Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[BilliardsBall]

I'm getting it from a quick googling. The modern Jewish sources I was able to find indicated that the number and length of each month in the Jewish calendar has been the same for thousands of years. The one change that's occurred was that when to insert a leap month is now standardized based on a calculation, but historically was done based on subjective judgement of whether the calendar had become out of alignment with the seasons.

What's your source?


Without examining whether this claim is true in general: was it true for ancient Israel?


Evidence?

Evidence?


IMO, it's a bit strange to take a passage that describes "windows in Heaven" literally. Regardless, if we choose to do this, it only establishes the average length of a month; it doesn't establish that every month has the same length. It also says nothing about the length of months outside this 150 days.


A synodic lunar month is 29.5 days. Most cultures that use a lunar calendar have a mix of 29-day and 30-day months,

The issue in question isn't whether the Persians had a 360-day calendar.


And you think that they never added leap months to bring the average length of a year back to 365 days?

All of your questions can be summed as one objection. Of course, the Israelites added intercalary leap months to lengthen the calendar to match the solar after holidays started moving.

It's a prophecy--when will you address that it was not self-fulfilled and discovered only after 1948? The math works well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All of your questions can be summed as one objection. Of course, the Israelites added intercalary leap months to lengthen the calendar to match the solar after holidays started moving.

So you do agree that the average length of a year in the Jewish calendar is a solar year?

It's a prophecy--when will you address that it was not self-fulfilled and discovered only after 1948? The math works well.

The math only "works well" until we start asking whether your assumptions are reasonable. Your responses suggest that these assumptions weren't reasonable.

BTW: there's still a bucketfull of problems that I pointed out that you haven't even attempted to address.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you do agree that the average length of a year in the Jewish calendar is a solar year?


The math only "works well" until we start asking whether your assumptions are reasonable. Your responses suggest that these assumptions weren't reasonable.

BTW: there's still a bucketfull of problems that I pointed out that you haven't even attempted to address.

The biblical calendar that sets religious festivals and prophecies is a 12-month, 30-day calendar. I'm single-minded and less concerned about the bucket of "problems" you raised than the simple fact that the math works conclusively to May 1948.

In a similar vein, you would agree that Daniel is at least 250 BCE but it predicts the day of Christ's crucifixion.

There are many good apologetic proofs of God, Jesus, salvation--prophecy is irrefutable. Keep trying if you will but please be open to prophecy as proof of what we're discussing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The biblical calendar that sets religious festivals and prophecies is a 12-month, 30-day calendar.

... despite the fact that this doesn't match the Jewish calendar?

In the actual Jewish calendar, months are a mix of 29 and 30 days and years are sometimes 13 months long.

I'm single-minded and less concerned about the bucket of "problems" you raised than the simple fact that the math works conclusively to May 1948.

You're a long way from estsblishing that this assumption is true.

In a similar vein, you would agree that Daniel is at least 250 BCE but it predicts the day of Christ's crucifixion.

Ha! Hell no.

Edit: wait - I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I thought you were saying that I agree that Daniel predicts the date of the crucifixion. After re-reading it, I realized you were saying that I agree on the dating of Daniel. Sure - Daniel may be from at least 250 BCE. I'm not sure offhand what the scholarly consensus is, but that date doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

There are many good apologetic proofs of God, Jesus, salvation--prophecy is irrefutable. Keep trying if you will but please be open to prophecy as proof of what we're discussing.

I'm open to actual prophecy. I'm not open to being scammed. To demonstrate that a prophecy is actually met, you have to clear a very high bar.

I've given you the criteria I would need to see satisfied before I considered something a fulfilled prophecy. You still haven't shown that any claim meets those criteria.

It's also worth pointing out that demonstrating a prophecy as fulfilled doesn't necessarily establish the truth of your religion; all it would do is establish that something remarkable is going on. The question of what caused it is a whole separate matter; from my perspective, if we're open to a prophecy being explained by Christianity being true, we have to also be open to explaining it as, say, time travel or Loki playing a trick on humanity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

... despite the fact that this doesn't match the Jewish calendar?

In the actual Jewish calendar, months are a mix of 29 and 30 days and years are sometimes 13 months long.


You're a long way from estsblishing that this assumption is true.


Ha! Hell no.

Edit: wait - I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I thought you were saying that I agree that Daniel predicts the date of the crucifixion. After re-reading it, I realized you were saying that I agree on the dating of Daniel. Sure - Daniel may be from at least 250 BCE. I'm not sure offhand what the scholarly consensus is, but that date doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

I'm open to actual prophecy. I'm not open to being scammed. To demonstrate that a prophecy is actually met, you have to clear a very high bar.

I've given you the criteria I would need to see satisfied before I considered something a fulfilled prophecy. You still haven't shown that any claim meets those criteria.

It's also worth pointing out that demonstrating a prophecy as fulfilled doesn't necessarily establish the truth of your religion; all it would do is establish that something remarkable is going on. The question of what caused it is a whole separate matter; from my perspective, if we're open to a prophecy being explained by Christianity being true, we have to also be open to explaining it as, say, time travel or Loki playing a trick on humanity.

The Jewish calendar inserts an occasional intercalary leap month (13th month) to make the difference, yes. I know and agree with you--I'm Jewish. The 360-day year is used for prophetical calculations and for festival calculations. The difference between the two calendars causes the holidays to move so that ironically, Passover sometimes falls after Easter. You know this.

Daniel is not "maybe" from at least 250 BCE but definitely, based on scholarly consensus on the date of the Septuagint, translating the Hebrew Bible to Greek, circa that date or before. Daniel predicts the date of the Messiah's crucifixion!

But, we can sidebar all our arguing to hit the crux of your point--future-telling doesn't "prove" anything. So I'll ask you why if the Bible tells the future tellers the future tellers insist that Earthlings who are sinners trust Jesus for salvation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Jewish calendar inserts an occasional intercalary leap month (13th month) to make the difference, yes. I know and agree with you--I'm Jewish. The 360-day year is used for prophetical calculations and for festival calculations.

According to who (besides you)?

The difference between the two calendars causes the holidays to move so that ironically, Passover sometimes falls after Easter. You know this.

I know that the dates of Easter and Passover are somewhat independent of each other because the Jewish and Christian calendars use different methods for establishing the dates for both. I'm not sure if you're assuming I know something else in what you're describing.

Daniel is not "maybe" from at least 250 BCE but definitely, based on scholarly consensus on the date of the Septuagint, translating the Hebrew Bible to Greek, circa that date or before.

As I was getting at, I haven't really looked into it, but I see no reason to object to your dating of Daniel.

Daniel predicts the date of the Messiah's crucifixion!

I don't believe that for a second, but I'd rather stick to the first prophecy that you said was well-supported. If you can't establish that it's real, I'm not sure I'd want to waste my time with some other prophecy that wasn't well-supported enough for you to lead with.

But, we can sidebar all our arguing to hit the crux of your point--future-telling doesn't "prove" anything.

If you established that someone had actually predicted the future, it would be a remarkable event. As I touched on, though, establishing that an event happened doesn't automatically establish the event's cause.

So I'll ask you why if the Bible tells the future tellers the future tellers insist that Earthlings who are sinners trust Jesus for salvation?

If I understand you properly (and I'm not sure I do), it seems that you're saying:

- the prophets in the Bible tell the future.
- these prophets tell people to trust Jesus.
- the fact that these prophets tell the future means that we can trust them when they say to trust Jesus.

Do I understand you properly?

If so, I don't accept any of those points.

 

[Desert Snake]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

Atheism is a form of theism. thats why it seems dishonest.

 

[Desert Snake]

Its a religion called atheism

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is a form of theism. thats why it seems dishonest.

Nope. The exact opposite, in fact.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nope. The exact opposite, in fact.

Not all atheists. But enough.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not all atheists. But enough.

You can find an atheist who's a theist in every corner of a round room.

Do you understand what "theist" and "atheist" mean?

 

[Desert Snake]

You can find an atheist who's a theist in every corner of a round room.

Do you understand what "theist" and "atheist" mean?

You're trying to use technical terms in fuzzy context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're trying to use technical terms in fuzzy context.

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[Desert Snake]

I'll take that as a "no".

I'll take that as a "not contextual"

 

[BilliardsBall]

According to who (besides you)?



I know that the dates of Easter and Passover are somewhat independent of each other because the Jewish and Christian calendars use different methods for establishing the dates for both. I'm not sure if you're assuming I know something else in what you're describing.


As I was getting at, I haven't really looked into it, but I see no reason to object to your dating of Daniel.


I don't believe that for a second, but I'd rather stick to the first prophecy that you said was well-supported. If you can't establish that it's real, I'm not sure I'd want to waste my time with some other prophecy that wasn't well-supported enough for you to lead with.


If you established that someone had actually predicted the future, it would be a remarkable event. As I touched on, though, establishing that an event happened doesn't automatically establish the event's cause.


If I understand you properly (and I'm not sure I do), it seems that you're saying:

- the prophets in the Bible tell the future.
- these prophets tell people to trust Jesus.
- the fact that these prophets tell the future means that we can trust them when they say to trust Jesus.

Do I understand you properly?

If so, I don't accept any of those points.

The scriptures use "heavenly signs" for setting times, and appointments, and seasons, etc. - the observation of phases of the moon set the festivals and feasts of the calendar. You already noted, as did I, that modern Hebrew calendars use an intercalary leap month so things don't move. It's not disputed that 360 times 360 times 7 from Cyrus's decree is the date of Israel's return as a Jewish nation-state, so let's move on?

Why don't you accept any of these points? Given if I can prove 1 to you, and 2 is clearly biblical, why would you hesitate on 3?

1 the prophets in the Bible tell the future.
2 these prophets tell people to trust Jesus.
3 the fact that these prophets tell the future means that we can trust them when they say to trust Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The scriptures use "heavenly signs" for setting times, and appointments, and seasons, etc. - the observation of phases of the moon set the festivals and feasts of the calendar. You already noted, as did I, that modern Hebrew calendars use an intercalary leap month so things don't move.

Ancient Hebrew calendars used it too. The leap month was just added based on subjective judgement, not based on a rigid calculation.

It's not disputed that 360 times 360 times 7 from Cyrus's decree is the date of Israel's return as a Jewish nation-state, so let's move on?

It's not?

I'm disputing it. I disputed every point you made to support that claim.

Why don't you accept any of these points? Given if I can prove 1 to you, and 2 is clearly biblical, why would you hesitate on 3?

I'm not taking 1 or 2 as given.

1 the prophets in the Bible tell the future.
2 these prophets tell people to trust Jesus.
3 the fact that these prophets tell the future means that we can trust them when they say to trust Jesus.

To establish 1, you'd need to demonstrate some actual fulfilled prophecies; so far, you've failed to do this.

You've done nothing to establish 2. From where I sit, Christianity has co-opted Jewish prophets and scriptures. I see no Jesus in the Old Testament.

3 is a mistake of reasoning, since even if a person has made one correct claim, this is no guarantee that his other claims will be correct.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ancient Hebrew calendars used it too. The leap month was just added based on subjective judgement, not based on a rigid calculation.


It's not?

I'm disputing it. I disputed every point you made to support that claim.


I'm not taking 1 or 2 as given.


To establish 1, you'd need to demonstrate some actual fulfilled prophecies; so far, you've failed to do this.

You've done nothing to establish 2. From where I sit, Christianity has co-opted Jewish prophets and scriptures. I see no Jesus in the Old Testament.

3 is a mistake of reasoning, since even if a person has made one correct claim, this is no guarantee that his other claims will be correct.

How did Christianity "co-opt" Jewish scriptures when the writers of the NT were all Jews?

We can see Messiah in the OT and Jesus specifically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How did Christianity "co-opt" Jewish scriptures when the writers of the NT were all Jews?

There was a disagreement - one that I'm sure you're aware of - in early Christianity about whether a Christian needs to be a Jew. Paul's position - i.e. that a Christian does not need to be a Jew - won out. From that point, Christianity stopped being a Jewish sect and instead became an independent religion.

We can see Messiah in the OT and Jesus specifically.

I don't doubt that you sincerely believe this.

Pareidolia - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

There was a disagreement - one that I'm sure you're aware of - in early Christianity about whether a Christian needs to be a Jew. Paul's position - i.e. that a Christian does not need to be a Jew - won out. From that point, Christianity stopped being a Jewish sect and instead became an independent religion.


I don't doubt that you sincerely believe this.

Pareidolia - Wikipedia

Speaking as a Jewish Christian, if it's a new religion to judge on faith rather than circumcision (Ephesians 2, Romans 3), I'm in! Don't be silly!

Isn't it good news? God will judge your heart, not what you do. Because if it was what we do, we'd all be lost.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Speaking as a Jewish Christian, if it's a new religion to judge on faith rather than circumcision (Ephesians 2, Romans 3), I'm in! Don't be silly!

Isn't it good news? God will judge your heart, not what you do. Because if it was what we do, we'd all be lost.

How will God judge people who use him as a distraction when they can't make convincing arguments?

There are still several questions waiting for you, in case you forgot.