From: carroll@gloin.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Disproof of "Proof 2" (was *** MoJ: Proof 2: The Passover Prophecy ***)
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:26:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.160835.35787@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
>In article <1jvcalINNouf@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@silver.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>>
>>In article <1993Jan19.115444.28751@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay
>>Bhuchar) writes:
>>>In the prophecy of the 70 weeks I said that the 360 day was only
>>>suggested this century and under this method Mashiach Nagid has
>>>to be revealed on Nisan 10, which is exactly what the New
>>>Testament says about Jesus.
>>
>>This has repeatedly been disproven on alt.messianic.  You cannot use
>>invalid "facts" for part of a "proof".  Please refer to all of the
>>previous posts on this topic for further information (including
>>"Disproof of 'Proof 1'").  
>>:
>OH WHAT???? OH WHAT????
>I have all the files on the so called disproof of Proof 1 and as
>far as I can tell all you have come up with is casting aspersions 
>on the use of the 360 day year and other pedantry like such.
>

The 360-day year is the cornerstone of your proof. If it is invalid,
then your entire proof fails. Why go to the effort of criticizing the
details when the basis on which those details rest is pure, utter
nonsense?

>A disproof of this great prophecy would involve citing the subjects
>and dates of this prophecy - you have not done this because all the 
>Jewish commentaries go with the versions involving Cyrus which I 
>pre-empted so you dont know which way to turn.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the work "proof". A proof is
a logical chain from clearly acceptable premises to a conclusion that
logically follows from those premises. 

A disproof of a supposed proof consists of either:
  (a) demonstrating that one of the premises is untrue; or
  (b) demonstrasting that the conclusion does not logically follow
     from the premises.

Your proof fails before we even get to part (b); and there is no point
analyzing the logical chain that leads to the conclusion if the
premises are flawed. 

Now, we claim that your 360 day premise is untrue. Other posters (Gedaliah?)
have posted refutations claiming that the 360 day year is invalid. If you
want to claim that you do indeed have a proof, what you must do is
prove the validity of the questioned premise. Give us a proof of the
360 day year that we cannot disprove. Then, we'll look at the logical
chain of your proof, and see if it holds up.

>Please post up a proper refutation of proof 1 which involves 
>typing out the fulfilment not haphazard aspersions.

A proper refutation was posted.

I have a question for you: just how stupid do you think we are? I
don't think that any educated person could be taken in by these
"proofs". I've known some brilliant Christian people who I have an
incredible amount of respect for, who believe deeply and profoundly in
Christianity. But not one of them would ever be taken in by these
supposed proofs, even though they already believe in what you're
trying to "prove". I've known Jews who have, unfortuantely, converted
to christianity - but none of them were fooled by this kind of stuff.
Do you really think that you can convince anyone of anything with such
shabby reasoning? The people who you're supposedly trying to reach are
smarter than that - and the fact that you think we'll be convinced by
this is, quite honestly, insulting.

	<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