Fatima miracle of the sun?

[Churchmouse]

Response in two parts:

Pax:

Churchmouse,

I hope I didn’t offend you with my previous post. If so, then I want to apologize. My intention is to be as direct and to the point as I can be. You’ve raised a fair question about where the number of 70,000 comes from. Although I don’t have original copies of the newspaper stories of the time, I will, nevertheless, submit the following:

There was no offense taken, Pax. Quite the contrary

[The maximum estimate was from Dr. Almeida Garrett, and was proposed some months after the event. He estimated the spectators at more than one hundred thousand. In “O Seculo” of October 15, Avelino de Almeida wrote: “The crowd, by the unprejudiced calculations of cultivated persons very new to mystical influences, was estimated at thirty or forty thousand people.” In his article of October 29, he corrected his first estimate: “On October 13, according to the calculations established by people free from every prejudice, some fifty thousand people were gathered on the moor of Fatima.” A neutral newspaper, the “Primeiro de Janeiro”, also estimated the crowd at fifty thousand individuals. We can therefore say, with a quasi-certainty, that this figure is a minimum; that is why the majority of historians propose as probable the presence of a crowd of seventy thousand."]

There is a large difference between the lowest number, about 30,000 and the largest, about 100,000. Fact is, there is a difference of 70,000 between the two. He settled at 50,000 which the periodical ascertains as well.

Please note that the above came from a secondary source. One would have to read the newspaper articles in some archive to verify them, but I personally have no reason to doubt the quotes.

That’s fair I’ll see if I can find them somewhere.

Obviously, this doesn’t establish anything more than the approximate number of witnesses. I still feel that you need to refute the credibility of the witnesses. If you search the newspaper references above you will find quotes taken by reporters that name the people they interviewed and their eyewitness accounts. Something miraculous happened that day, and I do not believe the efforts you made to argue from the “requirements of nature” and localized versus world wide observance are logical.

Well, as to the credibility of the witnesses, one can only guess, but I really doubt if they were all in unison as to what saw. I am going to research this a bit more, but as I mentioned before, I did read that there were many discrepancies amongst the witnesses.

Yes, something may have happened that day, but, and this has been my point all along, it didn’t happen to our *physical * sun. The only reason why I brought up the localized vs. global aspect of it is because it involves the one sun our earth possesses. You can’t get by the fact that nothing really happened to our sun. It happened in the minds of those who claim they saw it, but definitely not to our sun.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

Part 2:

If you were an atheist that did not believe in miracles, I would understand that line of argument although I would not agree with it. You do believe in miracles and pointed out that you had witnessed one. I have no reason to question your veracity concerning what you witnessed. In order to legitimately question the truth of your claim, I would have to show that your credibility as an eyewitness is not to be trusted. I cannot do that, and because I believe in miracles I cannot argue against you or what you saw. It is my contention that you operate under the same burden with the miracle of Fatima. You have to somehow demonstrate that the witnesses are unreliable. No one has ever done that.

Pax, this is a point I’ve been trying to enforce from the beginning: The fact that I saw a miracle (I’ve actually seen a few) in a remote part of Puerto Rico that was witnessed by some of the townspeople is relevant only to those who saw it and only to those who choose to believe the witness of these witnesses. However, it was there for all to see. A real boy, a real situation, and a real healing. If you would have been there, you would have seen what happened. There was no such thing as townspeople who were looking head-on and didn’t see it. Neither did it happen in the minds of the townspeople because the physical evidence was there. God has given us senses and one of these senses is sight. Undeniably, anyone who would’ve been there would have seen this miracle. In Biblical times, the miracles were always seen by those who witnessed them. They were tangible miracles which couldn’t be denied. Folks saw a cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night. They saw real blind men healed, real lame men walk, real fish and real bread multiplied, etc. However, in these cases, Fatima, Mexico, Venezuela, and wherever else these things occur, not everyone sees this “miracle”, nor does it involve anything tangible such as our “real” sun. That’s the difference and the main reason why I remain skeptical of such an occurrence.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Pax:

I hope that you understand that I have been arguing strictly from logic. My basic assumption is that miracles do occur. I also believe that miracles are not restricted to Catholics or the Catholic Church. Moreover, I do not believe that any of us relies on miracles such as Fatima as a method of proving or verifying the truth of our faith. I do not need the miracle of Fatima to support any of my theological views except one. It does lend credence to the fact that miracles do exist.

Yes, miracles do occur I understand that the Catholic doesn’t need to adhere to Fatima dogmatically and that it’s a matter of choice. I assume that by “one” you mean the Eucharist, but again, as with Fatima, this requires the faith that something unseen has happened.

I would argue strongly that we do have scientific evidence that the sun acted in a strange way that day…at least locally. Eyewitness evidence is scientific data. One can certainly question the eyewitness data, but in order to do so you must show that their testimony is unreliable.

I am unaware of any scientific evidence that anything happened locally or globally to our sun.

On your side of the argument, I believe that you have a stronger case for doubting the source of the miracle than you have for suggesting that it didn’t happen. While I might disagree with you about the possibility of a Satanic source, it seems to me that from a logical Christian perspective you could engage this point more successfully. Many of the arguments you posed against Fatima “if they were valid” could be used even more easily to refute the miracle that you personally witnessed. My contention is that in neither case would a logical refutation exist.

Not necessarily. As opposed to a phenomena “witnessed” by many people which didn’t truly involve our sun, this incident was witnessed by a few townspeople and myself. The evidence being in a bloody, battered boy which was healed right in front of our eyes. The evidence is in the boy and not in our minds.

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

churchmouse

There was no miracle of the sun because our sun wasn’t dancing or falling. Instead, a bunch of folks looking for some sign, saw something within their own minds. That’s why you saw nothing. Instead, you saw a man looking at the sun for an extended amount of time who didn’t suffer any ill effects, but this in itself isn’t unusual considering that transcendental states sometimes cause supernormal actions. That’s why I mentioned the fire-walkers as an example.

Your attempts to explain away what I have witnessed don’t fly. A hypnotized person still has to obey the laws of physic. Fire walking is a bad example to use, because fire walking can be a diabolical phenomena.

• First of all, I’ve been upfront about the fact that I’m an ex-Catholic. There is no “fundamentalist upbringing” and, as I stated already, I am not a fundamentalist now.*

I apologize for assuming that you were brought up as a fundamentalist Protestant. OK, you are an ex-Catholic who is now a Protestant. What Protestant denomination do you adhere to?

I already explained the verses regarding blaspheming the Spirit and this isn’t the case here. No one here is saying that the Holy Spirit is a demon.

The Jews that Jesus rebuked were not saying that the Holy Spirit was a demon. They were saying that the miracles that the Holy Spirit had wrought were actually diabolical manifestations.

• Where did I make a “rash judgment”?*

Why did you write this: “…it comes in my understanding that not all supernatural phenomena is of God, even those which claim they are. Scripture shows that the supernatural isn’t all from “God” and you see this in Scripture from the magicians in Moses’ day to the magician (Simon) in Apostolic times … If Satan can transform into an “angel of light” thus providing something which seems good, than we must be “wise as serpents” in the midst of wolves. You seem to be one who wants to believe it because it supports your theological view, thus you accept the miracle. I, on the other hand do not hold to these views and see the account as skewed from start to finish”?"

Are you judging the miracle at Fatima to be a diabolical deception that deceived Catholics?

• I hope that you understand that I have been arguing strictly from logic.*

I have yet to see any logic in your arguments. You claim that a person can stare directly into the sun for an hour if he is in a “transcendental state”. What does that mean? Please define what you mean by a “transcendental state”.

Any person that doubts the veracity of the men and women who witnessed the resurrected Jesus could argue in your manner, i.e. these so-called witnesses were really just delusional men and women that were nothing more than “a bunch of folks looking for some sign, saw something within their own minds”.

But that way of arguing is illogical in regards to Fatima. At Fatima, the visionaries said that that there would be a sign given by God to give credence to the messages that they had received. There were many people that showed up at the predicted time because they wanted to mock the believing Catholics and see them made fools. Instead of that happening, even those who did not want to see anything saw the miracle of the sun. It is highly illogical to argue that the witnesses that saw the miracle were just a bunch of people who wanted to see a sign and saw nothing more that what their fervid imaginations invented.

• I do not need the miracle of Fatima to support any of my theological views except one.*

What would that one exception be?

 

[Churchmouse]

Matt, before I start, I don’t know how you did it, but you attributed some of the points “Pax” made to me as if I stated them. My post to you didn’t include some of the quotes you responded to.

There was no miracle of the sun because our sun wasn’t dancing or falling. Instead, a bunch of folks looking for some sign, saw something within their own minds. That’s why you saw nothing. Instead, you saw a man looking at the sun for an extended amount of time who didn’t suffer any ill effects, but this in itself isn’t unusual considering that transcendental states sometimes cause supernormal actions. That’s why I mentioned the fire-walkers as an example.

Your attempts to explain away what I have witnessed don’t fly. A hypnotized person still has to obey the laws of physic. Fire walking is a bad example to use, because fire walking can be a diabolical phenomena.

Actually, it is what you witnessed that doesn’t fly. You yourself looked at the sun and nothing was happening. You saw a man staring at the sun who looked at it for a lengthy amount of time without any residual damage (BTW, are you still in contact with this man? No long-term damage?). I explained to you that this, in itself, isn’t unusual considering the examples I’ve submitted. This isn’t a “miracle of the sun” as was submitted in the original post, but rather a “miracle of the sun in the mind of the faithful” because nothing happened to our sun. Paranormal phenomenon comes in many forms and this man is no exception to the rule.

First of all, I’ve been upfront about the fact that I’m an ex-Catholic. There is no “fundamentalist upbringing” and, as I stated already, I am not a fundamentalist now.

I apologize for assuming that you were brought up as a fundamentalist Protestant. OK, you are an ex-Catholic who is now a Protestant. What Protestant denomination do you adhere to?

I am a Reformed Baptist. Not all Baptists are of the fundamentalist persuasion.

I already explained the verses regarding blaspheming the Spirit and this isn’t the case here. No one here is saying that the Holy Spirit is a demon.

The Jews that Jesus rebuked were not saying that the Holy Spirit was a demon. They were saying that the miracles that the Holy Spirit had wrought were actually diabolical manifestations.

According to the account in Mark 3:22, the scribes said:

“He has Beelzebub, and He casts out demons by the ruler of the demons.”

But Jesus didn’t have Beelzebub like they claimed, he had the Holy Spirit, correct? Jesus did His miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit, correct? If this isn’t equating the Holy Spirit with demons I don’t know what is. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, these men were claiming that the Holy Spirit was, in actuality, the “ruler of demons.” They were equating the Holy and the actions of the Holy with the Unholy.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

continued…

Where did I make a “rash judgment”?

Why did you write this: “…it comes in my understanding that not all supernatural phenomena is of God, even those which claim they are. Scripture shows that the supernatural isn’t all from “God” and you see this in Scripture from the magicians in Moses’ day to the magician (Simon) in Apostolic times … If Satan can transform into an “angel of light” thus providing something which seems good, than we must be “wise as serpents” in the midst of wolves. You seem to be one who wants to believe it because it supports your theological view, thus you accept the miracle. I, on the other hand do not hold to these views and see the account as skewed from start to finish”?"

Well, I wrote this to “Pax”, yet, to answer your question, there is nothing in the statement that incriminates anyone Catholic or Protestant. Catholics understand that not everything supernatural is of God. Catholics understand that there have been false miracles since the days of Moses. Catholics understand that Satan can transform into an “angel of light.” Catholics understand that we must be “wise as serpents” in the midst of wolves. Yes, Catholics would judge the “sun miracle” on the basis of their theological view as has been substantiated on this board repeatedly, yet there are people like me who don’t see anything “miraculous” about it and the evidence doesn’t support a miracle. None of this can be translated as a rash judgment.

Are you judging the miracle at Fatima to be a diabolical deception that deceived Catholics?

Yes, it can be used to deceive “people.”

I hope that you understand that I have been arguing strictly from logic.

I didn’t say that. That was Pax’s response to me, but since you used it to ask other relevant questions, I guess I must answer….

I have yet to see any logic in your arguments. You claim that a person can stare directly into the sun for an hour if he is in a “transcendental state”. What does that mean? Please define what you mean by a “transcendental state”.

And I have yet to see the logic in yours. You mentioned that you are in the science field, than you must understand what “transcendental state” means. I am referring to a state of mind transcending the normal boundaries of it.

Any person that doubts the veracity of the men and women who witnessed the resurrected Jesus could argue in your manner, i.e. these so-called witnesses were really just delusional men and women that were nothing more than “a bunch of folks looking for some sign, saw something within their own minds”.

And I’m sure we both know that men and women did deny the resurrection, but those who did didn’t see the physical glorified body of Christ. Isn’t that the difference? Those who “saw” Jesus believed that He resurrected. The Apostle Thomas didn’t believe until he put his fingers in the visible wounds of the visible Jesus. It wasn’t enough to hear about it but he wanted to see it. None of the accounts say that when Christ appeared He could be seen by some and not by others. Wherever Christ appeared he was seen by all. However, the “miracle of the sun” was not. Again, nothing happened to the sun. It happened in the eyes of those who claim they saw it, but our physical sun remained the same.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

continued…

But that way of arguing is illogical in regards to Fatima. At Fatima, the visionaries said that that there would be a sign given by God to give credence to the messages that they had received. There were many people that showed up at the predicted time because they wanted to mock the believing Catholics and see them made fools. Instead of that happening, even those who did not want to see anything saw the miracle of the sun. It is highly illogical to argue that the witnesses that saw the miracle were just a bunch of people who wanted to see a sign and saw nothing more that what their fervid imaginations invented.

This makes me all the more critical of Fatima. The fact that the visionaries said something was going to happen shows me that the faithful were expecting something to happen. It is just as illogical to argue that the unbelieving who showed weren’t caught up in the maelstrom of activity. It is just as illogical to argue that everyone there saw the sun dancing and falling. No—I beg to differ—it isn’t illogical to be skeptical of what can happen when folks really want to believe something bad enough. One starts screaming because one sees something and a host of screams evolve as a result. Before you know it, those who don’t see anything swear they did, hence, you have discrepancies in the accounts.

I do not need the miracle of Fatima to support any of my theological views except one.

What would that one exception be?

Again, you got this confused. Pax said that and not me. I believe he was referring to the Eucharist.

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

churchmouse

• This isn’t a “miracle of the sun” as was submitted in the original post, but rather a “miracle of the sun in the mind of the faithful” because nothing happened to our sun. Paranormal phenomenon comes in many forms and this man is no exception to the rule.*

First “transcendental”, now ”paranormal” - anything but miraculous.

I could argue that miracle of hearing Peter speak in many different languages happened only “in the mind of the faithful”. There is no reason to insist the Bible infallibly declares that God was altering the physical sound waves that Peter excited in the atmosphere with his vibrating vocal chords. Perhaps all the perceived miracles at Pentecost were, strictly speaking, mental phenomena. Maybe there was only a miraculous perception of the light from the tongues of fire in the upper room. Perhaps this miraculous perception of light was not caused by light waves being propagated by photons that were released when electrons changed their quantum states because of exothermic chemical reactions occurring in the upper room. I have no problem believing that chemical or nuclear reactions above the heads of the believers did not cause the light that was perceived by those who saw tongues of fire.

In the same way, the miracle of the Sun can be a miracle about perception, and not necessarily the actual altering the light waves emanating from of the sun. God could have accomplished the miracle of the sun as a miracle of perception, if that is what he wished to do. And he could have granted that miraculous perception to those he wished to perceive it, and withheld that perception from those he did not want to perceive it. God was under no obligation to grant the witnessing of the miracle of the sun to the whole world.

• Again, nothing happened to the sun. It happened in the eyes of those who claim they saw it, but our physical sun remained the same.*

So what if the miracle only happened in the minds of those who experienced it? It can still be miracle that occurred in that manner. When Mary appeared to the visionaries at Fatima, only the visionaries saw Mary. Those standing next to the visionaries saw nothing when the visionaries were speaking to Mary. Just because some people saw nothing, it doesn’t mean that Mary was not there in her glorified body. Glorified bodies are not subject to the laws of physics that govern this world.

 

[Joanna]

Churchmouse:

Hi Matt,

I think you forgot to include the documentation.

I don’t know how credible these instances are, given the fact that folks can say they saw something when they truly didn’t. Do you know of any credible scientific sources which claim that something strange happened that day?

Peace,
CM

I am one of those people who saw the sun spin. Not at Fatima on Oct 13, 1917, and not as spectacularly with it falling towards the earth and then receding. During a pilgrimage around the world to pray for peace in 1994, many people saw the sun spin. It appeared much as **Matt.16_18 **described. I personally could look directly into the bright sun which seemed incredibly brilliant at first glance. However, I could easily watch it appear to spin, because it appeared cool in the middle. There was a whitish-silver disc reminiscent of a host at its center. Around the edges, colors swirled like a pinwheel. I witnessed this in Lisbon, Portugal and on our stopover to refuel in Egypt as they opened the doors of our 747 and we stood there praying for Egypt. I also witnessed it again at the amphitheater in Caesarea, along with our jewish tour guide. I saw it again in Beijing along with our chinese bus driver who asked what it meant. One of the other pilgrims told him it meant God was blessing us. He was so happy and so excited. He kept repeating, “God is blessing us, God is blessing us, God is blessing us.” There have been other times too but this suffices. It will still take faith even to believe a witness.

 

[Pax]

continued…

Again, you got this confused. Pax said that and not me. I believe he was referring to the Eucharist.

Peace,
CM

Churchmouse,

I was not referring to the Eucharist. Instead, my reference is to the existence of miracles. What took place at Fatima is evidence for the existence of miracles, and that is the one thing in my theology that it supports. I’m sorry if my rhetoric was not sufficient in making that point.

 

[Churchmouse]

First “transcendental”, now ”paranormal” - anything but miraculous.

Matt, you’re obviously not getting my drift, I don’t believe this to be a miracle and I believe I have given you ample reasons why I don’t. It doesn’t meet the Scriptural examples of a miracle. I know I’ll probably get something to the extent of “not everything is in the Bible” but give me Biblical instances showing miracles of this nature. I will continue to claim these as the transcendental experiences of those who truly want to believe in this. Would you consider a “miracle” of this nature valid if it involved some Muslims and a vision of Mohammed? Or would you be just as skeptical?

I could argue that miracle of hearing Peter speak in many different languages happened only “in the mind of the faithful”. There is no reason to insist the Bible infallibly declares that God was altering the physical sound waves that Peter excited in the atmosphere with his vibrating vocal chords. Perhaps all the perceived miracles at Pentecost were, strictly speaking, mental phenomena. Maybe there was only a miraculous perception of the light from the tongues of fire in the upper room. Perhaps this miraculous perception of light was not caused by light waves being propagated by photons that were released when electrons changed their quantum states because of exothermic chemical reactions occurring in the upper room. I have no problem believing that chemical or nuclear reactions above the heads of the believers did not cause the light that was perceived by those who saw tongues of fire.

Let’s go further, maybe you won’t have any reason to believe that those whom Jesus resuscitated were merely perceived as being dead in the minds of the faithful, but were very much alive. Maybe the demon-possessed were simply the psychologically disturbed. Maybe Jesus thought he saw Satan but, in reality, was delusional from His 40 days and 40 nights of fasting. Wait a minute! Maybe he didn’t fast 40 days and 40 nights and we are simply led to believe He did. We can go even further, maybe you won’t have any reason to believe that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, but His death was only put in the minds of those present. Sorry, but I believe that Peter “spoke” and others “heard.”

In the same way, the miracle of the Sun can be a miracle about perception, and not necessarily the actual altering the light waves emanating from of the sun. God could have accomplished the miracle of the sun as a miracle of perception, if that is what he wished to do. And he could have granted that miraculous perception to those he wished to perceive it, and withheld that perception from those he did not want to perceive it. God was under no obligation to grant the witnessing of the miracle of the sun to the whole world.

Once again, let’s assume every point you’ve made in this statement. The glaring fact (no pun intended ) is that nothing happened to our sun. That is the point! We can’t call this a *miracle of the sun * if the sun wasn’t involved. Our sun neither danced nor fell in any of these instances. The only phenomena, if valid, is folks looking directly at the sun for extreme amounts of time, but you already know my take on this. Also, I asked you in my prior post, but are you in contact with those who looked directly at the sun. I would be interested in hearing about any long-term effects. As an aside, I recall reading in some science magazine (Scientific American?) some years back that the pilgrims are being told not to look into the sun because of some reports of retinal damage. Do you remember hearing or reading anything similar?

Yet, in every instance of Biblical miracles, everyone there, including the Pharisees and scribes who accused Him of doing these miracles under the power of demons, saw these miracles happen.

So what if the miracle only happened in the minds of those who experienced it? It can still be miracle that occurred in that manner.

Scripture does not support your theory.

When Mary appeared to the visionaries at Fatima, only the visionaries saw Mary. Those standing next to the visionaries saw nothing when the visionaries were speaking to Mary. Just because some people saw nothing, it doesn’t mean that Mary was not there in her glorified body. Glorified bodies are not subject to the laws of physics that govern this world.

Or it can simply be the obvious. That no one saw Mary and those who wished this to be true—* and judging by the accounts many did*—saw what they wanted to see.

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

churchmouse

I don’t believe this to be a miracle.

Obviously. I would only ask that you exercise a little prudence in your harsh judgement about what people saw at Fatima. It would be a mistake on your part to declare that a miracle of God was really the work of demonic activity.

• It doesn’t meet the Scriptural examples of a miracle.*

Where is the checklist in the scriptures that spells out the limits on how God can perform a miracle? My Bible says that God is almighty, and that God’s ways are not our ways.

I will continue to claim these as the transcendental experiences of those who truly want to believe in this.

Are you ever going to define “transcendental”? Was Peter witnessing a miracle at the Transfiguration, or was he only having a “transcendental experience”?

• Would you consider a “miracle” of this nature valid if it involved some Muslims and a vision of Mohammed?*

Mohammed believed that he received his messages from an angel. The messages that Mohammed received contradict the teachings in the deposit of faith that Jesus left his church, so that tells me what kind of angel was communicating with Mohammed. Joseph Smith claimed to receive his new revelations from an angel too. Perhaps it was the same angel that spoke to Mohammed. One does need to be skeptical about “miracles” or visions that contradict what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches.

• Sorry, but I believe that Peter “spoke” and others “heard.”*

I believe that Peter spoke and others heard too. But was this a miracle that involved the alteration of sound waves, or was this a miracle of perception that occurred strictly in the minds of the believers? I accept that your explanation for how this miracle occurred is plausible, i.e. it was a miracle that involved altered sound waves propagating in space, sound waves that were selectively altered by God so that each person heard Peter speaking to him in his native language.

• We can’t call this a miracle of the sun if the sun wasn’t involved.*

You believe that the hearers of Peter’s words were actually hearing sound waves that were miraculously altered on the way from Peter’s mouth to the hearer’s ears. I have no problem with that. In the same way, the miracle of the sun could be a miraculous altering of the light waves from the sun before these light waves reached the eyes of the beholders. IOW, the miracle really did involve the light waves from the sun. Don’t forget that in your altered sound waves explanation, that each individual was hearing sound waves that were altered in unique ways just for that person. They weren’t all hearing Peter speak in, say, Swahili. God could have, if he wished, altered the light waves of the sun for just those people that he wished to see the miracle, and he could have transformed the light waves to give each person exactly the perception that he desired that they receive.

• Also, I asked you in my prior post, but are you in contact with those who looked directly at the sun. I would be interested in hearing about any long-term effects.*

Yes, I am in contact with some of the people that I was present with when they saw the miracle of the sun. And no, not one of these people has retinal damage from staring at the sun.

• As an aside, I recall reading in some science magazine (Scientific American?) some years back that the pilgrims are being told not to look into the sun because of some reports of retinal damage. Do you remember hearing or reading anything similar?*

No, I didn’t read that article, but I am sure that one can damage their eyes by looking directly into the sun.

 

[KathieAnn]

I think it is very funny to seek to find adequate scientific explanation for a miracle! That is somewhat of an oxymoron isn’t it?

Remember, miracles are for an increase in faith and for belief - they are a gift to us, not just in any physical benefit they may give, but for the spiritual growth that occurs from them. Remember Mary had said that the miracle would not be “as great” because of the kidnapping of the children in August. This demonstrates that the miracle was a gift to us for belief and that sin on the part of mankind reduces God’s grace for us, in this case, it reduced a spectacular miracle. Maybe it might’ve been worldwide – who knows??

What does churchmouse think about the “great light in the sky,” prophesied by Mary as God’s sign that he would punish the world by means of a far greater war than WWI? In 1938, many, many all over the world witnessed the spectacular display of the aurora borealis and yet there was NO sunspot activity that day. Explain that! Would that qualify as some sort of miracle in your system of thinking?

This, Sister Lucia, accepted as the “great light.” And indeed, very shortly followed WWII.

 

[Churchmouse]

Matt16_18:

Obviously. I would only ask that you exercise a little prudence in your harsh judgement about what people saw at Fatima. It would be a mistake on your part to declare that a miracle of God was really the work of demonic activity.

Obviously you don’t understand the verse you implied here. I have no problem saying that I believe this to be demonic and the “lady” to be a deception along with all the “miracles” attributed to the sun. I have my reasons for believing so. To read your statements, one would think that the Biblical warnings regarding deception are to be taken lightly and that one cannot be skeptical regarding these apparitions or the actions associated with them.

Where is the checklist in the scriptures that spells out the limits on how God can perform a miracle? My Bible says that God is almighty, and that God’s ways are not our ways.

There is no checklist, Matt, and no need to assume one. All I have to do is read about the miracles performed in the Bible to realize that miracles are seen and experienced by the folks present. There is no “some see, some don’t.” Again, the Pharisees and scribes are witnesses to His miracles as well, but denied them outright. As unbelievers, these miracles weren’t withheld from them and yet, they attributed these miracles to the works of demons. That’s right—not only did they see these miracles, but had the gall to deny them and attribute them to demons. We see the same thing in the OT. The children of Israel saw God as a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, were miraculously given manna and pheasants, had the Red Sea open up to them, etc. and, yet, despite seeing this, complained and rebelled against Him. These miracles were very much seen by all. True, you can’t limit God, but miracles are meant to glorify Him and to show that He is God. These “sun miracles” are nothing more than delusions brought about by the individuals seeking them and you know what Scripture states about those who seek signs and wonders.

Are you ever going to define “transcendental”? Was Peter witnessing a miracle at the Transfiguration, or was he only having a “transcendental experience”?

Obviously you aren’t reading my posts in their entirety. I’ve already defined it about two posts ago. As for Peter, the account in Matthew 17:3 says that Moses and Elijah appeared to them. They heard these men talking to Jesus. Again, everyone present *saw and heard * this. I have no reason to believe anything other than what the account plainly states.

Mohammed believed that he received his messages from an angel. The messages that Mohammed received contradict the teachings in the deposit of faith that Jesus left his church, so that tells me what kind of angel was communicating with Mohammed. Joseph Smith claimed to receive his new revelations from an angel too. Perhaps it was the same angel that spoke to Mohammed. One does need to be skeptical about “miracles” or visions that contradict what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches.

Matt, I’m sure you know what the overwhelming majority of non-Catholics believe concerning Mary, correct? And we don’t see anything more regarding her than what is given in Scripture. From our POV, the Catholic views on Mary violate the only true “deposit of faith” Christ left us. If Jesus left the church another “deposit of faith”, the traditions regarding what Christ taught regarding Mary, where would one go to find these teachings and how can one know for sure if they came from Christ? I’m happy to see you acknowledge that the “angel” Mohammed encountered can be Smith’s “Moroni”, but what if this same “angel” appeared as the “lady” in Fatima? Again, Satan can transform into an “angel of light” and we all know that he wants to be “like the most High” and worshiped like Him as well (Isaiah 14), but than again you’ll say that Catholics don’t worship Mary and a new can of USDA Grade A “worms” will be opened.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

[continued…]

I believe that Peter spoke and others heard too. But was this a miracle that involved the alteration of sound waves, or was this a miracle of perception that occurred strictly in the minds of the believers? I accept that your explanation for how this miracle occurred is plausible, i.e. it was a miracle that involved altered sound waves propagating in space, sound waves that were selectively altered by God so that each person heard Peter speaking to him in his native language.

Matt, all I need to know is two things, Peter spoke and others heard. However God decided to do it is alright by me. Yet, the point remains, God doesn’t need to alter anything to bring his purpose to fruition. He speaks and it happens. Yet, this miracle wasn’t selective. The multitude heard them speaking in their relative languages and, once again, hearing this miracle, some proceeded to mock nonetheless. The “sun miracle” doesn’t compare in the least to what happened on Pentecost.

You believe that the hearers of Peter’s words were actually hearing sound waves that were miraculously altered on the way from Peter’s mouth to the hearer’s ears. I have no problem with that. In the same way, the miracle of the sun could be a miraculous altering of the light waves from the sun before these light waves reached the eyes of the beholders. IOW, the miracle really did involve the light waves from the sun. Don’t forget that in your altered sound waves explanation, that each individual was hearing sound waves that were altered in unique ways just for that person. They weren’t all hearing Peter speak in, say, Swahili. God could have, if he wished, altered the light waves of the sun for just those people that he wished to see the miracle, and he could have transformed the light waves to give each person exactly the perception that he desired that they receive.

Again, the “sun miracle” doesn’t compare to the Biblical examples. It isn’t much of a miracle if it allows skepticism to come into play and I’ve already shown you how it can. Again, in the Biblical accounts involving miracles, all those present saw these miracles happen, including the unbelievers.

Yes, I am in contact with some of the people that I was present with when they saw the miracle of the sun. And no, not one of these people has retinal damage from staring at the sun.

Well, I only have your word for it so I’ll go with it.

No, I didn’t read that article, but I am sure that one can damage their eyes by looking directly into the sun.

Although I don’t know if I can find this article, considering it was quite some time ago, I distinctively remember it stating that amongst those with retinal burns, many reported seeing this “miracle.”

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

I think it is very funny to seek to find adequate scientific explanation for a miracle! That is somewhat of an oxymoron isn’t it?

Well, to put it bluntly, the only reason why I’m asking for the astronomical evidence is because it involved our sun. It can’t be much of a “miracle of the sun” if that golden orb, the center of our universe, did absolutely nothing. It isn’t much of a miracle if one can claim they saw this within their beings, while others claim they saw nothing. Looking directly at the sun with no retinal damage just doesn’t seem “miraculous” at all. I agree with you, true miracles do not need scientific explanation considering that a true miracle defies science, but by the same token, true miracles are verified by the extraordinary nature of the event. A limb regrows, a broken leg instantly mends, a blind man sees, a deaf man hears, etc., that’s what makes it so miraculous. Telling me that you were able to stare at the sun for long periods and saw the sun doing strange things just doesn’t cut it as a “miracle.”

Remember, miracles are for an increase in faith and for belief - they are a gift to us, not just in any physical benefit they may give, but for the spiritual growth that occurs from them. Remember Mary had said that the miracle would not be “as great” because of the kidnapping of the children in August. This demonstrates that the miracle was a gift to us for belief and that sin on the part of mankind reduces God’s grace for us, in this case, it reduced a spectacular miracle. Maybe it might’ve been worldwide – who knows??

But, more so, miracles are to glorify God. To show the world that He is God. Your theory regarding “Mary”, the kidnapping, and the diminishing of the “miracle” is conjecture. I can easily translate that to mean that “Mary” didn’t have the authority or power to do more than “she” was allowed to do.

What does churchmouse think about the “great light in the sky,” prophesied by Mary as God’s sign that he would punish the world by means of a far greater war than WWI? In 1938, many, many all over the world witnessed the spectacular display of the aurora borealis and yet there was NO sunspot activity that day. Explain that! Would that qualify as some sort of miracle in your system of thinking?

I assume you are speaking of the “great sign” a magnetic storm that happened on January 25-26, 1938. According to NASA, 110 sunspots happened that year. A sunspot doesn’t have to happen on a particular day for an aurora to happen and can take up to 5 days to reach the earth. I’ve already detailed the Biblical examples of miracles in prior posts and the “miracle of the sun” just doesn’t compare.

This, Sister Lucia, accepted as the “great light.” And indeed, very shortly followed WWII

The state of the world was volatile before the “great light” and WWII would have happened “great light” or not.

Peace,
CM

 

[Aragorn1]

I wonder what Churchmouse thinks of the several credible witnesses up to 50 kilometers away from the Cova da Iria who saw the Miracle. Maybe they were all “disillusioned victims of mass-hypnosis”, or “a bunch of folks looking for a sign”. What about all the atheists and Freemasons who witnessed the miracle, Churchmouse? Were they just “a bunch of folks looking for a sign”? They certainly didn’t expect to see anything. They had only gone to the Cova da Iria either out of curiosity or to mock and belittle the three seers. Yet they too saw the miracle.

Churchmouse, why do you believe in the Resurrection? Was it reported in any major scientific journals? Was it in accordance with the laws of nature? How do we know that the Apostles and the other 500 people (only five hundred, compared to 70,000 at Fatima, possibly more) weren’t just “a bunch of folks looking for a sign”? Couldn’t they have just been victims of mass-hysteria? Why do you belive in the Resurrection, but not in the Miracle of the Sun, when the latter is much more well-documented than the former? Is it because the former involves Jesus, whereas the second involves His Mother (whom you refuse to show honor and respect)? I can’t help but doubting that your opinion would be the same if the apparitions at Fatima involved only Jesus, and not Mary. I think we’re dealing with a bias here. (For the sake of clarity, I am NOT saying that the Resurrection is not true (it is), or that I don’t believe in it (I do), or that it is more important than the Miracle of the Sun (it isn’t). I am simply exposing the unfairness and inconsistency of your position.)

As a side note, I find it astonishing - and also highly amusing - that you are so commited to “debunking” what is arguably the most well-documented miracle in history; yet you expect us to believe your highly dubious and unreliable account of some kid who fell off a roof and was healed by a group of “Pentacostals”.

The state of the world was volatile before the “great light” and WWII would have happened “great light” or not.

What the heck is this supposed to prove? Nobody is arguing that the “great light” caused WW2, only that it acted as a warning. The fact that the light was predicted in Fatima and the prophecy was fulfilled immediately before WW2, just as predicted, is what lends even more credence to the apparitions.

 

[Churchmouse]

Wow! I haven’t been on this forum in years. To the credit of this forum format. Lo and behold, I get an email message telling me that someone responded to this thread. Amazing!

I wonder what Churchmouse thinks of the several credible witnesses up to 50 kilometers away from the Cova da Iria who saw the Miracle. Maybe they were all “disillusioned victims of mass-hypnosis”, or “a bunch of folks looking for a sign”. What about all the atheists and Freemasons who witnessed the miracle, Churchmouse? Were they just “a bunch of folks looking for a sign”? They certainly didn’t expect to see anything. They had only gone to the Cova da Iria either out of curiosity or to mock and belittle the three seers. Yet they too saw the miracle.

What about everyone else other then those in this region of Fatima? What about Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, the USA, well you get the story. Last I saw we have one sun.

Churchmouse, why do you believe in the Resurrection? Was it reported in any major scientific journals? Was it in accordance with the laws of nature? How do we know that the Apostles and the other 500 people (only five hundred, compared to 70,000 at Fatima, possibly more) weren’t just “a bunch of folks looking for a sign”? Couldn’t they have just been victims of mass-hysteria? Why do you belive in the Resurrection, but not in the Miracle of the Sun, when the latter is much more well-documented than the former? Is it because the former involves Jesus, whereas the second involves His Mother (whom you refuse to show honor and respect)? I can’t help but doubting that your opinion would be the same if the apparitions at Fatima involved only Jesus, and not Mary. I think we’re dealing with a bias here. (For the sake of clarity, I am NOT saying that the Resurrection is not true (it is), or that I don’t believe in it (I do), or that it is more important than the Miracle of the Sun (it isn’t). I am simply exposing the unfairness and inconsistency of your position.)

Well, I’m not going to get into all this, but that which is relevant to the thread. There are many reasons why I believe in the Resurrection. Not just by the many witnesses who saw Christ, touched Him, ate with Him, etc. The credibility of these witnesses weren’t those of Freemasons and atheists, but those who didn’t believe (like his own brothers who, at one time, thought He was crazy); the skeptical, like Thomas (who touched the flesh of One who had died); former enemies (like Saul who was busy persecuting the church); and by the change exuded by those who were witnesses (they suffered, progressed in holiness, and many DIED. They wouldn’t have done so for a fable). I don’t think I’m being inconsistent at all. Fatima pales in comparison.

As a side note, I find it astonishing - and also highly amusing - that you are so commited to “debunking” what is arguably the most well-documented miracle in history; yet you expect us to believe your highly dubious and unreliable account of some kid who fell off a roof and was healed by a group of “Pentacostals”.

I’m not asking anyone to believe anything. I just related an experience that I can vouch for. You are fully within your rights to accept or reject it, just as I am in rejecting Fatima.

What the heck is this supposed to prove? Nobody is arguing that the “great light” caused WW2, only that it acted as a warning. The fact that the light was predicted in Fatima and the prophecy was fulfilled immediately before WW2, just as predicted, is what lends even more credence to the apparitions.

I never said a “great light” caused WW2. I think you’d best read the post and the progression beforehand before commenting. Yes, one of the Catholics implied it was a warning, but I don’t buy it. I’m not sold on apparitions, let alone that IT is Mary. I have no reason to believe so.

Peace,
CM

 

[water]

What about everyone else other then those in this region of Fatima? What about Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, the USA, well you get the story. Last I saw we have one sun.

What a way to disproof a miracle!
God wants to reveil things to those whom He wants to.

Does the story of St. Paul on the road to Damascus remind you anything?

 

[Churchmouse]

What a way to disproof a miracle!

What a way to interact

God wants to reveil things to those whom He wants to.

And He doesn’t ask us to check our minds at the door either. After all, he gave it to us for a reason.

Does the story of St. Paul on the road to Damascus remind you anything?

Yes, it reminds me of Jesus and Paul and how He converted a great “persecutor of the Church.” Is there anything else that I need reminding of?

CM