Still waiting for you to accomplish the same feat Zeshua did.
Still waiting for you to address my interpretation that shows she didn't. It is impossible for you to deny that, even if some people interpret it as a prediction,
she got the wrong date. Your stretching to justify the wrong date is just that. It does not change the fact her date was wrong.
Proof. Absolute certainty. Semantics again.
Semantics mean a great deal in any communcation. Especially if the people communicating disagree. As an "author" I would have thought you knew this importance. When you look up the word "semantics" it is "the study of meaning." If you are going to try and wave-off the precise definitions of words (which are NOT the same) as if they don't matter, you again show your sloppiness.
I have done so, showing conclusively
You have not shown it conclusively. You may think you have, but you have not:
conclusive - serving to settle or decide a question; decisive; convincing
Obviously it did not settle the question, because while you ignore the responses to that thread from people who were not convinced, that does not mean they were not there. And clearly it is not "decisive" because, as Kerr has pointed out, Zeshua did not (decisively) state "The Pope will die on April 2nd" (not the 3rd).
showing that the majority of other people who read that post also interpreted it the same way
Once again, you are factually wrong. And any defense attorney worth his salt could prove you are wrong. First, you have never, at any time, established
decisive knowledge of how many people read that post. Hence, if you cannot establish how many people actually read that post (and you can't), how can you claim to have shown a "majority" of said people interpreted it as a prediction?
Finally, the other simple fact (i.e. cannot be refuted, no matter how much you try), even if some number of people did interpret it as a prediction, said prediction was WRONG. It was off by a day.
In any US court of law, that would be proof.
Should we bring a trial lawyer in to assess that? I know several. I can bring them in if you wish. Just let me know. In the meantime, let us see what Douglas N. Walton says about an argument and its relationship to evidence in a court of law:
From his book "Legal argumentation and evidence" -
<font color="red"> "To say an argument is valid (or structurally correct) is only a hypothetical claim that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true too. But the claim that an argument is sound is more than hypothetical. It is a claim that the premises are actually true. In a parallel way, to say that there is evidence for a proposition is not only to say that there is an argument for that proposition; it is to say that there is such an argument, and the argument has premises that are true, or at least that hold, in the sense that there is a claim being made that they are true or should be accepted by the audience to whom the evidence is shown. Legal evidence, however, is typically based on premises that are not conclusively known to be true. Instead they are said to have probative weight. In legal evidence, the probative weight is shifted from the premises onto the conclusion of an inference, provided the inference has a certain form that is structurally correct.
In other words, to say that there is evidence for some proposition, is more than just to say that there is an argument for it. It is to say that there is an argument for it, and that this argument has plausible premises. The premises are being held to be true by the proponent of the argument. So the notion of evidence is stronger than that of argument." [/COLOR]
There you go. All you have stated, Peter, is your argument. You have not shown a "majority of those reading the thread" accept the argument, nor that your premises are even plausible. Finally, we have "probative weight." The simple fact (again, this would clearly stand up in a court of law) that the alleged prediction was WRONG in the date of the Pope's death clearly shows that your argument is lacking probative weight. It would only have probative weight if Zeshua had stated the legally accepted date of the Pope's death.
So....what we have learned from this is that Peter thinks he knows law, but this is just as laughable as his belief that he can hide his intentions and connections to the Zeshua story.
But even so, if you don't accept that as "proof", I have allowed you an alternative as well:
You have "allowed"? That's mighty white of you, Peter. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/mad.gif In case you have not noticed, I do not live, die, nor slave myself to what you will allow or not allow. I am a man of science.
No, she didn't. You only say she did. Big difference. See above for legal information about this.
Now how about this: How about you show me all those people here on this forum that actually SUPPORT your interpretations of Zeshua? Because referring to a post from years ago is a bit...shall we say...dated? Let me hear from all the people on this forum who actually buy-into all of your interpretations of what you think Zeshua was saying/predicting.
Go ahead. We are waiting.
RMT
