Marian apparitions in Egypt

  • Thread starter Thread starter CSN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, how about the point in the original post, namely, that it would be infinitely better for me if Mary appeared over a Catholic church. This threw me off for a long time, but in the end, I have taken comfort that the apparitions here in Egypt have never said anything, and Egypt of course has a huge Muslim population, and so maybe it was an ‘ecumenical’ kind of apparition…::confused: :confused:
 
CSN said:
Well, how about the point in the original post, namely, that it would be infinitely better for me if Mary appeared over a Catholic church. This threw me off for a long time, but in the end, I have taken comfort that the apparitions here in Egypt have never said anything, and Egypt of course has a huge Muslim population, and so maybe it was an ‘ecumenical’ kind of apparition…::confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
Well, it’s important to note the Egyptian locations the Virgin showed up at over the last few decades since Zeitoun. There have been several major Marian apparitions in Egypt after Zeitoun, and each one has been at one of the places where, according to Coptic tradition, the holy family stayed during their trip into Egypt. The Virgin Mary apparently has retraced her steps in the same holy journey through Egypt that she, her husband and her child took into and out of Egypt, back in the days of Herod. Apparitions of Joseph and the Christ-child have sometimes been seen with her, on this journey.

It’s only natural that the Copts, being the first Christians in Egypt, built churches on each of these traditional sites. And it’s very logical that Mary should show up at each of them if, as the locations of the Virgin’s journey strongly indicate, she was retracing the entire journey she took through Egypt the days of the Christ-child. If there were Catholic churches there rather than Coptic churches, she probably would have appeared at them. Except that the Copts were there first, so perhaps she was particularly inclined to grace them on this journey. The Copts really present the greatest presence of Christianity in Egypt by far and have been savagely persecuted in recent decades.

It really seems she was retracing the entire journey she took in the days of Herod, so which churches happen to be on the sites of that journey are only naturally going to be her points of appearing.
 
Maybe the current disruption of sacramental communion between Alexandria and Rome doesn’t matter too much to our Lady the Theotokos.
 
Like I said, she retraced her steps through Egypt. Copts were the first Egyptian Christians, so their churches are on the traditional places in Egypt where the holy family stayed. So those are the places where, if she’s going to retrace her steps through Egypt, she’s going to visit :).

If Catholic churches were built on all those sites, I bet she would have appeared at them too.

Differences between the Coptic and Catholic churches do matter, but they need to be resolved.
 
Our venerable Orthodox brethren also recieve apparition from the Blessed Virgin- she loves all her children.
 
CSN said:
I was looking for something saying that the differences between the churches are cosmetic (and actually did find something, but given papal infallibility and the fact that the Copts have their own pope, I question this conclusion).
QUOTE]

One quick note. I see a common mistake among Catholics who approach the Coptic Orthodox Church in their interpretation of the title, “pope,” that the patriarch of Alexandria bears.

The term has evolved in its meaning in a different way. In Roman Catholic circles, the term has gradually come to mean something like, “infallible head of the universal Church.” It has no such meaning for Copts, nor did it in original Catholic use. Originally, it was a term of respect for a special kind of patriarch, one who has a special place of respect and honor. The two highest ranking patriarchs, that of Rome and that of Alexandria, bore the title to acknowledge their places among other patriarchs in the Church, and to my knowledge both bore it with the mutual recognition of the other.

Thus, the Coptic pope is not making any claim vis-a-vis Rome with the title: in fact, they both held it in antiquity. It’s just that the title took on a whole new meaning with the passing of time in the West, where the only pope was the patriarch of Rome, and the term came to be a shorthand for the unique claims he staked for himself over and against all bishops and patriarchs, including that of Alexandria.
Click to expand...
 
Lief_Erikson said:
It was clearly a human form shining with light, with what looks like a halo overhead . . . that much is clear, though distinguishing features within the light would be more difficult for the camera to distinguish because the light was so intense, particularly contrasted with the night sky.

Here’s a better photo though, all the same. It shows the very obvious clear form of a dove shining over the head of the apparition, and you can see what clearly are flowing robes. The halo is even clearer than the other one and the shape of a human form is more distinct.
theworkofgod.org/aparitns/Zeitoun.htm

With that photo, it’s impossible to say that people are simply seeing what they want to see. We can all see it :).

The other photo that was posted here was pretty clear too, though. I prefer the one I posted above, of course. They’re both great, though.
Click to expand...
FYI, your picture is a drawing. Read the caption below it. That is the trouble with the Internet:
zeitun-eg.org/zeitun2002/cwdata/zeitun200212.html

Many others, skeptics and scientists, have proposed theories, such as tectonic strain, about the Zeitoun luminous phenomena:
skepdic.com/zeitoun.html

(say what you will, but the Skeptic’s Dictionary can be an awesome resource).

Yes, the first image posted on here on page 1 of the thread looks distinctly figural, as Joe Nickell states in the book “Looking for a Miracle,” however, no one ever said the negative was properly examined. The person who supposedly took the photo is Fawzi Mansour - Pearl Zaki’s book about the Zeitoun phenomena says this. All other photos I’ve seen are blobs of light. What are the chances this one photo ends up being clear?
 
RMichelucc said:
FYI, your picture is a drawing. Read the caption below it. That is the trouble with the Internet:
zeitun-eg.org/zeitun2002/cwdata/zeitun200212.html
Click to expand...
You’re making a mistake. What I linked was an actual photograph. You can find that stated by organizations online, including this:
stmaryztn.org/stmaryztn/content/view/17/34/lang,en/
And this:
theworkofgod.org/aparitns/Zeitoun.htm
And this:
medjugorjeusa.org/zeitoun.htm
And this, the very same website you cited:
zeitun-eg.org/
Go to its web gallery and you’ll see the very same picture you linked, listed as, “Another photo of the transfiguration of our Lady in Her full body over the church named after Her in Zeitoun, Egypt.”

You’ll also see several other photos that are pretty clear in form on that webpage.

What you linked appears to be a drawing of the photo. The source you linked says, “The picture of the Virgin Mary as she appeared and transfigured outside the south eastern dome as has been drawn by Dr. Labib Shenouda, a doctor at Alexandria. (From his memory after he saw the appearance of the Virgin Mary with other thousands of people.)”

It says that the picture was afterward drawn by Dr. Shenouda. It says he was drawing from a picture. If it meant that he was drawing the picture, then it would say, “The Virgin Mary . . . as has been drawn by . . .”, not, “the picture of the Virign Mary . . . as she has been drawn by . . .”

I guess that the “From his memory” comment refers to the fact that he who drew the picture of the photo saw the apparition himself as well. That appears to be just poorly written, on the part of the website’s editors. Else they would be contradicting (though neglecting to change) their own webgallery. I think it’s pretty obvious from the fact that so many organizations are solid on the matter of this being a photo, including the very one you cited for your evidence, that the image you presented really is intended to be a picture as drawn, rather than Mary as drawn.
RMichelucc said:
Many others, skeptics and scientists, have proposed theories, such as tectonic strain, about the Zeitoun luminous phenomena:
skepdic.com/zeitoun.html

(say what you will, but the Skeptic’s Dictionary can be an awesome resource).
Click to expand...
Actually, it has a lot of misleading information. Often there’s accuracy, but it twists facts around its fingers in a way that misrepresents actual events.

Tectonic strain is one theory I’ve heard of, but it’s a blatantly ridiculous one. Would tectonic strain cause luminous light that smells like incense? Would it create lights that appear clearly as shining doves that fly in cross formations? The eyewitness testimony of vast numbers of eyewitnesses have described very distinct apparition images- and we’ve seen some of these ourselves, in photos.
RMichelucc said:
Yes, the first image posted on here on page 1 of the thread looks distinctly figural, as Joe Nickell states in the book “Looking for a Miracle,” however, no one ever said the negative was properly examined.
Click to expand...
Back in 1968, photographic technology wasn’t anywhere near good enough to develop fakes of that caliber.
RMichelucc said:
The person who supposedly took the photo is Fawzi Mansour - Pearl Zaki’s book about the Zeitoun phenomena says this. All other photos I’ve seen are blobs of light. What are the chances this one photo ends up being clear?
Click to expand...
It’s more than the one. I’ve seen several that look rather like “blobs of light,” though these also tend to have a roughly humanoid shape. They are images that could be humanoid or could be “blobs.” They’re indistinct.

But there are a lot of pictures that aren’t indistinct. I think one or two of the links I provided above have more clear pictures. Just google “zeitoun apparition photo” (without the quotation marks) and four pictures will pop up on your screen. The first three are all very distinct. The first one is the one we were talking about, the one that Dr. Shenouda drew a picture of, and the next two we haven’t talked about yet, although they’re also very clear images.

Gives a happy sigh.

I love these photos of the Virgin Mary. Several of them are so clear, and they’re a glorious evidence for the truth of Christianity. The Lord has provided that even people’s physical eyes will tell them the truth.
 
Coptic said:
There are a few Marian apparitions in Egypt. All that I know of have occurred at Coptic Orthodox Churches—not in communion with Rome.

The most famous one of course is that in Zeitoun, Egypt. At the time it occured it was discussed all over the world. There pictures and newspaper articles everywhere:

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/news.gif

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/news9.jpg

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/news8.jpg

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitun2002/zeitun200223.jpg

In addition to the apparition in Zeitoun, there are stories of apparitions in

August 1982 Edfu, Egypt
August/September 2000 in Assuit, Egypt
August/September 1987Menufiya, Egypt

All the pictures, and info I’ve stated above are from this site:
zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm

There is sooo much information on there I would encourage you to check it out.

As a Copt, reading about all of these miracles definately does help confirm my belief that I am part of the correct faith. And not just these apparitions, but story after story of the other miracles occuring in our churches and by our Popes. But on the other hand, you can’t base your whole faith on the number/quality of miracles that have occured in it. I have no doubt in my mind that there are other miracles in all sorts of Christian faiths and denominations.

Think of all the miracles Jesus performed. I went to a Bible study at my church where the priest, was discussing some passages and was asking us why did Jesus perform miracles? Was it to convince/convert everyone to Christianity through his miracles? The priest’s answer to that was “no”. His miracles were not what everyone should base there faith upon Christ, but more of a sign pointing you in the right direction and leading you.

I know I definately didn’t explain it as well as Abouna Angelos did, but do you understand what I’m trying to say?

God Bless,
Elizabeth
Click to expand...
The Roman Catholic Church has a lot of miracles too. Even if the RCC is the one true holy and apostolic church, I don’t see why other churches that are in schism cannot have miracles happen with them.
 
Lief_Erikson said:
You’re making a mistake. What I linked was an actual photograph. You can find that stated by organizations online, including this:
stmaryztn.org/stmaryztn/content/view/17/34/lang,en/
And this:
theworkofgod.org/aparitns/Zeitoun.htm
And this:
medjugorjeusa.org/zeitoun.htm
And this, the very same website you cited:
zeitun-eg.org/
Go to its web gallery and you’ll see the very same picture you linked, listed as, “Another photo of the transfiguration of our Lady in Her full body over the church named after Her in Zeitoun, Egypt.”

You’ll also see several other photos that are pretty clear in form on that webpage.

What you linked appears to be a drawing of the photo. The source you linked says, “The picture of the Virgin Mary as she appeared and transfigured outside the south eastern dome as has been drawn by Dr. Labib Shenouda, a doctor at Alexandria. (From his memory after he saw the appearance of the Virgin Mary with other thousands of people.)”

It says that the picture was afterward drawn by Dr. Shenouda. It says he was drawing from a picture. If it meant that he was drawing the picture, then it would say, “The Virgin Mary . . . as has been drawn by . . .”, not, “the picture of the Virign Mary . . . as she has been drawn by . . .”

I guess that the “From his memory” comment refers to the fact that he who drew the picture of the photo saw the apparition himself as well. That appears to be just poorly written, on the part of the website’s editors. Else they would be contradicting (though neglecting to change) their own webgallery. I think it’s pretty obvious from the fact that so many organizations are solid on the matter of this being a photo, including the very one you cited for your evidence, that the image you presented really is intended to be a picture as drawn, rather than Mary as drawn.

Actually, it has a lot of misleading information. Often there’s accuracy, but it twists facts around its fingers in a way that misrepresents actual events.

Tectonic strain is one theory I’ve heard of, but it’s a blatantly ridiculous one. Would tectonic strain cause luminous light that smells like incense? Would it create lights that appear clearly as shining doves that fly in cross formations? The eyewitness testimony of vast numbers of eyewitnesses have described very distinct apparition images- and we’ve seen some of these ourselves, in photos.

Back in 1968, photographic technology wasn’t anywhere near good enough to develop fakes of that caliber.

It’s more than the one. I’ve seen several that look rather like “blobs of light,” though these also tend to have a roughly humanoid shape. They are images that could be humanoid or could be “blobs.” They’re indistinct.

But there are a lot of pictures that aren’t indistinct. I think one or two of the links I provided above have more clear pictures. Just google “zeitoun apparition photo” (without the quotation marks) and four pictures will pop up on your screen. The first three are all very distinct. The first one is the one we were talking about, the one that Dr. Shenouda drew a picture of, and the next two we haven’t talked about yet, although they’re also very clear images.

Gives a happy sigh.

I love these photos of the Virgin Mary. Several of them are so clear, and they’re a glorious evidence for the truth of Christianity. The Lord has provided that even people’s physical eyes will tell them the truth.
Click to expand...
It is easy to take these “photos” at face value and say look! The Virgin Mary! But the presumption should not be miraculous until everything else has been decisively ruled out, which, in my opinion, it has not been.

Photographic techology was well advanced enough to fake a photo. There are tons of examples of photos much older than this with “ectoplasm” etc. etc.There are also others, most of which can be debunked after a little research:
knbc.com/slideshow/entertainment/14378935/detail.html

The photo on the dome is the only one to me that looks kind of like a person. The www.stmaryztn.org web site, the official web site, says that picture was taken by Mr. Mansour on April 9, 1968. However, Pearl Zaki’s book says the first pictures were not taken until April 13 by someone else, so even the simple facts are not in order. The Coptic Church investigated these and said they were real, however they have investigated others since then (you can find them on YouTube) and said they were real even though at best there are just flashes of light.

The late professor Cynthia Nelson wrote an article about these phenomena. She said when she looked at the image and tried to picture a nunlike figure, she could, but when she told herself it ws imaginary the nunlike figure would go away. Classic pareidolia!
worldview.cceia.org/archive/worldview/1973/09/2208.html

Not even Copts agree on these apparitions:
islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1203758618785&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/2007/02/search-for-miracle.html?showComment=1172604060000

Finally, if we are to imagine the figure in these photos with a halo, the halo was a pre-Christian artistic invention. No one knows what Mary of Nazareth looked like as representations of her were not made until a few centuries after she died. For her to appear with a halo, just because people would expect it, sounds like silly nonsense. She is represented with a halo as an artistic convention. Maybe it’s Isis on that building 😉
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_hats
 
RMichelucc said:
It is easy to take these “photos” at face value and say look! The Virgin Mary! But the presumption should not be miraculous until everything else has been decisively ruled out, which, in my opinion, it has not been.

Photographic techology was well advanced enough to fake a photo. There are tons of examples of photos much older than this with “ectoplasm” etc. etc.There are also others, most of which can be debunked after a little research:
knbc.com/slideshow/entertainment/14378935/detail.html
Click to expand...
If they could be debunked with a little research, it’s interesting that these have not been.
RMichelucc said:
The photo on the dome is the only one to me that looks kind of like a person. The www.stmaryztn.org web site, the official web site, says that picture was taken by Mr. Mansour on April 9, 1968. However, Pearl Zaki’s book says the first pictures were not taken until April 13 by someone else, so even the simple facts are not in order.
Click to expand...
So one of these sources got a date wrong. I’ve heard the author of a biography talk about facts he got wrong in his documentation of the life of Nancy Pelosi. It happens. That doesn’t call into question the photo itself. Only the date (and some investigating could very likely reveal which source made the error about the date).
RMichelucc said:
The Coptic Church investigated these and said they were real, however they have investigated others since then (you can find them on YouTube) and said they were real even though at best there are just flashes of light.
Click to expand...
In your opinion! How is your opinion from watching some YouTube more reliable than eyewitnesses and professional investigators? Even if an unexplainable flash of light is all that appeared on YouTube, that doesn’t mean it was all that people saw.

For example, some of the photos from Zeitoun are very poor quality, because of the contrast between dark night and brilliant light. Yet the eyewitnesses, in many of these cases, gave very detailed descriptions of apparitions they saw. The photos don’t tell the whole story, because of the resolution. But what we CAN see in four of the photos of Mary and the photo of 7 doves flying in cross formation is persuasive.
RMichelucc said:
The late professor Cynthia Nelson wrote an article about these phenomena. She said when she looked at the image and tried to picture a nunlike figure, she could, but when she told herself it ws imaginary the nunlike figure would go away. Classic pareidolia!
worldview.cceia.org/archive/worldview/1973/09/2208.html
Click to expand...
I’ve experienced the same thing when I’ve looked intently into the sun or a reflection of sunlight and have tried to see figures in it. So I know Cynthia’s position about how this can happen is accurate. But five of these photos, and vast numbers of the eyewitness accounts, are far too detailed to be people’s imaginations getting worked up.
RMichelucc said:
Not even Copts agree on these apparitions:
islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1203758618785&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/2007/02/search-for-miracle.html?showComment=1172604060000
Click to expand...
Well, sure there are going to be people who disagree in every group. There isn’t a single apparition in the Catholic Church that everybody agrees on. That’s simply the reality of having tons and tons of people.
RMichelucc said:
Finally, if we are to imagine the figure in these photos with a halo, the halo was a pre-Christian artistic invention. No one knows what Mary of Nazareth looked like as representations of her were not made until a few centuries after she died.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are representations of her on walls and tombs in the catacombs around Rome that date to the second century AD. I believe that these include halos, though I could be mistaken about that last.

Whether that is the case or not, if the Egyptians believed in halos first, that would not in the least invalidate their reality. It is perfectly possible that they saw real heavenly apparitions with halos and described it in their art, even if they didn’t understand the nature of the “gods” they thought they were seeing.
RMichelucc said:
For her to appear with a halo, just because people would expect it, sounds like silly nonsense.
Click to expand...
She can appear how she wants. If she wants to be recognizable by using a halo, that’s fine. On the other hand, if she “normally” has a halo in Heaven, that’s fine too.
 
Lief_Erikson said:
If they could be debunked with a little research, it’s interesting that these have not been.

So one of these sources got a date wrong. I’ve heard the author of a biography talk about facts he got wrong in his documentation of the life of Nancy Pelosi. It happens. That doesn’t call into question the photo itself. Only the date (and some investigating could very likely reveal which source made the error about the date).

No, it doesn’t call into question the photo itself, however, again, there is no mention - anywhere - of the negative being properly examined. I remember reading some negatives were examined by photo experts of the local paper but those pictures were just blobs of light.

In your opinion! How is your opinion from watching some YouTube more reliable than eyewitnesses and professional investigators? Even if an unexplainable flash of light is all that appeared on YouTube, that doesn’t mean it was all that people saw.

For example, some of the photos from Zeitoun are very poor quality, because of the contrast between dark night and brilliant light. Yet the eyewitnesses, in many of these cases, gave very detailed descriptions of apparitions they saw. The photos don’t tell the whole story, because of the resolution. But what we CAN see in four of the photos of Mary and the photo of 7 doves flying in cross formation is persuasive.

Yes, I do think my opinion - and the opinion of other researchers, sociologists, scientists - stands up as a contrast to some others who were there. Keep in mind not everyone there saw the same thing. In 2001, an image of the Virgin Mary appeared on my friend’s attic wall. You can probably google it it happened in Pittsburgh. I SWORE I saw it and it looked like the Virgin Mary, and so did tons of others. It was luminous and was there for no real reason but appeared when his grandmother was saying the rosary. Now, however, after reading more about group dynamics, mass hysteria, pariedolia, I think it was probably just a blob of light in which I thought I saw the Virgin mary.

Those doves are not persuasive to me. They are in more recent - I think 2000 - apparitions in Egypt. They are simply a marvel of light, probably an unknown phenomena.

I’ve experienced the same thing when I’ve looked intently into the sun or a reflection of sunlight and have tried to see figures in it. So I know Cynthia’s position about how this can happen is accurate. But five of these photos, and vast numbers of the eyewitness accounts, are far too detailed to be people’s imaginations getting worked up.

5 photos out of a MILLION people. Right!!

Well, sure there are going to be people who disagree in every group. There isn’t a single apparition in the Catholic Church that everybody agrees on. That’s simply the reality of having tons and tons of people.

Actually, there are representations of her on walls and tombs in the catacombs around Rome that date to the second century AD. I believe that these include halos, though I could be mistaken about that last.

I did a Wiki search the earliest yea is from the Second Century but the halos did not come until after 431 when she was declated Mother of God.

Whether that is the case or not, if the Egyptians believed in halos first, that would not in the least invalidate their reality. It is perfectly possible that they saw real heavenly apparitions with halos and described it in their art, even if they didn’t understand the nature of the “gods” they thought they were seeing.

She can appear how she wants. If she wants to be recognizable by using a halo, that’s fine. On the other hand, if she “normally” has a halo in Heaven, that’s fine too.
Click to expand...
Of course she can appear how she wants 🙂
You should read *The Cult of the Virgin Mary,*which also has detailed chapters on Zeitoun and tons of other apparitions.

Again, I am not saying this DIDN’T happen. I’m just saying I think it takes a lot more than what’s presented to prove it. Now, maybe some people who were there don’t need proof. But I do if I am expected to believe the 2000 year old ghost of the Virgin Mary popped up on some Church roof, didn’t speak, and just kind of vaporized away as the years went on. I think it’s much more reasonable to believe this was luminous phenomena caused by tectonic strain as some scientists have put forth.

This would be the same to me as anything else that has been carefully investigated by the Catholic Church and decided to be not worthy of belief. Yes, the Coptic Church investigated it, and you may say who am I to question their methods, but again it only took like a month and the Garabandal thing–which happened just a few years earlier–took a few years. Most things are decided upon after they cease.

I hope you don’t think I am trying to debunk all miracles, apparitions, etc. I am just stating I do not think - and I am not alone - there is enough convincing evidence to say whether or not the Virgin Mary really did apear at Zeitoun.

🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top