Dating and Chronology

[Worsaae]

It seems not. It is probably because traditionally the Israelites were the ones who killed Jesus, therefore the Christian Easter had to be done separately. I am just supposing here.

I think this is a common misconception. Christians are the called ones, which is why the church rings, they are Gods chosen, they are sons of God, they are sons of the Promise, they are Gods glory (another word for Israel), Christians are Israel, which is a nation, not a place, but a people; Israelites. Jesus only came for the lost tribes of Israel, no one else. He also made it clear that someone can be living in Israel without being an Israelite. He also spent several stories warning against imposters, wolfs in sheeps clothing, false prophets and so on.
Men of Israel did indeed kill Jesus but I don't see any evidence, from a Christian biblical perspective, to support the claim that Christians are not Israelites. When I am reading the bible, it looks as if the taught version of Christianity has been imposed upon us, but often not supported by the word of Jesus. Another example of this is that Judaism is taught to have come before Christianity, but this makes absolutely no sense from a Christian perspective, on the contrary Christianity is the continuation and the rejection of those that falsely claim to be of the promise. From a Christian perspective judaism comes long after Christianity as a reaction to having been rejected by the God of Israel.
From a Christian perspective those practicing judaism has no relation to Judea or Israel, because otherwise they would've heard the call of Jesus Christ, like all Israelites do.

 

[Deleted member 37]

I think this is a common misconception. Christians are the called ones, which is why the church rings, they are Gods chosen, they are sons of God, they are sons of the Promise, they are Gods glory (another word for Israel), Christians are Israel, which is a nation, not a place, but a people; Israelites. Jesus only came for the lost tribes of Israel, no one else. He also made it clear that someone can be living in Israel without being an Israelite. He also spent several stories warning against imposters, wolfs in sheeps clothing, false prophets and so on.
Men of Israel did indeed kill Jesus but I don't see any evidence, from a Christian biblical perspective, to support the claim that Christians are not Israelites. When I am reading the bible, it looks as if the taught version of Christianity has been imposed upon us, but often not supported by the word of Jesus. Another example of this is that Judaism is taught to have come before Christianity, but this makes absolutely no sense from a Christian perspective, on the contrary Christianity is the continuation and the rejection of those that falsely claim to be of the promise. From a Christian perspective judaism comes long after Christianity as a reaction to having been rejected by the God of Israel.
From a Christian perspective those practicing judaism has no relation to Judea or Israel, because otherwise they would've heard the call of Jesus Christ, like all Israelites do.

It could be true. I don't know. I was just quoting from what Constantine said.

In any case it's better to stay focused on the chronological aspect here, because it's easy to diverge from the topic

 

[Grosseteste]

I have now checked all the dates in the table given here Perpetual Easter Calculator: Julian/Gregorian Easter Sunday and Jewish Passover. The table shows the dates on which Easter Sunday coincided with the Passover. I aimed at replicating the calculation, and succeeded in most cases, although in a couple of cases I was day out. This may be because I considered Passover to begin at midnight, rather than in the evening of the previous day, but I doubt it.

I haven't checked all the other dates in which the dates might have coincided, I might do so if there is time. There are nearly 500 years to check.

The question remains, what does any of this prove? One problem is that we don't know the actual observed Passover dates. As the author of the table asserts?

Note: The above calculations are based on the somewhat questionable assumption that during the Late Roman and Early Byzantine period the Jewish rabbinic calendar was already identical with the present rabbinic calendar.

Correct.

Also, it seems that Easter and Passover did coincide at some times, otherwise why would this (from the Secret History of Procopius of Caesarea) be true?

“[The emperor Justinian I (reigned 527-565)] also took pains to abolish the laws which the Hebrews honour. If it ever happened, for instance, that the year in its recurring rounds brought on the Feast of Passover before the festival of the Christians, he would not allow the Jews to celebrate this at the proper time, not to make any offering to God at that feast, nor to perform any of the rites customary among them. And many of them used to be brought to trial as having tasted the flesh of lambs at this time by those who were in a position of authority, and these punished them by heavy fines, arraigning them for violation of the laws of the State.”

The whole of Fomenko's argument seems to depend on the questionable assumption that the coincidences were impossible. Why so? If they were impossible, why were Jews punished for celebrating on or before Easter?

 

[sandokhan]

Exactly what this tells us, I am still not sure.

But you are very sure. It tells you exactly this: the entire biography of Dionysius Exiguus was forged much later in time.

(from the Secret History of Procopius of Caesarea)

Nope. I told you that everything associated with Exiguus was faked as well.

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/procopius-history_wars/1914/pb_LCL081.329.xml?readMode=recto

Procopius describes the Easter of the year 536 AD without mentioning the most important aspect: that Passover coincided with the Easter.


Pope John I had approved the work of Dionysius Exiguus (official chronology of history). Then, we have a succession of pontiffs: John II, Agapetus I, Silverius, Vigilius and so on. Certainly we can link Vigilius with Procopius of Caesarea. All of them have faked biographies.

 

[Grosseteste]

But you are very sure. It tells you exactly this: the entire biography of Dionysius Exiguus was forged much later in time.

It seems you are picking and choosing to suit your case. Any document that disagrees with your/Fomenko's conclusion must be forged. But your whole argument depends on some pieces of information being correct, i.e. on some documents not being forged. It is impossible to argue with someone who takes that line, so I won't argue with you.

[EDIT] Also, are you not confusing Procopius of Caesarea with Dionysius Exiguus? Different people.

 

[sandokhan]

Not at all. I go much further than Fomenko, who stopped his investigation in the year 1500 AD.

What I did is to prove to you, using very precise calculations, that the Easter Tables, attributed to Exiguus, were forged much later in time. Everything and everyone associated with Exiguus had to be forged as well. That's all.


EDIT

Also, are you not confusing Procopius of Caesarea with Dionysius Exiguus? Different people.

Nope. They are linked, historically through Pope John I and Pope Vigilius. If Exiguus is erased from history, so are those two pontiffs.

 

[Grosseteste]

What I did is to prove to you, using very precise calculations, that the Easter Tables, attributed to Exiguus, were forged much later in time. Everything and everyone associated with Exiguus had to be forged as well. That's all.

I am working through the dates given by Dionysius and they are perfectly consistent (so far) with the astronomical software. So can you walk me through your argument that they are forged? By 'argument' I mean provide a set of assumptions from which your conclusion of forgery logically follows. I.e. so that it is impossible that the premisses be true and the conclusion false.

Your 'arguments' so far have been to make a claim, sometimes a sweeping claim, and provide a link. Please avoid any links, and please provide your argument in the form I asked for.

 

[sandokhan]

I am working through the dates given by Dionysius and they are perfectly consistent (so far) with the astronomical software.

That's not what you said earlier today:

I have confirmed that for all the dates in the table on the website *which I have checked* (I haven't checked them all), the passover and Easter dates coincide.

Since they coincide, that's a sure sign that the biography of Exiguus has been forged.

Please read again:

Dating and Chronology

 

[Grosseteste]

That's not what you said earlier today:

Since they coincide, that's a sure sign that the biography of Exiguus has been forged.

Please read again:

Dating and Chronology

I have now finished checking all the 95 years given by Dionysius. I used astronomical software to determine the equinox, and the first full moon after the equinox in each year. That much is just astronomical mathematics.

Then I checked against the full moon and easter dates given by Dionysius. In many case the full moon dates did not coincide, but were 1 day out.

However, when I checked for the date of the following Sunday, in every case my calculation matched Dionysius.

"Since they coincide, that's a sure sign that the biography of Exiguus has been forged." This is the argument I am missing. Why does the almost perfect match with the astronomical software prove that the document has been forged? Please give premisses which support that conclusion.

[EDIT] I note you gave a link again to support your conclusion. I have already read the contents of that link. In no way does the information support your conclusion. Please provide a proper argument.

 

[sandokhan]

Please provide a proper argument.

You already did.

Then I checked against the full moon and easter dates given by Dionysius. In many case the full moon dates did not coincide, but were 1 day out.

Exactly. That is precisely how we now know that Exiguus' Easter Tables were forged.

"Since they coincide, that's a sure sign that the biography of Exiguus has been forged." This is the argument I am missing. Why does the almost perfect match with the astronomical software prove that the document has been forged? Please give premisses which support that conclusion.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

You wrote:

I have confirmed that for all the dates in the table on the website *which I have checked* (I haven't checked them all), the passover and Easter dates coincide.

Yet, on Exiguus' own Easter Tables, these dates DO NOT COINCIDE at all. You think anyone else would have trusted anything Exiguus had to say on astronomical matters? His Easter Tables would have been dismissed as worthless in no time at all. Why didn't Exiguus correct the first entry that was wrong? The second? The third? The fourth?

 

[Grosseteste]

I've already stated exactly what I did above. There are two sets of dates to check. The first set is of full moons following the equinox. The dates are at most 1 day out from the astronomically calculated dates. However when I check the dates for the Sunday following the full moon, these match exactly. That's all.

Why does the mismatch for the full moon calculation (which is difficult) prove his table was a forgery, rather than a (small) mistake?

A further test I could run is to move the sequence of years into the future to see if there is another set of dates which his data matches.

[EDIT] To be precise. Of the 95 years given by Dionysius, in 46 the date of the full moon is given correctly. In 44 cases, he gives the date 1 day too early. In 5 cases, 2 days too early. total 95

In all cases he gives the Easter date correctly.

 

[Grosseteste]

Now I begin to understand Nosovsky's. It's not that "Dionysius estimates the full moon date incorrectly, therefore his work is forged".

Rather "Dionysius estimates the full moon date correctly, but relative to a much later date in history".

To test this hypothesis, see the table below. The first column is the year. The second is the date that the first full moon date after the equinox, calculated using modern astronomical software. The third is Dionysius' estimate for the 19 year period 532-550 projected forward using the 19 year rule (namely the approximate rule that the full moon date repeats after a 19 year cycle).

I can do this for any 19 year sequence. Now if Nosovsky's hypothesis is correct, we should be able to find some sequence after 532-550 where Dionysius' estimate agrees with the astronomical full moon date. But that looks impossible. To see why, consider that sometimes D estimates the date correctly, sometimes overestimates, sometimes underestimates. That would not be true if Nosovsky's hypothesis were correct. There would either be complete agreement, or consistent overestimate, or consistent underestimate. But we do not see this. QED.


Year AFM DFM
722 06-Apr 05-Apr
723 26-Mar 25-Mar
724 13-Apr 13-Apr
725 02-Apr 02-Apr
726 22-Mar 22-Mar
727 10-Apr 10-Apr
728 30-Mar 30-Mar
729 18-Apr 18-Apr
730 08-Apr 07-Apr
731 28-Mar 27-Mar
732 15-Apr 15-Apr
733 04-Apr 04-Apr
734 24-Mar 24-Mar
735 12-Apr 12-Apr
736 31-Mar 01-Apr
737 21-Mar 21-Mar
738 09-Apr 09-Apr
739 30-Mar 29-Mar
740 16-Apr 17-Apr

 

[Daniel]

One interesting thing relative to this is that the Council of Trent/Trident is said to have gone on for 18 years(1545-1563).

Much of what was discussed and canonised during Trent would certainly have been canonized centuries(at least) prior to the 16th century, IF the chronology was correct. And IF previous Councils(such as Nicaea) had ever actually taken place.

Then there's the fact that there's a certain Dionysius Petavius, who lived in the 16th/17th centuries, and whose life eerily parallels that of his "Classical" namesake.

 

[sandokhan]

Now I begin to understand Nosovsky's.

No.
Exiguus failed to record the correct dates for the Passover (four times right during his lifetime). His Easter Tables would have been thrown in the sewer at once.

Much of what was discussed and canonised during Trent would certainly have been canonized centuries(at least) prior to the 16th century, IF the chronology was correct. And IF previous Councils(such as Nicaea) had ever actually taken place.

Then there's the fact that there's a certain Dionysius Petavius, who lived in the 16th/17th centuries, and whose life eerily parallels that of his "Classical" namesake.

Yes.

mod note: ad hominem attack removed

 

[sandokhan]

I gave you the link which features an automatic Easter date calculation (Julian calendar). All you had to do is type in the years.

I was not referring to your work (research), but to your conclusions.

Exiguus failed to record the correct dates of the Passover, four times right during his lifetime. No corrections, no uproar, nothing at all. His Easter tables are a failure, which no one would have accepted in any shape possible. You have to accept that his works/biography are a forgery.

 

[Grosseteste]

I gave you the link which features an automatic Easter date calculation (Julian calendar). All you had to do is type in the years.

I was not referring to your work (research), but to your conclusions.

Precisely which conclusions? One conclusion was that "if Nosovsky's hypothesis is correct, we should be able to find some sequence after 532-550 where Dionysius' estimate agrees with the astronomical full moon date. But that looks impossible."

I gave you the link which features an automatic Easter date calculation (Julian calendar). All you had to do is type in the years.

I am not looking just for the 'Easter date', but also the date of the vernal equinox, and the date of the next full moon, for any year. I stated this clearly. Also, I wanted to check that the Easter date was in fact a Sunday.

 

[sandokhan]

I invite everyone here to weigh in with their opinion on this matter, because it is truly important.

Here are the facts.

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter, or, the Paschal Cycle (2003)

Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, created the Easter Tables, the main tenet on which Scaliger based his own chronology of history.

Here are some of the dates recorded for the Passover:

519 AD - March 30

523 AD - April 15

536 AD - March 22

543 AD - April 4

All of these dates occurred during his lifetime (as recorded by the official chronology of history).

563 AD - March 24

570 AD - April 5

590 AD - March 25

594 AD - April 10

614 AD - March 30

Now, the correct dates:

519 AD - March 31

523 AD - April 16

536 AD - March 23

543 AD - April 5

563 AD - March 25

570 AD - April 6

590 AD - March 26

594 AD - April 11

614 AD - March 31

If we check Exiguus' dates against the Gauss Easter formula, something unimaginable emerges: his entries are fake:

Conclusion: Exiguus' works/biography were forged much later in time. Since Pope John I approved this entries, his bio is fake as well. So is Bede's. Exiguus' easter tables would have remembered as a massive failure, actually a catastrophe of sorts. Yet, he does not even correct the first entry (519 AD). Which is astounding.

 

[Grosseteste]

Here are some of the dates recorded for the Passover:

Correction: Dionysius says that he is recording "quae sit luna XIIII paschalis", i.e. the 14th day of the Easter moon, not the Passover. We don't know for sure what dates the Hebrews used. There is evidence they celebrated in March in those days.

If we check Exiguus' dates against the Gauss Easter formula, something unimaginable emerges: his entries are fake:

Let's spell your argument out: you are suggesting that if the document contains errors, the document is fake.

Anyone who agrees with that argument, is agreeing that every document that contains errors, is a fake document. I certainly wouldn't agree with that. For example, I know of many documents containing errors that are not faked.

 

[sandokhan]

Passover begins on the day of the paschal moon.

 

[Grosseteste]

Passover begins on the day of the paschal moon.

Now it does. Probably not in the 6th century. Also, you should have said "paschal FULL moon". The paschal moon begins with the new moon, the full moon occurs on the 14th day.

Merriam Webster, paschal moon: "the lunar month whose 14th day falls on or next following March 21 according"