When I lived in Charlotte, North Carolina for three years (1998-2001) I took a number of classes at Southern Evangelical Seminary, where prominent Evangelical Apologists taught graduate-level seminary courses. One visiting professor from Liberty University at the time was Dr. Gary Habermas, a New Testament scholar and prominent authority on the historical case for the Resurrection of Christ. I took two courses with Dr. Habermas, one on his Apologetics methodology and one that focused on his research on the Resurrection. I was even in the audience when he debated the then atheist professor Antony Flew on the John Ankerberg Show.
Among the things he taught in class were that near-death experiences and the Shroud of Turin presented strong evidence in support of Christian claims. Personally I considered both to be interesting arguments, but weak. So after class one day I asked him what he thought about the miracle of the Holy Light in Jerusalem, known in the West as the Ceremony of the Holy Fire, which is celebrated annually at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Orthodox Easter. He looked at me as if I was making up some story that he never heard of before. I told him it was a very well-known ceremony that is even covered by the media every year, especially on CNN at the time which would uniquely provide brief video footage of the event. He insisted he never heard about it. I told him I could compile some information and give it to him in two days, at our next class. My intention was to show that the evidence in favor of the Holy Light miracle was stronger than the evidence for the Shroud of Turin or near-death experiences for the Resurrection of Christ.
Over the next two days I compiled some information about the Holy Light miracle, since no good and concise text existed at the time. It ended up being around 13 pages long, but I was unable to get all the information I would have liked to include, which presented the strongest case in favor of the miraculous nature of the event, such as the testimonies of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem from the 20th century and accounts of candles spontaneously lighting in the hands of people in the crowd. Instead I focused on the historical evidence, what is done in the ceremony itself and the precautions that are taken to ensure there is no internal tampering for a hoax to take place, and the after effects. I also wanted to make a case for the Holy Sepulchre being the real tomb of Jesus, which is a necessary precondition for the argument, but I was trying to keep the paper as concise as possible.
Two days later I handed him the paper, which he was surprised to receive, since it wasn't something I would be graded on. But he thanked me and told me he would read it, and get back to me the next class.
Before I reveal his reaction, it may be helpful to recount an incident a few days prior to me bringing up the Holy Light to Dr. Habermas. Southern Evangelical Seminary was a new seminary at the time, whose founder and president was the well-known Evangelical Apologist Dr. Norman Geisler. When I arrived at the school, the classes were held behind the property of a church in a series of trailers, and there were about 100 students or so, so we all knew each other at least in passing. I was the only Orthodox student to ever go to this school, and besides one Anglican everyone else was Evangelical. A rule I imposed on myself when attending this school was to never talk about me being an Orthodox Christian unless I was asked, but everyone knew I was Orthodox, though they were more impressed by my fluency in Greek, which they all were struggling to learn.
One day during class we were given a 15 minute break, and during this time I would usually browse the library, which was also in a trailer next to the trailer where the offices were and contained a small table with chairs for students to sit and chat. I was sitting at the table on this particular day, when suddenly Dr. Habermas rushed in and asked if I was the Greek Orthodox student. I said yes. Then, in front of all the students, perhaps 30 or 40, he began to question me intensely on what my intentions were as an Orthodox attending an Evangelical school. He was convinced that I was there as a spy of some sort to get information to either expose the school or expose Evangelicalism. He also told me how at Liberty University he had two Orthodox students whose only intention was to debate and try to convert Evangelicals. And when he asked them if they considered him a Christian, they said no, as long as you don't belong to the true Church, namely the Orthodox Church.
Among the things he taught in class were that near-death experiences and the Shroud of Turin presented strong evidence in support of Christian claims. Personally I considered both to be interesting arguments, but weak. So after class one day I asked him what he thought about the miracle of the Holy Light in Jerusalem, known in the West as the Ceremony of the Holy Fire, which is celebrated annually at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Orthodox Easter. He looked at me as if I was making up some story that he never heard of before. I told him it was a very well-known ceremony that is even covered by the media every year, especially on CNN at the time which would uniquely provide brief video footage of the event. He insisted he never heard about it. I told him I could compile some information and give it to him in two days, at our next class. My intention was to show that the evidence in favor of the Holy Light miracle was stronger than the evidence for the Shroud of Turin or near-death experiences for the Resurrection of Christ.
Over the next two days I compiled some information about the Holy Light miracle, since no good and concise text existed at the time. It ended up being around 13 pages long, but I was unable to get all the information I would have liked to include, which presented the strongest case in favor of the miraculous nature of the event, such as the testimonies of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem from the 20th century and accounts of candles spontaneously lighting in the hands of people in the crowd. Instead I focused on the historical evidence, what is done in the ceremony itself and the precautions that are taken to ensure there is no internal tampering for a hoax to take place, and the after effects. I also wanted to make a case for the Holy Sepulchre being the real tomb of Jesus, which is a necessary precondition for the argument, but I was trying to keep the paper as concise as possible.
Two days later I handed him the paper, which he was surprised to receive, since it wasn't something I would be graded on. But he thanked me and told me he would read it, and get back to me the next class.
Before I reveal his reaction, it may be helpful to recount an incident a few days prior to me bringing up the Holy Light to Dr. Habermas. Southern Evangelical Seminary was a new seminary at the time, whose founder and president was the well-known Evangelical Apologist Dr. Norman Geisler. When I arrived at the school, the classes were held behind the property of a church in a series of trailers, and there were about 100 students or so, so we all knew each other at least in passing. I was the only Orthodox student to ever go to this school, and besides one Anglican everyone else was Evangelical. A rule I imposed on myself when attending this school was to never talk about me being an Orthodox Christian unless I was asked, but everyone knew I was Orthodox, though they were more impressed by my fluency in Greek, which they all were struggling to learn.
One day during class we were given a 15 minute break, and during this time I would usually browse the library, which was also in a trailer next to the trailer where the offices were and contained a small table with chairs for students to sit and chat. I was sitting at the table on this particular day, when suddenly Dr. Habermas rushed in and asked if I was the Greek Orthodox student. I said yes. Then, in front of all the students, perhaps 30 or 40, he began to question me intensely on what my intentions were as an Orthodox attending an Evangelical school. He was convinced that I was there as a spy of some sort to get information to either expose the school or expose Evangelicalism. He also told me how at Liberty University he had two Orthodox students whose only intention was to debate and try to convert Evangelicals. And when he asked them if they considered him a Christian, they said no, as long as you don't belong to the true Church, namely the Orthodox Church.
So in front of this crowd of Evangelicals around me, catching me off guard during my break and causing a scene, seemingly wanting to expose me before everyone present, he asked me if I considered him to be a Christian. My response was: "You tell me, are you a Christian?" He replied affirmatively. So I told him I had no objection to that answer. I then told him in front of everyone that my only intention is to learn something new after previously attending an Orthodox seminary for four years, that over the past few years at SES I had only positive experiences, that I came to this school because Dr. Geisler was influential to me as a teenager, and I had no desire to try to convert or expose anyone, despite knowing before I came to this school the clear differences between what I believe and what is taught at SES. Eventually he calmed down and realized I was telling the truth, so he took a liking to me. I was even his go-to authority during class when he tried to pronounce a Greek word and requested my input.
With this in mind, his reaction to my paper on the Holy Light becomes more understandable. At the next class, he handed me back my paper with his personal notes in red ink. In summary he said he found the information interesting, but there were holes in my argument that made him question if it was a miracle. And based on this information, he didn't consider it a strong argument that confirms the Resurrection of Christ. In fact, the focus for him was not whether it confirmed the Resurrection, but whether it pointed to the truth of the Orthodox Church because it has this unique miracle.
As I thought about his response, I suspected he dismissed my arguments because the inevitable conclusion is that if the Holy Light miracle is true, then it is an exclusive miracle of the Orthodox Church, which as he had mentioned in his confrontation with me a few days earlier, was something that really angered him about the Orthodox.
Although I did not agree with his response and his dismissal of what I actually wrote, I did realize how I could refine my presentation of the miracle of the Holy Light not as a miracle that confirms the truth of Orthodoxy, though that can be done, but as a miracle that confirms the truth of the Resurrection of Christ. Since then I have been compiling and translating research on the subject that I hope to one day present in a publication.
As for my paper on the Holy Light, a few years later I decided to post it online (it is no longer online). Shortly after I got a call from the late Fr. Stanley Harakas, an Orthodox professor at Holy Cross School of Theology, who would write question and answer articles for the Hellenic Chronicle, which I would read weekly in high school. Apparently he received a question on the Holy Light, and wanted to write a response, but when doing research online, there was very little information available. When we spoke on the phone, he told me my article was the best on the subject on the internet, and wanted to take excerpts from it for his article, and credit me as the author. He told me that out of the hundred of answers he published to various questions over the years, this would be the only time he would fully quote another author. And this is what happened, thus giving my paper, at the very least, some well-deserved recognition.
With this in mind, his reaction to my paper on the Holy Light becomes more understandable. At the next class, he handed me back my paper with his personal notes in red ink. In summary he said he found the information interesting, but there were holes in my argument that made him question if it was a miracle. And based on this information, he didn't consider it a strong argument that confirms the Resurrection of Christ. In fact, the focus for him was not whether it confirmed the Resurrection, but whether it pointed to the truth of the Orthodox Church because it has this unique miracle.
As I thought about his response, I suspected he dismissed my arguments because the inevitable conclusion is that if the Holy Light miracle is true, then it is an exclusive miracle of the Orthodox Church, which as he had mentioned in his confrontation with me a few days earlier, was something that really angered him about the Orthodox.
Although I did not agree with his response and his dismissal of what I actually wrote, I did realize how I could refine my presentation of the miracle of the Holy Light not as a miracle that confirms the truth of Orthodoxy, though that can be done, but as a miracle that confirms the truth of the Resurrection of Christ. Since then I have been compiling and translating research on the subject that I hope to one day present in a publication.
As for my paper on the Holy Light, a few years later I decided to post it online (it is no longer online). Shortly after I got a call from the late Fr. Stanley Harakas, an Orthodox professor at Holy Cross School of Theology, who would write question and answer articles for the Hellenic Chronicle, which I would read weekly in high school. Apparently he received a question on the Holy Light, and wanted to write a response, but when doing research online, there was very little information available. When we spoke on the phone, he told me my article was the best on the subject on the internet, and wanted to take excerpts from it for his article, and credit me as the author. He told me that out of the hundred of answers he published to various questions over the years, this would be the only time he would fully quote another author. And this is what happened, thus giving my paper, at the very least, some well-deserved recognition.
