Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The moons, eclipses, and timing
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 38 of 112 (529763)
10-10-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by mark24
10-10-2009 10:22 AM


A lunar eclipse...at Easter....shocking!
There was a partial lunar eclipse visible mostly from the Atlantic Ocean during Passover 33AD.
And 32AD (A total lunar eclipse visible from the Middle east)
And 31AD (partial visible from Pacific Ocean)
And 34AD (Penumbral/Pacific)
And 42AD (partial/middle east)*
Of course - a partial lunar eclipse during Passover isn't remotely miraculous being as it always falls on a full moon. A solar eclipse would have been far more interesting!


*Eclipse data
Easter calculator
Calculations for these dates may be slightly inaccurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mark24, posted 10-10-2009 10:22 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 56 of 112 (530876)
10-15-2009 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Calypsis4
10-15-2009 10:54 AM


Re: Serious subjects
(1) prophetic utterances
Prophesising something will happen does not mean it happened. The prophecies you cited are vague. All Joel says, for example, is that sun will turn to darkness and the moon will turn red - he doesn't say this will be the day that Jesus is crucified AND the day that Jesus was crucified was not a day of a full lunar eclipse, there was partial lunar eclipse that would have been seen by very few people and would not have turned the moon red.
(2) the independent witnesses, (3) the corroboration of eyewitnesses
The witnesses attest that there was some kind of sun darkening. I don't think anybody has spent much time contesting this.
the confirmation of natural phenomena by computer analysis on eclipses.
Yes we know there was a partial eclipse visible to various marine life in the Atlantic ocean. We also know that eclipses during Passover are fairly common since Passover is always at a full moon.
I gave four lines of evidence for the historical accuracy of the crucifixion of Christ and like his comrades in unbelief, he passes it off so lightly as if it were nothing.
Sorry - what did you expect? You told us some people predicted some things which are only vaguely related to the story of Jesus in a similar way that horoscopes are related to my life. You gave us some predictions about strange phenomena occurring at a vague time. You tell us there was an eclipse (which turns out to be partial and not visible in the Middle East) and there is some evidence for some strange sun darkening event.
Why should accept that this has anything to do with being evidence for historical accuracy of the execution of a specific apocolyptic Jew in the first century?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Calypsis4, posted 10-15-2009 10:54 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Calypsis4, posted 10-15-2009 11:46 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 112 (531116)
10-16-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Calypsis4
10-15-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Serious subjects
But the foretelling of the lunar eclipse was prophesied (Joel 2:31) and it occurred as he said it would as verified by Peter who was an eyewitness (Acts 2:20).
But lunar eclipses happen. Prophesising one will is not impressive. And the one in 33AD wasn't the one that Joel prophesied because he was talking about a full lunar eclipse.
Then why bother replying on this point? Why not regard those witnesses as corroborating evidence as it should be?
Because they aren't corroborating witnesses to the crucifixion of Christ. As long as we're clear that they are corroborating something else we're in agreement.
It was enough of an eclipse that people in Israel saw it.
I think you just made that up. If any body in Israel did see it - I don't see you presenting evidence that they recorded it. Israel was right at the very penumbra (that's your source, by the way). And they would not have seen the moon turn red.
Again, it was a supernatural event.
No - the lunar eclipse that the nasa website shows and that you cited as evidence was a natural event. It was calculated to have occurred using physics. If you want to propose that the moon turned red as a supernatural event but that doesn't tell us anything useful.
Leaving Almighty God out of the equation is always the great fault of skeptics like you.
You cited scientific evidence which left YHWH out of the equation. I showed how the scientific evidence you cited doesn't corroborate your prophecy. So - leaving YHWH out of the equation by appealing to science was your doing so was your fault.
If you want to say, "Jesus died on the cross and my evidence is that God could do that" - then go right ahead, I won't stop you.
But those of us who have seen his power know what He can do.
Aye, if that's what you want to believe, then go right ahead. It is not really something that is worth debating in this thread.
When Christ returns to earth 'every eye shall see him' no matter from what location on earth that coming is viewed by human eyes.
Really? Oh, right then, then their must have been a lunar eclipse visible from the middle east in 33AD that turned the moon red and this is the event that Joel was talking about. Obviously. /sarcasm
Sorry - what did you expect?
You are the one who will be sorry. You missed the significance of the life and death of the most important person who ever lived on this planet. That's really too bad.
I said sorry and you told me that I was the one who will be sorry? Your reading comprehension slipped up a bit there methinks.
By the way, the prophecy of Daniel foretelling the exact time of Christ's death is not vague. You just don't care enough to find out how accurate he really was.
Then teach, don't bloviate and proselytize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Calypsis4, posted 10-15-2009 11:46 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Calypsis4, posted 10-16-2009 9:04 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 91 by Calypsis4, posted 10-16-2009 9:07 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 92 of 112 (531144)
10-16-2009 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Calypsis4
10-16-2009 9:07 AM


partial lunar eclipse
That works both ways. Don't lay your atheist trash on me.
Indeed it does. I wasn't aware I was trying to convince you that you were wasting your life believing in god like you implied similarly to me. Sorry if I did - could you point it out so that I might try and avoid it in the future?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Calypsis4, posted 10-16-2009 9:07 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 112 (531146)
10-16-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Calypsis4
10-16-2009 9:04 AM


The truth of the matter
You are deliberately turning your mind away from the truth. You also resort to lies. Joel said nothing about whether the elcipse would be full or not. Why don't you even try to be honest and read the book for yourself?
I did. He doesn't actually say there would be an eclipse. He says that "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood". Which is not saying there would be an eclipse.
You lied again. You act as if you never heard of Matthew, John, or Peter.
I have heard of them. But we weren't talking about them were we? We were talking about reports of sun darkening. Any corroborating reports of the sun darkening isn't corroborating evidence of the crucifixion.
You cited scientific evidence which left YHWH out of the equation. I showed how the scientific evidence you cited doesn't corroborate your prophecy.
God planned it all, you blind fool
OK. But that doesn't address the fact that you cited scientific evidence which left YHWH out of the equation, not me. Nor does it address the fact that I showed you how the scientific evidence you cited doesn't corroborate your prophecy.
I've been in this long enough to know that if we were disucssing Julius Caesar, or Charlemagne, or Henry VII you would not be saying the ridiculous things you've said and you would think that so many evidences corroborating their lives would be remarkable.
I'm not disputing Jesus' existence. Nor am I disputing that he was God incarnate or that he was crucified. I am disputing that the things you cite as evidence for this in this thread that are on topic - counts as evidence for these things.
But like your comrades in unbelief you have a bigotry against the Lord who made you and you won't accept any facts of history that would necessitate such an acceptance.
Blah blah. I could turn this around and say that you are so bigoted against we unbelievers that you think that any criticism of you is because of our bigotry against Yahweh.
It doesn't address the problems with it only being a partial lunar eclipse that wasn't really visible in Israel.
It's a waste of time even going further with you because you don't care about the truth.
Are you suggesting that it was not a partial lunar eclipse?
That it was clearly visible in Israel?
That it turned the moon red?
Because the scientific evidence does not support these things, regardless of whether Christ died for my sins and regardless of whether I believe that and regardless of whether I care about the truth.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : clarified a quote with some context

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Calypsis4, posted 10-16-2009 9:04 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024