Fixing the date of Easter

[Shaker]

Zzzz! You're boring. Go away. No one cares what you have to say.

I do, actually.

[Owlswing]

Zzzz! You're boring. Go away. No one cares what you have to say.

I'm only boring - to you - because I point out the facts that you, in your blind attachment to the bogus history of your Christ, do not like to acknoleddge!

Your religious beliefs cannot exist if they acknowledge the truth!

[ad_orientem]

I'm only boring - to you - because I point out the facts that you, in your blind attachment to the bogus history of your Christ, do not like to acknoleddge!

Your religious beliefs cannot exist if they acknowledge the truth!

On the contrary, I see your desperation in trying ("trying" being tve operative word) to disprove Christianity in order to validate your own absurd beliefs. Christ is the truth and acknowledging him will set you free.

[ad_orientem]

I do, actually.

Yes, but you're odd.

[Shaker]

Yes, but you're odd.

There goes another ironyometer 

[Shaker]

On the contrary, I see your desperation in trying ("trying" being tve operative word) to disprove Christianity in order to validate your own absurd beliefs.

Christianity has to be proven, not disproven. Any set of beliefs so preposterous and in opposition to a scientific understanding of the world has to be supported by evidence - and there is none.

Christ is the truth and acknowledging him will set you free.

The Assertatron trundles on.

[Hope]

Christianity has to be proven, not disproven. Any set of beliefs so preposterous and in opposition to a scientific understanding of the world has to be supported by evidence - and there is none.

Actually, there is - it resides in the gospels and other New Testament documents.  As someone who believes that the beliefs are 'so preposterous and in opposition to a scientific understanding of the world' it is for you to 1) provide evidence that 'a scientific understanding of the world' is the only possible understanding, and 2) provide evidence that the preposterous-ness of the beliefs actually invalidate them.  In 4+ years of debating this issue here, and many years of debating it on other internet forums and face to face with individuals, no-one has managed to provide that evidence.

The Assertatron trundles on.

Well, you have only got to provide the evidence that disproves the evidence that has been put forward for the beliefs.  Until you do so, and continue to use the various fallacy arguments instead, your assertatron will continue to trundle on.

[Hope]

I'm only boring - to you - because I point out the facts that you, in your blind attachment to the bogus history of your Christ, do not like to acknoleddge!

Your religious beliefs cannot exist if they acknowledge the truth!

Sadly, Matt, you make so many simple errors in your attempts to 'point out the facts' that others are forced to point them out, and wonder just how valid your 'facts' really are.

[floo]

Sadly, Matt, you make so many simple errors in your attempts to 'point out the facts' that others are forced to point them out, and wonder just how valid your 'facts' really are.

You can't substantiate any of your statements where the Bible is concerned, Hope!

[Shaker]

Actually, there is - it resides in the gospels and other New Testament documents.

As you well know (or should do, given how many times in the past it has been pointed out to you by multiple members of his forum) this doesn't pass muster as evidence. You ought to be aware of this; but given how often many and various errors of reasoning (alias logical fallacies) that you employ have been pointed out to you, and yet you continue to deploy them still to this day, it would be a waste of time to repeat yet again something so elementary that it should have sunk in the first time.

As someone who believes that the beliefs are 'so preposterous and in opposition to a scientific understanding of the world' it is for you to 1) provide evidence that 'a scientific understanding of the world' is the only possible understanding, and 2) provide evidence that the preposterous-ness of the beliefs actually invalidate them.

Nope. Remember that you and your ilk frequently make claims about the nature of reality which are flatly contradicted by the best tool we have yet developed for understanding the way things actually are. You could of course substantiate your claims by providing an equivalent methodology by which your claims can be evaluated and the true sorted from the false, but - yet again - we know how that one is going to end; with abject failure from you to do so.

Well, you have only got to provide the evidence that disproves the evidence that has been put forward for the beliefs.

The negative proof fallacy is so deeply embedded in you that evidently you're unable to post without it appearing in some form or other.

Until you do so, and continue to use the various fallacy arguments instead

I don't use any fallacious arguments - I assume that this is a badly worded way of saying that I point out fallacious arguments in others when they arise. Would that it were not so, but they keep on being churned out and people who care about clear, rational thought and accurate reasoning are duty bound to say so.

your assertatron will continue to trundle on.

Except it's not my Assertatron but yours and those of your ilk. See #77 for instance.

[Spud]

One then has to take into account the fact that not only was Passover a festival in its own right, it was also a 'Preparation Day' for the very important Jewish holy day that was the first day of the 'Feast of Unleavened Bread'.  The Sabbath that is referred to in the gospels is this second holy day.  What is more, the use of 'Sabbath' in this context doesn't necessarily imply that it fell on a Saturday (as we would now call it).  According to the Hebrew Calendar, Passover can fall on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday or a "Saturday".

As I understand it, 'Preparation day' only refers to Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath.

[Hope]

As I understand it, 'Preparation day' only refers to Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath.

That is the normal way of things, but the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread could occur on more than single, set day of the week.  Furthermore, the day of the Passover meal would have been the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread as the term 'Sabbath' was used for more than the weekly 'Saturday'.  It could also be used for a feast day.

[jeremyp]

Perhaps you would also benefit from checking your facts.

The "checking your facts" comment referred to your stupid mistake in asserting that the date of Easter is tied to the date of Passover. I say "stupid" because all you had to do to check your facts was find out what date Passover is on and realise it doesn't coincide with Easter.

I assume your failure to address that part of my post in your latest train wreck means you concede that point.

Both Matthew and Mark state that the crucifixion took place the on a "preparation day" - the day before the Sabbath.  Luke doesn't state a specific day, but uses a similar timeline.  John says the same.

Oh dear. Again you fail to check the easily verifiable facts. Here is a quote from Mark 14 (NRSV in this case)

On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him, ‘Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ So he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, ‘Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, “The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”

In Mark, the Last Supper is the Passover meal.

Here is a passage from Luke 22

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover meal for us that we may eat it.’ They asked him, ‘Where do you want us to make preparations for it?’ ‘Listen,’ he said to them, ‘when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him into the house he enters and say to the owner of the house, “The teacher asks you, ‘Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ”

Again we see that the Last Supper is the Passover meal.

Shall we go for strike 3? Matthew 26

On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ He said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.”

The synoptics all agree that the Last Supper was the Passover meal, the meal in which the lamb that was previously sacrificed is eaten.

What about John? We don't find anything explicit about the Last Supper but look at John 19:14

Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, ‘Here is your King!’

In John, Jesus is before Pilate on the day before Passover, on the day that he would have been eating the Passover meal with his disciples if he weren't already crucified. Oops, looks like you are wrong again.

This discrepancy between the gospels is well known amongst historians and Bible scholars. All you would have needed to do is a bit of Googling to find out I am right again and you are wrong again.

[jeremyp]

As I understand it, 'Preparation day' only refers to Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath.

The first and last days of Passover also count as Sabbaths (same rules as the weekly Sabbath). The day before the first day of the Sabbath is also a Preparation Day (as stated in John 19:14).

[Owlswing]

On the contrary, I see your desperation in trying ("trying" being tve operative word) to disprove Christianity in order to validate your own absurd beliefs. Christ is the truth and acknowledging him will set you free.

Actually ackowledging the truth set me free from a religion that would rather accept paedophiles, fornicators, transvestites (the church calls them robes but they are still dresses) and bigamists as priests rather than ackowledge that these are traits unacceptable in a minister of religion

[Aruntraveller]

Actually ackowledging the truth set me free from a religion that would rather accept paedophiles, fornicators, transvestites (the church calls them robes but they are still dresses) and bigamists as priests rather than ackowledge that these are traits unacceptable in a minister of religion

Now whata on Earth have you got against cross-dressers?

[Owlswing]

Now whata on Earth have you got against cross-dressers?

Nothing at all except when, caught in flagrante they deny it but call it a sin when anyone else does it. Hypocrisy, see.

[ad_orientem]

Actually ackowledging the truth set me free from a religion that would rather accept paedophiles, fornicators, transvestites (the church calls them robes but they are still dresses) and bigamists as priests rather than ackowledge that these are traits unacceptable in a minister of religion

Keep on proving my point. You're doing a wonderful job of it. Done anything about that chip on your shoulder yet?

[Owlswing]

Keep on proving my point. You're doing a wonderful job of it. Done anything about that chip on your shoulder yet?

Have you done anything about the (vastly bigger) anti-Semetic one on yours recently? Or at all?

But then I was forgetting that Finland fought on the side of Germany during WWII.

[jeremyp]

Have you done anything about the (vastly bigger) anti-Semetic one on yours recently? Or at all?

But then I was forgetting that Finland fought on the side of Germany during WWII.

Why are you posting about Finland when you are not Finnish?

[ad_orientem]

Have you done anything about the (vastly bigger) anti-Semetic one on yours recently? Or at all?

But then I was forgetting that Finland fought on the side of Germany during WWII.

Keep on digging, pal.

[OH MY WORLD!]

This is too funny, floo grumpy because a Christian celebration isn't fixed and Matty using it as an opportunity to hurl insults at Christians. YIKES you two, have a cookie!

[Owlswing]

Why are you posting about Finland when you are not Finnish?

Because that is where Ad-O says he is!

[OH MY WORLD!]

I'm just waiting for Matty to pull out his persecution card. Too funny.  He rants at others for being racist or bigots, yet post a rant against the immigrant make up of his community and he make funnies against Transvestites. He's a real cuddly one. (snork)

[Shaker]

I'm just waiting for Matty to pull out his persecution card. Too funny.  He rants at others for being racist or bigots, yet post a rant against the immigrant make up of his community and he make funnies against Transvestites. He's a real cuddly one. (snork)

I don't know the posts in question, but it's as well to point out (the hard of thinking seem to need it) that a principled objection to immigration policy need have nothing to do with racist views in any way whatever.