Fatima miracle of the sun?

[Churchmouse]

Equally realistically, it isn’t as if I’m going to type out page after page from a book. You requested a source documenting the fact that the Fatima miracle of the sun was witnessed by skeptics and I answered your question by citing a solid published source containing eyewitness accounts from such skeptics. In any event, my typing out page after page would be a waste in light of the latter half of your post.

I am not asking for pages from the book to be typed out. God forbid! I wouldn’t inflict anything on anyone that I wouldn’t do myself. All I’m asking for is some details, not hearsay. I can do the research myself. All too often I run into these books that claim a lot, but don’t give anything substantially worth the time and effort to pursue. I’m interested in seeing how reputable these witnesses are.

If you’re unconvinced of a Biblical miracle, nothing I type could ever convince you of an extra-Biblical miracle.

Well, that’s a bit misrepresentative. I just mentioned that this may be prose considering its mention of it being written in the book of Jasher. The event may have never happened. I believe in Biblical miracles, however ALL should question the verity of the extrabiblical.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

It can be taken literally (just as John 6 is taken to be literal).
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002ltrs.asp
under “The Key Is In The Book Of Joshua”.

note: qorbono.com is actually by Naji too.

This is a bit of a red herring considering we aren’t talking about John 6. Again, by its own admission, this “event” is recorded in the book of Jasher, therefore bringing some doubt as to its validity. There is nothing of the kind in John 6.

CM

 

[myfavoritmartin]

14And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as(AB) an angel of light.

 

[HailMary]

This is a bit of a red herring considering we aren’t talking about John 6. Again, by its own admission, this “event” is recorded in the book of Jasher, therefore bringing some doubt as to its validity. There is nothing of the kind in John 6.

CM

Sorry, that was not a Red Herring since I did not use the example of the Most Holy Eucharist in any premise or even in an unrelated way. It was a mere example of how most Christians understand The Sacrifice of the Mass and how many( most?) would read the event in the book of Jasher (Joshua) as a literal event, just as they did the flood, the donkey that talked, etc.

 

[Churchmouse]

Sorry, that was not a Red Herring since I did not use the example of the Most Holy Eucharist in any premise or even in an unrelated way. It was a mere example of how most Christians understand The Sacrifice of the Mass and how many( most?) would read the event in the book of Jasher (Joshua) as a literal event, just as they did the flood, the donkey that talked, etc.

It was a red herring in that we weren’t talking about the literality of John 6. We were talking about the big possibility that the event recorded in Joshua 10 regarding the sun, by its own admission, could be prose. Bringing up the literal interpretation of John 6 is only going to invite another issue that isn’t relevant to the discussion, hence it IS a red herring.

CM

 

[HailMary]

Bringing up the literal interpretation of John 6 is only going to invite another issue that isn’t relevant to the discussion, hence it IS a red herring.

That is not the definition of a red herring.

The example of John 6 IS AN EXAMPLE of how something you probably don’t believe in is taken literally by the majority of Christians. Likewise, I would argue the majority of Christians would not have argued against the literal interpretation of Joshua. Just because you don’t agree with the example, doesn’t mean its a Red Herring.

 

[Churchmouse]

That is not the definition of a red herring.

The example of John 6 IS AN EXAMPLE of how something you probably don’t believe in is taken literally by the majority of Christians. Likewise, I would argue the majority of Christians would not have argued against the literal interpretation of Joshua. Just because you don’t agree with the example, doesn’t mean its a Red Herring.

And once again it is not only a red herring, but now you’re begging the question as well. This is precisely why I called it a red herring. Note that you stated that the majority of Christians would take it literally, thus introducing another issue? Therefore, your association between Joshua 10 where you “assume” that the majority of Christians take it literally and equate it to your remarks about John 6 are fallacious. The alleged literality of John 6 does not mean that there is just as much a literality in Joshua 10.

 

[HailMary]

And once again it is not only a red herring, but now you’re begging the question as well. This is precisely why I called it a red herring. Note that you stated that the majority of Christians would take it literally, thus introducing another issue? Therefore, your association between Joshua 10 where you “assume” that the majority of Christians take it literally and equate it to your remarks about John 6 are fallacious. The alleged literality of John 6 does not mean that there is just as much a literality in Joshua 10.

So every time someone uses an examples that can suggest something else can be taken literally, its a red herring?

 

[Churchmouse]

So every time someone uses an examples that can suggest something else can be taken literally, its a red herring?

No, when someone states something that deters away from the subject and lead to another, that is a red herring.

CM

 

[HailMary]

No, when someone states something that deters away from the subject and lead to another, that is a red herring.

CM

Thank you. I’m glad we see eye to eye on this definition.

 

[water]

14And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as(AB) an angel of light.

That is true that they can disguise.
However, the Bible does not say all are in disguise.
Be caustious is good, but do not abandon all miracles.

Satan can also laugh at us when he can fool us and make us think God’s miracle is coming from Satan.

 

[PC_Master]

See, that argument works in both ways…

If the Fatima “miracle” were legitimate and were from God, Satan would of course want people to disbelieve, or believe it came from Satan.

On the other hand, if the Fatima “miracle” were either not of God, or simply didn’t happen, then Satan would indeed want people to believe it was from God.

Since there’s a lot of people who believe, and a lot who don’t, it’s fairly safe to say that a lot of people are being fooled by Satan, but from this argument alone, we can’t logically say which group that is, until we can prove whether or not the miracle occurred, and whether or not it came from God.

Anywho, I’m among those who believe it to be a case of mass hysteria. Science tells us that the sun did nothing abnormal during that day, so if something did happen, it wasn’t in God’s usual “manipulation of his natural laws” methodology – it was through some form of hallucination or whatever, such that I don’t believe it would have come from God.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

As Karl Keating pointed out in The Usual Suspects, there are several miracles in scripture that did NOT have any visible manifestation that could be witnessed or corraborated by skeptical, outside viewers;

Here are two:

The Virgin Birth

The Redemption

 

[Churchmouse]

That is true that they can disguise.
However, the Bible does not say all are in disguise.
Be caustious is good, but do not abandon all miracles.

I never said I was abandoning all miracles. What I did imply is that you should not believe all miracles.

Satan can also laugh at us when he can fool us and make us think God’s miracle is coming from Satan.

And how do we know if it is truly coming from God?

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

See, that argument works in both ways…

If the Fatima “miracle” were legitimate and were from God, Satan would of course want people to disbelieve, or believe it came from Satan.

On the other hand, if the Fatima “miracle” were either not of God, or simply didn’t happen, then Satan would indeed want people to believe it was from God.

Since there’s a lot of people who believe, and a lot who don’t, it’s fairly safe to say that a lot of people are being fooled by Satan, but from this argument alone, we can’t logically say which group that is, until we can prove whether or not the miracle occurred, and whether or not it came from God.

Anywho, I’m among those who believe it to be a case of mass hysteria. Science tells us that the sun did nothing abnormal during that day, so if something did happen, it wasn’t in God’s usual “manipulation of his natural laws” methodology – it was through some form of hallucination or whatever, such that I don’t believe it would have come from God.

I would agree wholeheartedly. I would only add that the motive of the apparition is relevant to its nature. In this case, the apparition was asking for consecration to “her” holy heart. When I hear things like this, it smacks of the unholy who wanted Christ himself to bow down to him.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

As Karl Keating pointed out in The Usual Suspects, there are several miracles in scripture that did NOT have any visible manifestation that could be witnessed or corraborated by skeptical, outside viewers;

Here are two:

The Virgin Birth

The Redemption

Yet, considering this was Christ and so many witnessed His other miracles and resurrection, to the point where it affected many to DIE for Him and set the world on its heels, it is a pretty safe bet that if He said He was born of a virgin and died and rose for our sins then that is exactly what happened.

Peace,
CM

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And how do we know if it is truly coming from God?

CM

In looking to scripture for guidance we see this…
In 1 John 4, John wrote,

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
IMHO
The Lions share of the message of Fatima seems to indicate alternative ways of saving souls from hell other than calling on the name of the Lord.
Take it for what it’s worth but my opinion is this; if one needs to see God’s hands perform miracles to justify their faith, their faith ain’t to strong…Seek His face and you’ll see HIS hands.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Yet, considering this was Christ and so many witnessed His other miracles and resurrection, to the point where it affected many to DIE for Him and set the world on its heels, it is a pretty safe bet that if He said He was born of a virgin and died and rose for our sins then that is exactly what happened.
/quote]

Actually, no where in Scripture does Christ comment on his Mother’s virginity.

The Apostles (and St. Luke) took it from Her word.

Maybe, regarding Fatima, one should do the same.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

…
Anywho, I’m among those who believe it to be a case of mass hysteria. Science tells us that the sun did nothing abnormal during that day, so if something did happen, it wasn’t in God’s usual “manipulation of his natural laws” methodology – it was through some form of hallucination or whatever, such that I don’t believe it would have come from God.

A long thread so I dont know if this has been touched on before

When Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, there is NO recording in History of this event among the then literate people (Egyptians, Babylonians, I think the Chinese as well)

The event was local–possibly an extremly subjective experience in all participants–but still of Divine origin

Fundamentalists accept this miracle --though they cannot come up with any coraboritive proof.

Fatima had witnesses far removed from the event–including the Azores. The “mass hallucination label” (its so broad a charge you cant dignify it with the term “explanation”) just dosnt hold water–it dosnt even hold water for the people there.

 

[Churchmouse]

Actually, no where in Scripture does Christ comment on his Mother’s virginity.

I didn’t say He did. I said “if” He did (which is a good assumption that He may have), but yet, this is Christ, the One who resurrected from the dead. The believers are now firmly rooted that this IS the Messiah, the promised One of God. Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the Messiah and His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14), as well as all the other prophecies concerning Him, are now in the forefront considering He proved His Messiahship. It’s a no-brainer. It didn’t need to be seen by witnesses considering there was no way that this could be proven. There was no way to verify if a sexual act was or wasn’t committed. That would be downright immoral.

The Apostles (and St. Luke) took it from Her word.

Now where is that found? Although it is conceivable that she corroborated the story, it is more even conceivable that they simply believed that this were true because it was prophesied of old. He was the Messiah. He proved it. Therefore, He must have been born from a virgion.

Maybe, regarding Fatima, one should do the same.

That would be begging the question, considering It hasn’t been established that this was indeed Mary in Fatima.

Peace,
CM