From: carroll@gloin.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: *** MoJ: A good disproof of proof 1 should be... ***
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:51:19 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

In article <1993Jan26.121714.32848@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
>
>I have said it before and I will say it again - There is no SENSIBLE
>refutation of the Daniel 9 prophecy.  So far all that the refuters have done
>is to cast aspersions on the 360 day year and other such trivia.
>
>A refutation will consist of posting up any fulfilment that discludes Jesus. 
>I already took the trouble to refute any versions containing Cyrus because I
>knew that all the Jewish commentaries contain this version.

Oh, give us a break.

It's entirely possible that the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled yet.

I hereby claim that I am the second coming of Jesus, and I will
complete my task starting on my 30th birthday, July 29, 1996. You
think I'm not? Fine - the only way that you can disprove that I am the
second coming is by telling me who IS. See how stupid it is?

The fact that I can't point out someone who fulfilled the prophesies
of Messiah better than Jesus is NOT proof that he was the messiah -
because the Messiah hasn't come yet, and when he does, THEN he will
fulfill all of the prophesies perfectly. 

Perhaps the prophesies refer to weeks of decades. Or weeks of 18
years. Or weeks of centuries. Perhaps the weeks actually date from
some other event, which hasn't happened yet. Perhaps the time period
used is a metaphor for something else. Perhaps it's a prophecy for an
entirely different event. 

The burden of proof isn't on us. We didn't claim to PROVE that Jesus
was the messiah - you did. If you say you're going to prove something,
than the entire burden of proof is on you. You want to use 360 day
years? You've got to prove to us that the 360 day year is valid. If
any of the premises of your proof seem questionable, then YOU are
obligated to prove them. Otherwise, you haven't posted a proof, and
you've been wasting our time.

>Suppose that you all agree with 445 BC as the start date but insist on a

But what if we don't agree with that? You've given no good reason
to accept it as correct.

>Jewish or solar year then you will have to name the mashiach nagid after
>exactly 7 or 69 (depending on your own choice of punctuation) 'weeks'.

You haven't demonstrated what "weeks" means. You've proposed one
theory, but you haven't proved that it's correct.

>OR you might want a different start date - please say which date and why and
>then proceed as above.

Well, since I don't believe that the Messiah has come yet (since,
after all, it doesn't seem to me that this is the prophesied messianic
age), I can't name a specific start date, because I don't know when
the Messiah will come. But when he does, I'll be glad to answer all of
your questions.

In the meantime, please either fulfill your promise of a proof, or else
stop pretending to have one.

	<MC>
-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"I prize the cloudy, tearing sky,
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| for the thoughts that flap and fly.
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || For staying in and reading by.
|| carroll@udel.edu             || For sitting under" -Karen Peris