are being used in this struggle. Thus, even St. John Chrysostom notes about those who denied the miracle of the Resurrection: “And see how ridiculous their designs are! In memory, they say, like a flatterer, he is still alive in speech: for three days he will be vostanu. But if He was a deceiver and boasted in vain, then why are you afraid, rushing about and so fussing? We are afraid, they say, lest the disciples steal and deceive the rabble. But it has already been proven that this could not have happened. And yet malice is stubborn and shameless - it also encroaches on an insane deed (Interpretation of St. Matthew the Evangelist. Conversation LXXXIX, 2).
Holy Kuvuklia after the descent of the Holy Fire
For two thousand years non-believers have not weakened their stubbornness in the struggle against Christianity. The question may arise: why do some people, instead of doing something positive, spend so much time and effort to refute facts in which they do not believe and which have nothing to do with them personally? Why is it so important and significant for them to destroy someone else's faith? Why do some people make the imposition and spread of unbelief their profession? Until recently, there were associate professors and even professors of "scientific atheism".
In the charter of the "Union of Militant Atheists" Article 1 was formulated as follows: "The Union of Militant Atheists is a voluntary proletarian public organization that aims to unite the broad masses of the working people of the USSR for an active systematic and consistent struggle against religion in all its forms and forms as a brake on socialist construction and cultural revolution ".
Now there is no "socialist construction". What, in the eyes of modern militant skeptics, is holding back the Christian faith of millions of people?
Promotional video:
The reason lies in the demonic nature of atheism and, in general, any stubborn disbelief and skepticism. Only in different eras does it manifest itself in different ways. In the days of Soviet atheism, the main root was pride, which led to the atheistic substitution of the ideology of “earthly paradise” for Christianity, and now the main reason for mass atheism is the passion and lust that most people indulge in. “Unbelief comes from a vicious life and vanity” (St. John Chrysostom).
Suspicion and speculation instead of evidence
Skeptics completely disregard the rules and methods that have been developed for centuries to establish the truth of facts and conclusions. I mean logic, science and jurisprudence.
Logic formulates the rules for proving and justifying statements and conclusions. In building any inference, the premises must be true. And conclusions should be made only when they correspond to the law of sufficient reason, introduced by the mathematician and philosopher G. Leibniz. According to this law, "for the truth of any thought there must be sufficient grounds, that is, the inference must be substantiated on the basis of judgments, the truth of which has already been proven." Skeptics not only do not believe in the miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire, but are actively trying to carry out the idea that every year for many centuries forgery and deception have been committed. How do they prove it?
Since skeptics often use the concepts of "witness", "testimony", it is important to turn to such a discipline as law, because the centuries-old world legal practice has developed clear criteria that determine exactly who can be involved in the case as a witness. In all systems of law and even in ordinary usage, a witness is a person who was personally present at a given event, that is, an eyewitness.
Pseudo-evidence. Skeptics use as "evidence" people who are completely not involved in the described event. So, for example, they cite the statements of Ibn-al-Kalanisi (+ 1162), al-Jaubari (+ 1242), Mujir ad-din (+ c. 1496).
Ibn-al-Kalanisi:
“When they are [in the temple] on Easter, they hang lamps in the altar and arrange a trick so that the fire can reach them through the oil of the balsam tree and its accessories, and its property is the appearance of fire when combined with jasmine oil. It has bright light and brilliant shine. They manage to draw a stretched iron wire between neighboring lamps, like a thread, continuously going from one to the other, and rub it with balsam oil, hiding it from sight, until the thread passes to all the lamps. When they pray and the time of descent comes, the doors of the altar are opened, and they believe that there is the cradle of Isa [Jesus], may peace be to Him, and that from there He ascended to heaven. They come in and light many candles, and the building gets hot from the breath of the multitudes. Someone standing is trying to bring the fire to the thread,he [fire] catches on to it and goes over all the lamps from one to another, until he lights everything. Whoever looks at this thinks that fire came down from the sky and the lamps were lit."
Al-Jawbari:
“But the fact is that this lamp is the greatest of the tricks arranged by the first generations; I will explain it to you and reveal the secret. The fact is that at the top of the dome there is an iron box connected to a chain on which it is suspended. It is fortified in the very vault of the dome, and no one can see it except this monk. On this chain there is a box with a void inside. And when the Saturday night of light comes, the monk goes up to the box and puts sulfur in it like a "sunbusek", and under it is a fire, calculated until the hour when he needs the descent of light. He lubricates the chain with oil of balsam wood, and when the time comes, fire ignites the composition at the junction of the chain with this attached box. The balsam oil collects at this point and begins to flow along the chain, going down to the lamp. The fire touches the wick of the lamp, and it used to be saturated with balsam oil,and lights it."
Skeptics took these passages from the work of the orientalist I. Yu. Krachkovsky (“Holy Fire” based on the story of al-Biruni and other Muslim writers of the 10th – 13th centuries // Christian East. Pg., 1915. T. 3. Issue 3). Borrowing these statements, they either did not read or ignored Krachkovsky's own commentary on them.
“From the above review, one can easily see how Muslim stories about the miracle of the holy fire differ from Christian ones. All of them are presented with quite understandable brevity, sometimes reduced to a simple mention (al-Jahiz, 'Ali-al-Kherevi); they are not all based on personal observation. The only exception is Ibn-al-Jawzi and the source of al-Biruni; we leave the analysis of the last message aside for now. The third-hand transmission explains sometimes too obvious mistakes, like the date in al-Mas'udi or the message of Ibn al-Kalanisi about the opinion of Christians regarding the place of birth and ascension of Jesus Christ. The factual side of these stories comes down to very little: from them only follows that at all times to which the listed authors refer,the miracle happened every year and was a well-known and common occurrence. The description of the miracle itself and the entire rite is only available in Ibn al-Jawzi. All other elements of other messages should be attributed not so much to the actual as to the legendary history. One of them is undoubtedly influenced by the literary treatment of the plot. This is a story about a conversation between a dignitary and a monk regarding the actual underpinning of the miracle. Its historical basis is, perhaps, an attempt to comprehend the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by al-Hakim and his possible conversation with one of the confidants, cited by Ibn-al-Kalanisi and al-Hariri. All subsequent versions, where instead of al-Hakim appear some ruler (Yakut = al-Qazvini), or al-Melik al-Mu'azzam (al-Jaubari), or, finally,Salahaddin himself (Ibn-al-Jawzi), and instead of an approximate person - a monk (al-Jawbari), a priest (Yakut = al-Qazwini) and the patriarch himself (Ibn-al-Jawzi).
The second common element is the attempt to explain the miracle. This explanation partly comes from the author himself (al-Jawbari, Ibn-al-Jawzi, Mujir ad-din), partly it is embedded in the story of the conversation between the ruler and the clergyman (Ibn al-Kalanisi, Yakut). The very variety of these explanations and their contradictory nature indicates that here, too, one can hardly look for a factual basis. In Ibn-al-Kalanisi and Mujir-ad-din, this explanation boils down to setting fire to the thread that connects all the lamps; closer to modern reality is one lamp, which appears in Yakut and al-Jaubari. According to the first, it simply ignites; according to the second, the wick is ignited by a complex hidden device with sulfur, calculated for a known period. The latter also has an internal contradiction in his story: at the beginning he says that all Christians have a kind of conspiracy regarding an imaginary miracle;from the end of the story, it is revealed that the only monk with the secret of his sign, who arranges the device”.
Filtration of materials. Citing several statements by Muslim authors, whose stories, according to I. B. Krachkovsky, are contradictory and have no "factual basis", skeptics deliberately pass over in silence the message of the famous scholar from Khorezm Abu Reikhan Muhammad ibn Ahmed al-Biruni (973-1048), who cites the story of a man who was present at the descent of the Holy Fire. Al-Biruni himself fully trusts him and, together with the narrator, recognizes this great miracle: “Around the rocks there are choirs on which Muslims, Christians and everyone who comes to the place of the tomb on this day, bowing before God and praying to him from noon to evening are placed … The mu'azzin of the cathedral mosque, the imam and the emir of the city come. They sit at the coffin, bring lamps, which they put on the coffin; and it is closed. Christians before that extinguish their lamps and lamps and remain so,until they see that a pure white fire has lit a lamp. From it, lamps are lit in the cathedral mosque and in churches, and then they write to the capital of the Caliphate about the time of the descent of the fire. By the speed of the descent and its proximity to noon, they conclude about the harvest this year, by the delay until the evening and distance (from midday) - about the crop failure.
This narrator also told me that one of the rulers put copper instead of a wick so that it would not catch fire and all this would be upset. But then, when the fire descended, the copper caught fire. The descent of this fire on the passing day does not yet deserve surprise, but its appearance without visible matter is much more amazing. It is impossible to doubt this, since there is a story (satisfying) all the conditions of truth about a church in one of the villages of Egypt."
This description, coming not from a Christian, but from a Muslim who is not interested in composing anything in favor of Christianity, is enough to make all the attempts of skeptics worthless. What is most important in this story?
1. The muezzin of the main mosque, the imam and the emir of the city come to the Christian temple and bring lamps. For what purpose? To get a pure white fire. If Christians would receive fire from a burning lamp or with the help of a "lighter", then why are they lighting lamps in the main mosque from this fire?
2. Al-Biruni directly writes about the descent of fire.
3. Then they write to the capital of the Caliphate about the time of the descent of the fire. What for? In this, Muslims see a sign: according to the speed of the descent of the fire, "they conclude about the harvest this year."
4. Al-Biruni writes about one more miracle: “fire descended, and copper also caught fire”.
It is pertinent to pose a simple question: if this were not the case, then why would a Muslim begin to invent this and raise Christianity?
So the skeptics are filtering the material. This filtering of sources is prohibited by the methodology of science. The scientific community has made and is making a lot of efforts to protect the field of science from various counterfeits. One clause, which is aimed at combating various types of intellectual fraud, is formulated as follows: "Ignore data that is significantly different from the rest, without notice." This is what the skeptics do.
The miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire is a fact. In contrast to the complete unsubstantiated statements of skeptics, the miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire is an annually observed fact. Every year, several thousand people present in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher see: the Patriarch entered the Kuvuklia, which was checked and sealed, with a bunch of candles, whose clothes were specially examined. He went out of it with a burning torch of 33 candles. It is a fact. According to the words of the ancient Roman judges, contra factum non est argumentum (there is no proof against the fact). In response to this, skeptics have only suspicion and speculation. The extreme artificiality of the skeptics' objections is obvious if we take into account that representatives of other Christian confessions participate in the examination of the Cuvuklia, in the sealing of it and in the inspection of the patriarch every year.
Father Mitrofan (Papaioannou), who for 57 years was a guard at the chapel of the Holy Sepulcher, gave such details to Archimandrite Savva (Achilleos). “Between 10 and 11 am on Holy Saturday, strict control is exercised. Special authorized persons enter the Cuvuklia of the Holy Sepulcher, over which 43 golden lamps hang in the form of a golden curtain, they burn there day and night: 13 of them belong to the Orthodox, 13 to Catholics, 13 to Armenians and 4 to Copts. These lamps, like luminous heavenly ranks, overshadow the Tomb of Christ. Only specially authorized persons enter the Life-Giving Tomb in order to extinguish all 43 lamps at the last minute, before the patriarch enters it. On the day of the descent of the Holy Fire, the strictest order has been established, which has been strictly observed here for centuries. On this day, representatives of other religions are sure to be present and watch everything: Catholics, Armenians and Copts, together with them, the Orthodox commissioner enters the Kuvuklia. Their presence has only one purpose - to make sure that some lamp or some object from which one could light a fire is not accidentally or deliberately left lit, as well as whether any person is hiding there. The cuvuklia is checked three times. Having extinguished all the lamps and candles, the delegates leave the Kuvuklia. The Church of the Life-Giving Sepulcher of the Lord is plunged into complete darkness. At exactly 11 o'clock in the morning of Holy Saturday, the procedure for sealing the Tomb is performed. By this time, the wax, on which 40 liturgies were previously performed, should be ready, that is, melted in advance to seal the entrance to the Kuvuklia. Then, two huge white ribbons, crossed crosswise, cover the doors of the entrance to the Kuvuklia, the ends of these ribbons flutter, decorating the entrance to the Kuvuklia. A sufficient amount of wax is applied to the double doors on all four sides, and in the place where the ribbons cross, the largest part of the wax is applied and the entrance to the Kuvuklia is sealed with the official seal of the Patriarchate. This procedure is reminiscent of a hopeless attempt by the Jewish high priests and Pharisees, who wished to seal the Tomb of the Ruler of Life with a seal so that His disciples would not steal His body. And proceeding to the Roman hegemon Pontius Pilate in order to obtain legal permission for this, they said: “Sir! we remembered that the deceiver, while still alive, said: “After three days I will rise again …” And Pilate said to them: “You have a watch; go guard as you know. They went and set a guard at the Tomb, and put a seal on the stone (Matt. 27: 63-66). After the doors of the Tomb are sealed, at exactly 11 o'clock in the morning of Great Saturday, the procession of the cross begins around the Cuvuklia. It is bypassed three times. The solemn procession of the cross is accompanied by the singing of psalms, the whole temple is read with wondrous sacred Byzantine hymns. The divine sounds of sacred chants are heard throughout the temple. The Patriarch with all the bishops, dressed in golden sakkos, bypasses the Kuvuklia, accompanied by all the sacred clergy. Ahead of the procession are subdeacons with candlesticks and six-winged ripids in their hands, in the presentation of the honest cross of the Lord. This solemn Byzantine procession transports the pilgrim to other spheres of life. For a while, all those who stand and pray here become citizens of Heaven. After a three-time procession with the cross around Kuvukliya, the patriarch stands in front of her entrance, at this time he is subjected to the most thorough examination in the presence of authorized representatives of heterodox faiths, officials and all believing people. This control is done in order to eliminate any suspicion of the possibility of the presence of an object from which he could light a fire, entering the Kuvuklia alone. After this procedure, the patriarch enters the Kuvuklia in only one podreznik, epitrachili and bishop's omophorion. And exactly at 12 noon, the ribbons are cut and the seal is removed from the entrance to the Kuvuklia”(Savva Achilleos, archimandrite. I saw the Holy Fire. Athens, 2002).officials and all believing people. This control is done in order to eliminate any suspicion of the possibility of the presence of an object from which he could light a fire, entering the Kuvuklia alone. After this procedure, the patriarch enters the Kuvuklia in only one podreznik, epitrachili and bishop's omophorion. And exactly at 12 noon, the ribbons are cut and the seal is removed from the entrance to the Kuvuklia”(Savva Achilleos, archimandrite. I saw the Holy Fire. Athens, 2002).officials and all believing people. This control is done in order to eliminate any suspicion of the possibility of the presence of an object from which he could light a fire, entering the Kuvuklia alone. After this procedure, the patriarch enters the Kuvuklia in only one podreznik, epitrachili and bishop's omophorion. And exactly at 12 noon, the ribbons are cut and the seal is removed from the entrance to the Kuvuklia”(Savva Achilleos, archimandrite. I saw the Holy Fire. Athens, 2002). And exactly at 12 noon, the ribbons are cut and the seal is removed from the entrance to the Kuvuklia”(Savva Achilleos, archimandrite. I saw the Holy Fire. Athens, 2002). And exactly at 12 noon, the ribbons are cut and the seal is removed from the entrance to the Kuvuklia”(Savva Achilleos, archimandrite. I saw the Holy Fire. Athens, 2002).
I beg your pardon for such a long quote. I brought it up because skeptics are trying to convince their readers that this is only an imitation of control. Atheists deliberately ignore the fact that the existing custom of controlling all actions related to obtaining fire (checking the chapel, printing on the doors, guards, and also inspecting the patriarch) was born in the midst of a fierce struggle against Christianity on the part of Muslims, who from the 7th to the beginning of the 20th century (with the exception of the XII century) ruled in Jerusalem. The Turkish authorities wished to discredit the phenomenon and took all measures to prevent the fire from igniting, for this miracle testified to the Divinity of Christianity. Skeptics are slyly silent about the fact that the Turks, who seized Palestine in 1517, resorted to searches of Kuvuklia and the Patriarch every year, not for the sake of a "performance",as some unbelievers are insulting.
What prevented Islamic rulers from exposing Christians and thereby depriving them of impressive evidence of the truth of their faith?
Here is what a Russian pilgrim of the 17th century writes: “And how approaching near Easter of Christ, on Heels on Holy Week and near Vespers, at the command of Pashev, the Turks of God's mercy, that great church is the holy of holies and the Resurrection of Christ were stamped, and the metropolitan, and the archbishop, and elders, and people of all ranks, believing in Christ, vows and local people, Greeks and Araps, entered the church and began the Vespers of Petit And when the time of the festive Vespers was ready, the Metropolitan came to the chapel where the Holy Sepulcher was. And the side-chapel was sealed at that time, and the fire was extinguished; and the Turks search the Metropolitan of everything so that he has no flint, no flint, no tinder, no sulfur, but that side-chapel was stamped for him. And the Metropolitan at that chapel at the door and looks at Deisus, directly to the east, and looks up at the sky where the poppy-tree is broken, and praises God with tenderness and tears, waiting for God's mercy;but he prayed for two hours. And as 11 o'clock struck, and over the poppy seed of that great church from heaven there will be a thunderbolt of three times, and the Greeks and Araps began to speak loudly: agios, agios, agios, but in our opinion: holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, and they begin to be baptized. With the same thunder, three gray pigeons flew in and three pigeons sat on that breaking poppy: one sat from the east, and the second sat down from noon, and the third from the west. And the Metropolitan crossed himself, and go to that side-chapel, and there was a lot of time there; and the elder, standing outside the chapel at the door, and often looking at that chapel, will open and close it. Then, over the Lord's tomb, the lamp was first ignited by the heavenly fire, and as soon as the metropolitan left the old chapel, he brought out two bunches of candles in both hands and stood on a high place, where is the prepared place for him,and all Christians from the Metropolitan lit their own lights, and the Turks, according to the same, lit their lights; and that heavenly fire is clay, not like earthly fire”(Life and walking to Jerusalem and Egypt of Vasily Yakovlevich Gagara of Kazan (1634–1637) // Orthodox Palestinian collection. St. Petersburg, 1891. Issue 33, pp. 33–34).
Was the pasha, along with his janissaries, so powerless for 400 years to stop this custom, if it was a deception?
The blessed fire descends annually for over 1000 years. Let's take as the beginning of this miracle the message of the Western monk Bernard (c. 865 or 870), which clearly refers to the miracle of the condescension of the Holy Fire. “On Great Saturday, on the eve of Easter, at the morning church service in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, according to the chant 'Kyrie, eleison' ('Lord, have mercy'), an angel descends and lights the lamps hanging over the Holy Sepulcher. The patriarch transfers this fire to the bishop and finally to all the people, so that everyone could light this fire in their home. The current patriarch is called Theodosius (863–879), he was called to this place for his piety (quoted from: Dmitrievsky AA The Grace of Holy Fire on the Life-Giving Tomb of the Lord in Great Saturday. SPb., 1908. S. VI).
From Theodosius to the present Theophilos, there were 72 patriarchs in Jerusalem. In 1931-1935 and in 2000-2001, the Jerusalem See was a widow. The blessed fire was received by the metropolitans. Really, for eleven and a half centuries, not one of the 72 primates of the Church and several metropolitans was restrained by the Christian conscience from the grave sin of deceiving a multitude of believers. To this it should be added that an Armenian priest is present every year in Kuvuklia together with the Orthodox Patriarch. The already mentioned guardian of the chapel, Father Mitrofan, says: “Then I saw with my own eyes how the Cuvuklia was sealed with wax, standing right there, next to the door of the Tomb. After the solemn procession of the cross, at exactly 12 noon, the doors of the Cuvuklia opened wide, all the ribbons and seals were removed, and the patriarch entered the first. He was followed as an observer by a representative of the Armenian Church, who has the privilege of primacy. His task is to carefully monitor every movement of the patriarch. Usually, he cannot enter the second part of the Kuvuklia, where the Life-Giving Tomb of the Lord is located, observing only from the chapel of the Angel at the actions of our patriarch."
Skeptics do not even think about the moral consequences of their activity. In order to defend their "righteousness", skeptics need to slander all the patriarchs of the Jerusalem Church for 1000 years, charging them with lies, greed and cowardice.
What do skeptics oppose to the fact of a miracle?
Several statements of people who were not eyewitnesses.
1. There is a quote from a letter from Archbishop Meletius (Smotritskiy) of Polotsk to Patriarch Kirill Lukaris of Constantinople: “Probably remember that I once asked you why your deputy Meletius, writing against the new Roman calendar and trying to prove the superiority of the old over the new, leads to confirmation of his opinion of various miracles, not excluding those that are no longer repeated, but does not mention this famous annual miracle of Jerusalem at all? To this question in [your] priesthood, they answered me in the presence of two of your household dignitaries - the protossinkell of the hieromonk Leonty and the archdeacon of the patriarch of Alexandria, that if this miracle really happened in our time, then all the Turks would have long believed in [Jesus] Christ … The Patriarch of Jerusalem, the one who takes this fire, reacted even more sharply.endures and distributes to the people. Thus, it is regrettable to say that our Orthodox fellow believers regarding this miraculous fire, which once really did appear, and now, for our sins, has ceased to appear, prefer to be at one with the heretics, such as the Eutychians, Dioscorites and Jacobites, rather than with Catholics, who are not a miracle. admitted by very respectful, especially at the sight of what at that time the heretics Abyssinians were doing at the grave”(Ivinsky Pavel. East Slavic literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Vilnius, 1998. pp. 111–112).who do not allow this miracle because they are very respectful, especially when they see what the heretics Abyssinians are doing at the grave at that time”(Ivinsky Pavel. East Slavic literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Vilnius, 1998, pp. 111–112).who do not allow this miracle because they are very respectful, especially when they see what the heretics Abyssinians are doing at the grave at that time”(Ivinsky Pavel. East Slavic literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Vilnius, 1998, pp. 111–112).
It is surprising that skeptics quote this quote. Apparently, the skeptics did not read the quote carefully and did not notice that the quote is against the skeptics, for Meletius (Smotritsky) recognizes the miracle of the Holy Fire, only says that the fire has ceased to pass for sins: “Regarding this wonderful fire, which once really appeared, and now, for our sins, he has ceased to appear."
Secondly, Patriarch Kirill Lukaris never received fire and therefore his statement is not any evidence. So you can refer to any hierarch.
Thirdly, skeptics deliberately keep silent about the personality and religious convictions of Archbishop Melety (Smotritsky). Metropolitan Makarii (Bulgakov) in his History of the Russian Church gives him the following assessment: “He did not have firm religious convictions, which almost depended most of all on his upbringing. His own religious upbringing was accomplished under three influences: under the influence of Orthodoxy in childhood, under the influence of strict Latinism in his youth, and under the influence of Protestant ideas, when he was already overstepping the bounds of youth. The most powerful influence was the second, because it took place during that period of Meletius's life, when the powers of thought were awakened and strengthened in him; continued during his stay at the Vilna Jesuit Academy and was performed by such masters of their craft as the Jesuits were. That's why it is not surprisi.gif"
Meletius (Smotritsky) writes: "The Patriarch of Jerusalem spoke about this even more sharply." In 1608-1644, Theophanes III was the Patriarch of Jerusalem. This respected patriarch of the mother of all Christian Churches for 37 years received the Holy Fire. If we accept the words of Meletius, it turns out that he was a hypocrite all this time. Why, in such a matter of principle, we should trust the person who betrayed Orthodoxy more than an honest clergyman who bravely fought and was able to preserve the rights of the Orthodox Church in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Bethlehem Church and the Nativity Cave. The ruler of Palestine, Mohammed Pasha, arrested Theophanes for his persistence and nearly executed him.
2. Judging by the number of citations and replication, the skeptics attach the greatest weight to the entry made by Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky; future bishop) in his diary "The Book of My Life". He quotes the story of Bishop Dionysius of Philadelphia. When reading it, it turns out that Metropolitan Misail told Bishop Dionysius that he lights a fire from a lamp. Bishop Dionysius recounted this to Archimandrite Porphyry. And Father Porfiry wrote it down in his diary. One could recall the most important rule of Roman law: testis unus, testis nullus (one witness is not a witness), but the point is that in this case we do not have a single witness, because Archimandrite Porfiry who told us this is not a witness. From the point of view of law, for a judge who would have to make a decision on a certain fact,such an indication would have zero value. From the point of view of logic, as mentioned above, the law of sufficient reason is grossly violated here. I used the word “rude” because, on the basis of a twice mediated statement, a universal conclusion is drawn that the believers were deceived not only by Metropolitan Misail, but also by all the patriarchs and their substitute metropolitans for over 1000 years. Logic is a precise discipline. She rigidly formulates the requirement of evidence: "what is impossible to talk about, about that should be kept silent" (L. Wittgenstein Logical-Philosophical Treatise. 7).but also by all the patriarchs and their substitute metropolitans for more than 1000 years. Logic is a precise discipline. She rigidly formulates the requirement of evidence: "what is impossible to talk about, about that should be kept silent" (L. Wittgenstein Logical-Philosophical Treatise. 7).but also by all the patriarchs and their substitute metropolitans for more than 1000 years. Logic is a precise discipline. She rigidly formulates the requirement of evidence: "what it is impossible to talk about, about that should be kept silent" (L. Wittgenstein Logical-Philosophical Treatise. 7).
For those who are familiar with the biography of Bishop Porfiry (Assumption), the record of the Holy Fire, which skeptics cite, does not inspire any confidence. Bishop Porfiry is known as a man who tried to refute other miracles and traditions accepted by the Church. In the Preface to the book "Posthumous Broadcasts of the Monk Nil the Myrrh-streaming Athos" (St. Petersburg, 1912) we read: "For a long time, the multivolume works of Archimandrite were published and widely distributed throughout Russia. Porfiry about Athos. In these voluminous, thick books, the late Bishop Porfiry (not be remembered by him in the next world) step by step ridicules and denies by means of scientific evidence almost every Athonite legend about a particular miracle, shows very little reverence for the Athonite shrines, ridicules the Athonite their exploits, etc.; these books in Russia can be found in every spiritual library,in many churches, there are also on Athos in monastic libraries. In a word, the books of Bishop Porfiry, apparently very capable of undermining respect for the Holy Mountain, are widespread throughout Russia; However, did this have any effect on the attitude of Orthodox Russia towards Athos, on the size of the monetary contributions going to Athos ?! - Not at all! The Holy Mount Athos is under the special protection of the Queen of Heaven. The Mother of God herself, the Queen of heaven and earth, cares for Athos. "The Mother of God herself, the Queen of heaven and earth, cares for Athos. "The Mother of God herself, the Queen of heaven and earth, cares for Athos."
Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) spoke sharply about the Codex of Sinai (manuscripts of the 4th century Bible), which is a treasure of the Church. He was against the Church's use of this most valuable manuscript. The famous researcher of antiquities and traveler Avraham Norov published a special book “In Defense of the Sinai Manuscript from the Attacks of Fr. Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky "(St. Petersburg, 1863). He writes: “Following the publication of the Sinai Bible, I was informed about the printed Fr. Archimandrite Porfiry brochure entitled: “Opinion about the Sinai manuscript, containing the incomplete Old Testament and the entire New Testament with the letter of St. the Apostle Barnabas and the Book of Herma by Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky. I hastened to acquire it, hoping to take advantage of Fr. Archimandrite, who lived for a long time in the East,known for his travels to Sinai and who first pointed to this code and described it in part; but I was amazed and deeply grieved to see that Fr. Archimandrite is nothing more than the most caustic article directed primarily at the personality of G. Tischendorf and does not withstand the slightest scholarly criticism and which should never have flowed from the pen of a clergyman. With extreme regret I take up the pen; but I make it my duty; for my goal is not the analysis of personalities about. Archimandrite with G. Tischendorf, and the protection of the sacred monument, plucked from the flame of Omar, kept for so many centuries on Mount Sinai; who was in the hands of St. fathers and hermits, who left traces of their reading on him, and now desecrated, betrayed to the excommunication of the Church for that only, as is clear from the work of Fr. Archimandrite that G. Tischendorf did not recognize him as the first who opened it in the Sinai monastery. This is a mockery from a person clothed with a priesthood, who says that his opinion “is the fruit of free biblical criticism, and the first fruit on the basis of our theological literature,” and that “no one after reading it will say later that the Russian clergy have no my understanding of the Bible, there is no seed for sowing, there is no threshing machine to separate the chaff from the wheat. " This desecration, I say, can make a deep impression on those who are unfamiliar with the Greek language and will not have in their hands this publication, which is not affordable for everyone and is printed in a small number of copies. We could write a lengthy article of refutations on all rumors about. archimandrite, for his opinion represents a vast field for criticism;but this takes time, and we hastened to appease those who love the word of God regarding the attacks of Fr. Archimandrite Porfiry on one of the most ancient monuments of Holy Scripture”.
Avraam Sergeevich Norov
Finally, this message of Bishop Porfiry about Metropolitan Misail is completely refuted by the writer and traveler Avraham Sergeevich Norov, who, unlike Bishop Porfiry, was an eyewitness to the receipt of the holy fire. He made a trip to Jerusalem in 1835, was in the chapel and from the chapel of the Angel saw the actions of Metropolitan Misail, who received the fire: “Thus we reached the chapel of the Holy Sepulcher amid the wonderful spectacle of the people agitated or hanging from all the arcades and cornices. Only one of the Greek bishops, the Armenian bishop (who recently received the right to do so), the Russian consul from Jaffa, and we, three travelers, entered the chapel of the Holy Sepulcher behind the metropolitan. The doors closed behind us. The never-extinguishing lamps over the Holy Sepulcher had already been extinguished, only weak illumination came to us from the church through the side openings of the chapel. This moment is solemn: the excitement in the temple has subsided; all expectations were fulfilled. We stood in the chapel of the Angel, before a stone rolled away from the den; only the Metropolitan entered the nativity scene of the Holy Sepulcher. I have already said that the entrance has no doors. I saw how the aged Metropolitan, bowing before the low entrance, entered the nativity scene and knelt before the Holy Sepulcher, before which nothing stood and which was completely naked. In less than a minute, the darkness lit up with light - and the Metropolitan came out to us with a blazing bunch of candles”(Journey to the Holy Land in 1835. Moscow, 2008. Ch. XIII).bowing before the low entrance, he entered the den and knelt before the holy Sepulcher, before which nothing stood and which was completely naked. In less than a minute, the darkness lit up with light - and the Metropolitan came out to us with a blazing bunch of candles”(Journey to the Holy Land in 1835. Moscow, 2008. Ch. XIII).bowing before the low entrance, he entered the den and knelt before the holy Sepulcher, before which nothing stood and which was completely naked. In less than a minute, the darkness lit up with light - and the Metropolitan came out to us with a blazing bunch of candles”(Journey to the Holy Land in 1835. Moscow, 2008. Ch. XIII).
3. Skeptics resort to another pseudo-evidence. They refer to "the abbot of the monastery of the Holy Archangels (Armenian Apostolic Church), Hieromonk Ghevond Hovhannisyan, who for nine years was present at the ceremony and is personally acquainted with those priests of the Armenian Apostolic Church who entered the interior of the Kuvuklia." A strange and logically helpless argument with reference to the anonymous "priests of the AAC".
That's the whole arsenal. Not a single direct evidence in 1000 years!
Part 2
