OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 06:13:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 218402 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #945 on: August 10, 2009, 12:04:55 PM »

And the Serbs, if they adopted Milankovic's calendar which is out one day in every 48,000 years  rather than the Revised Julian which is out 1 day in every 14,400, would have the wonderful grace of being more in synch with God's celestial creation than the rest of the Orthodox.  Indeed, after 48,000 years or so the other Orthodox will be behind the Serbs by 3 days!

The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.

Please stop spreading misinformation Irish Hermit.
I have provided Orthodox and Scientific citations on this thread which prove that the Revised Julian Calendar is the Milankovic proposed Calendar. You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?

Quote
But I guess truth is not important to you.

Bit of a scurrilous thing to do.  Should I invoke nomocanon 121?  laugh


« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 12:07:34 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #946 on: August 10, 2009, 12:15:48 PM »

And the Serbs, if they adopted Milankovic's calendar which is out one day in every 48,000 years  rather than the Revised Julian which is out 1 day in every 14,400, would have the wonderful grace of being more in synch with God's celestial creation than the rest of the Orthodox.  Indeed, after 48,000 years or so the other Orthodox will be behind the Serbs by 3 days!

The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.

Please stop spreading misinformation Irish Hermit.
I have provided Orthodox and Scientific citations on this thread which prove that the Revised Julian Calendar is the Milankovic proposed Calendar. You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?

Quote
But I guess truth is not important to you.

Bit of a scurrilous thing to do.  Should I invoke nomocanon 121?  laugh




Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?


MODERATION:  Inappropriate question removed  -PtA
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 02:35:43 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,209


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #947 on: August 10, 2009, 01:17:53 PM »





And the Serbs, if they adopted Milankovic's calendar which is out one day in every 48,000 years  rather than the Revised Julian which is out 1 day in every 14,400, would have the wonderful grace of being more in synch with God's celestial creation than the rest of the Orthodox.  Indeed, after 48,000 years or so the other Orthodox will be behind the Serbs by 3 days!

The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.

Please stop spreading misinformation Irish Hermit.
I have provided Orthodox and Scientific citations on this thread which prove that the Revised Julian Calendar is the Milankovic proposed Calendar. You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?

Quote
But I guess truth is not important to you.

Bit of a scurrilous thing to do.  Should I invoke nomocanon 121?  laugh




Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?
Or just stupid?

Mods what do you say? One may not agree with an Orthodox priest but is it ever appropriate to call an Orthodox priest and a liar and stupid on this forum?

From forum rules:

Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board.  Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban.  Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities.  Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #948 on: August 10, 2009, 01:20:42 PM »





And the Serbs, if they adopted Milankovic's calendar which is out one day in every 48,000 years  rather than the Revised Julian which is out 1 day in every 14,400, would have the wonderful grace of being more in synch with God's celestial creation than the rest of the Orthodox.  Indeed, after 48,000 years or so the other Orthodox will be behind the Serbs by 3 days!

The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.

Please stop spreading misinformation Irish Hermit.
I have provided Orthodox and Scientific citations on this thread which prove that the Revised Julian Calendar is the Milankovic proposed Calendar. You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?

Quote
But I guess truth is not important to you.

Bit of a scurrilous thing to do.  Should I invoke nomocanon 121?  laugh




Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?
Or just stupid?

Mods what do you say? One may not agree with an Orthodox priest but is it ever appropriate to call an Orthodox priest and a liar and stupid on this forum?

From forum rules:

Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board.  Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban.  Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities.  Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.
Please let us do our job. Someone else followed protocol and reported the post to us, just as you should have done if you had a problem with it. In the future, please report any post you find offensive.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #949 on: August 10, 2009, 01:25:44 PM »

Mods what do you say? One may not agree with an Orthodox priest but is it ever appropriate to call an Orthodox priest and a liar and stupid on this forum?

Well, Tamara, if you read the last two pages of this thread, I actually didn't call Irish Hermit stupid or a liar- I simply asked him to prove that he is neither by providing the citations which have been requested for his insistence of his claim in the face of two citations of mine (one from a Scientrific Journal the other from Orthodoxwiki) which prove his claim is erroneous. Perhaps you could help him find his citations.


Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,209


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #950 on: August 10, 2009, 01:28:43 PM »

Mods what do you say? One may not agree with an Orthodox priest but is it ever appropriate to call an Orthodox priest and a liar and stupid on this forum?

Well, Tamara, if you read the last two pages of this thread, I actually didn't call Irish Hermit stupid or a liar- I simply asked him to prove that he is neither by providing the citations which have been requested for his insistence of his claim in the face of two citations of mine (one from a Scientrific Journal the other from Orthodoxwiki) which prove his claim is erroneous. Perhaps you could help him find his citations.




Rationalize it any way you want George. You wrote disrespectfully. You could have worded it differently so as not be offensive.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #951 on: August 10, 2009, 01:29:30 PM »

Rationalize it any way you want George. You wrote disrespectfully. You could have worded it differently so as not be offensive.
Rationality is something very lacking don't you think?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #952 on: August 10, 2009, 02:07:47 PM »

Mods what do you say? One may not agree with an Orthodox priest but is it ever appropriate to call an Orthodox priest and a liar and stupid on this forum?

Well, Tamara, if you read the last two pages of this thread, I actually didn't call Irish Hermit stupid or a liar- I simply asked him to prove that he is neither by providing the citations which have been requested for his insistence of his claim in the face of two citations of mine (one from a Scientrific Journal the other from Orthodoxwiki) which prove his claim is erroneous. Perhaps you could help him find his citations.




Rationalize it any way you want George. You wrote disrespectfully. You could have worded it differently so as not be offensive.
Again, Tamara, please let us moderators do our job.  The post you find offensive has been reported and is under review, and we on the moderator team will address it as we deem appropriate.  Please do not derail this thread by taking it upon yourself to chastise another poster for what you deem offensive behavior.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #953 on: August 10, 2009, 02:24:33 PM »

And the Serbs, if they adopted Milankovic's calendar which is out one day in every 48,000 years  rather than the Revised Julian which is out 1 day in every 14,400, would have the wonderful grace of being more in synch with God's celestial creation than the rest of the Orthodox.  Indeed, after 48,000 years or so the other Orthodox will be behind the Serbs by 3 days!

The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.

Please stop spreading misinformation Irish Hermit.
I have provided Orthodox and Scientific citations on this thread which prove that the Revised Julian Calendar is the Milankovic proposed Calendar. You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?
Irish Hermit, you have now been challenged by three different people to substantiate the assertion you made above--one of them even cited authoritative evidence that seems to actually refute your thesis.  So far you have not offered any evidence to defend your claims against these challenges, choosing instead to merely repeat your claim without change.  For the sake of the civility of this discussion, I am now making formal the request that you defend your position.  I charge you to give us clear evidence from outside authorities that the Milankovic Calendar is different from and more accurate than the Revised Julian Calendar much of the Orthodox Church adopted in 1923.  Until you can give us this evidence, you are to cease and desist from making this assertion again.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 02:31:37 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #954 on: August 10, 2009, 02:26:12 PM »

^ Is ANYBODY listening?
The Milankovic Calendar IS the Revised Julian Calendar!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #955 on: August 10, 2009, 02:33:29 PM »

^ Is ANYBODY listening?
I am. Wink
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #956 on: August 10, 2009, 03:07:16 PM »

Thank God!
That's all I care about. The truth.

Just to make it absolutely clear, the Synod of 1923 DID adopt the more accurate Milankovic Calendar, and it is now known as the Revised Julian Calendar and it calculates Leap Years differently than the Gregorian Calendar from which it will diverge from as of the year 2800.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #957 on: August 10, 2009, 03:14:43 PM »

Just to make it absolutely clear, the Synod of 1923 DID adopt the more accurate Milankovic Calendar, and it is now known as the Revised Julian Calendar ....
However, according to wikipedia: "The synod also proposed the adoption of an astronomical rule for Easter: Easter was to be the Sunday after the midnight-to-midnight day at the meridian of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (35°13'47.2"E or UT+2h20m55s for the small dome) during which the first full moon after the vernal equinox occurs. Although the instant of the full moon must occur after the instant of the vernal equinox, it may occur on the same day. If the full moon occurs on a Sunday, Easter is the following Sunday. However, all Eastern Orthodox churches rejected this rule and continue to use the Julian calendar to determine the date of Easter (except for the Finnish Orthodox Church, which now uses the Gregorian Easter)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #958 on: August 10, 2009, 03:21:19 PM »

Just to make it absolutely clear, the Synod of 1923 DID adopt the more accurate Milankovic Calendar, and it is now known as the Revised Julian Calendar ....
However, according to wikipedia: "The synod also proposed the adoption of an astronomical rule for Easter: Easter was to be the Sunday after the midnight-to-midnight day at the meridian of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (35°13'47.2"E or UT+2h20m55s for the small dome) during which the first full moon after the vernal equinox occurs. Although the instant of the full moon must occur after the instant of the vernal equinox, it may occur on the same day. If the full moon occurs on a Sunday, Easter is the following Sunday. However, all Eastern Orthodox churches rejected this rule and continue to use the Julian calendar to determine the date of Easter (except for the Finnish Orthodox Church, which now uses the Gregorian Easter)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar


What do you hope to discuss by bringing up this point that we Orthodox know all too well?
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,997



« Reply #959 on: August 10, 2009, 03:28:03 PM »

I will have to go with Peter and OzGeorge. I should point out a typo in the postings of Oz where the average length of the Gregorian year should be 365.2425 (not 355.2425). Nonetheless, it seems to me that (a) the Revised Julian calendar is more accurate than the Gregorian (which itself was the first revision of the Julian) and (b) the Milankovic rule on calculating leap years was largely responsible for this.

Recalling earlier exchange between Peter and me regarding many Orthodox folks' sensibilities on anything Papal, is this not wonderful news! The most accurate calendar was created by the Orthodox Church!!! It is we and not the Romans who are more in sync with God's time!!!

And the Serbs, if they adopted Milankovic's calendar which is out one day in every 48,000 years  rather than the Revised Julian which is out 1 day in every 14,400, would have the wonderful grace of being more in synch with God's celestial creation than the rest of the Orthodox.  Indeed, after 48,000 years or so the other Orthodox will be behind the Serbs by 3 days!

The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.

I would have to respectfully disagree. Along with the 14,400/48,000 figures provided by you, let us consider the following from the Wiki:

"The Gregorian calendar improves the approximation made by the Julian calendar by skipping three Julian leap days in every 400 years, giving an average year of 365.2425 mean solar days long,[38]. This approximation has an error of about one day per 3300 years with respect to the mean tropical year, but less than half this error with respect to the vernal equinox year of 365.24237 days. With respect to both solstices the Gregorian Calendar gives an average year length that is actually shorter than the true length. By any criterion, the Gregorian calendar is substantially more accurate than the one day in 128 years error of the Julian calendar (average year 365.25 days)."

So the error rates are:

Julian: One day in 128 years (Source: Wiki)

Gregorian: One day in 3300-6600 years (Source: Wiki)

Revised Julian: One day in 14,400-48,000 years (Source: Father Ambrose)

You can see immediately that the Revised Julian is much more accurate than the Gregorian, whether or not we consider the purported Milankovic variant. Thus, it is impossible that "The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics." The only synchronization that was made was the correct the Julian calendar, which meant that it would be essentially the same as the Gregorian from 1923 to 2800. After that, the two diverge as shown by the error rates.

Regardless of the outcome of the issue of whether the Milankovic variant would have improved the Revised Julian's accuracy (from one day drift in 14,400 versus one day drift in 48,000 years), it is probable that the Revised Julian included the leap year rules proposed by Milankovic. I must also point out that the problem with drift has been the way that leap years were calculated in all three calendars. This fact alone adds extra weight to OzGeorge's argument that the Milankovic "variant" is indeed the Revised Julian calendar. Even if it is not, the Revised Julian (at 14,400) is still more than 2 times more accurate than the Gregorian (at 6,600) which is 52 times more accurate than the Julian (at 128), making Revised Julian 113 times more accurate than the original Julian.

No, dear Father Ambrose, it is a logical impossibility for the Revised Julian to be an attempt to sync us with the Roman Catholics.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 03:54:41 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,997



« Reply #960 on: August 10, 2009, 03:51:17 PM »

Just to make it absolutely clear, the Synod of 1923 DID adopt the more accurate Milankovic Calendar, and it is now known as the Revised Julian Calendar ....
However, according to wikipedia: "The synod also proposed the adoption of an astronomical rule for Easter: Easter was to be the Sunday after the midnight-to-midnight day at the meridian of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (35°13'47.2"E or UT+2h20m55s for the small dome) during which the first full moon after the vernal equinox occurs. Although the instant of the full moon must occur after the instant of the vernal equinox, it may occur on the same day. If the full moon occurs on a Sunday, Easter is the following Sunday. However, all Eastern Orthodox churches rejected this rule and continue to use the Julian calendar to determine the date of Easter (except for the Finnish Orthodox Church, which now uses the Gregorian Easter)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar

I believe the rejection of this rule shows the benign nature of the Revised Julian calendar. The proponents knew that the reason for the early Fathers rules were to enable all faithful to celebrate Pascha together. The proponents also knew that not all of the Churches would adapt the New Calendar; so they did the next best thing and decided to their everlasting credit to continue using the Old Calendar to determine the date of Easter, even though the adoption of the second rule would have solved so many problems. So, it turns out that the various disconnects that some folks maintain are created by the New Calendar turn out to have been created by the non-adoption of the second rule along with the first.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #961 on: August 10, 2009, 03:57:31 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #962 on: August 10, 2009, 04:01:35 PM »

Just to make it absolutely clear, the Synod of 1923 DID adopt the more accurate Milankovic Calendar, and it is now known as the Revised Julian Calendar ....
However, according to wikipedia: "The synod also proposed the adoption of an astronomical rule for Easter: Easter was to be the Sunday after the midnight-to-midnight day at the meridian of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (35°13'47.2"E or UT+2h20m55s for the small dome) during which the first full moon after the vernal equinox occurs. Although the instant of the full moon must occur after the instant of the vernal equinox, it may occur on the same day. If the full moon occurs on a Sunday, Easter is the following Sunday. However, all Eastern Orthodox churches rejected this rule and continue to use the Julian calendar to determine the date of Easter (except for the Finnish Orthodox Church, which now uses the Gregorian Easter)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar


What do you hope to discuss by bringing up this point that we Orthodox know all too well?
Not everything that the synod proposed  concerning the revised julian calendar was accepted.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #963 on: August 10, 2009, 04:21:50 PM »

Just to make it absolutely clear, the Synod of 1923 DID adopt the more accurate Milankovic Calendar, and it is now known as the Revised Julian Calendar ....
However, according to wikipedia: "The synod also proposed the adoption of an astronomical rule for Easter: Easter was to be the Sunday after the midnight-to-midnight day at the meridian of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (35°13'47.2"E or UT+2h20m55s for the small dome) during which the first full moon after the vernal equinox occurs. Although the instant of the full moon must occur after the instant of the vernal equinox, it may occur on the same day. If the full moon occurs on a Sunday, Easter is the following Sunday. However, all Eastern Orthodox churches rejected this rule and continue to use the Julian calendar to determine the date of Easter (except for the Finnish Orthodox Church, which now uses the Gregorian Easter)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar


What do you hope to discuss by bringing up this point that we Orthodox know all too well?
I think stanley123 has misunderstood and thinks Milankovic proposed the new method of calculating Pascha and it was rejected by the Synod (and therefore he thinks the Synod did not adopt the Milankovic Calendar entirely). This is incorrect. The above rejected proposal for calculating Pascha was not Milancovic's, but a proposal of Maksim Trpkovic's.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ky8tC6PfIlwJ:www.astro.bas.bg/~aobel/bmya2000/articles_ps/mijatovic.ps+Maksim+Trpkovic+and+the+Reform+of+the+Julian+Calendar&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 04:42:14 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #964 on: August 10, 2009, 04:58:38 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #965 on: August 10, 2009, 05:22:21 PM »

I think stanley123 has misunderstood and thinks Milankovic proposed the new method of calculating Pascha and it was rejected by the Synod (and therefore he thinks the Synod did not adopt the Milankovic Calendar entirely). This is incorrect. The above rejected proposal for calculating Pascha was not Milancovic's, but a proposal of Maksim Trpkovic's.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ky8tC6PfIlwJ:www.astro.bas.bg/~aobel/bmya2000/articles_ps/mijatovic.ps+Maksim+Trpkovic+and+the+Reform+of+the+Julian+Calendar&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
From this article, it appears that most of the work on the reform of the Julian calendar was already done by Trpkovic, and that Milankovic made a few modifications. In any event, it looks to me like there were two calculations for the date for Easter, one by Tripkovic and one by Milankovic, because according to the article, which I think is referring to the date for the calculation of the date for Easter: “However as written later (Vojislav Miskovic, Petar A.Tipa and
others) Trpkovic’s solution is more accurate than Milankovic’s one.”
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #966 on: August 10, 2009, 09:25:13 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #967 on: August 10, 2009, 09:40:33 PM »


Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?

I am a liar by nature.  And a thief, and a fornicator, and a glutton and a luster after other men's wives.

You?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #968 on: August 10, 2009, 10:29:31 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #969 on: August 10, 2009, 10:32:01 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #970 on: August 10, 2009, 10:42:00 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

Enough to forbid the Asian Church to celebrate as they had, on the 14th Nisan.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #971 on: August 10, 2009, 10:43:33 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

Enough to forbid the Asian Church to celebrate as they had, on the 14th Nisan.

is there a document where i cna read that they condemned this practice bc of astronomical accuracy? i thought that variant dates were condemned bc they wanted a unified celebration
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,997



« Reply #972 on: August 10, 2009, 10:44:50 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

I do not know that they may known that it would cause disharmony in the Church. Frankly, I do not think that harmony was as important in the first six centuries as getting it right--except for the good of the Empire, of course.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 10:45:48 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #973 on: August 11, 2009, 12:34:17 AM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

Enough to forbid the Asian Church to celebrate as they had, on the 14th Nisan.

is there a document where i cna read that they condemned this practice bc of astronomical accuracy? i thought that variant dates were condemned bc they wanted a unified celebration
You speak of astronomical accuracy and unified celebration as if they're mutually opposed to each other--you think it has to be one or the other, but not both.  ISTM that the Fathers cared about BOTH.  They wanted a unified celebration, but they also cared enough about astronomical accuracy to decide what that unified date should be.  I can only imagine that the Calendar Synod of 1923 didn't intend to divide the Church when they adopted the Revised Julian Calendar for the sake of astronomical accuracy.  I think, rather, that they wanted the whole Church to follow their lead and were quite disappointed when some refused for dogmatic reasons.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #974 on: August 11, 2009, 01:43:11 AM »

[ I can only imagine that the Calendar Synod of 1923 didn't intend to divide the Church when they adopted the Revised Julian Calendar for the sake of astronomical accuracy.  I think, rather, that they wanted the whole Church to follow their lead and were quite disappointed when some refused for dogmatic reasons.

What were the dogmatic reasons for refusing to accept the New Calendar devised by Milutin Milankovic?

I realise that they will be different depending on

1.  The Old Calendar Orthodox Churches (Russia, Jerusalem, Serbia, Georgia)

2.  The Greek Old Calendarist Churches and the True Orthodox Churches
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 01:48:32 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #975 on: August 11, 2009, 03:42:39 PM »

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?
I think both questions are equally important.  It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage. Wink

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

Enough to forbid the Asian Church to celebrate as they had, on the 14th Nisan.

is there a document where i cna read that they condemned this practice bc of astronomical accuracy? i thought that variant dates were condemned bc they wanted a unified celebration
You speak of astronomical accuracy and unified celebration as if they're mutually opposed to each other--you think it has to be one or the other, but not both.  ISTM that the Fathers cared about BOTH.  They wanted a unified celebration, but they also cared enough about astronomical accuracy to decide what that unified date should be.  I can only imagine that the Calendar Synod of 1923 didn't intend to divide the Church when they adopted the Revised Julian Calendar for the sake of astronomical accuracy.  I think, rather, that they wanted the whole Church to follow their lead and were quite disappointed when some refused for dogmatic reasons.

well i think they wanted a unified celebration and of course it makes sense to pick the astronomically correct date rather than just some arbitrary date. but i find it hard to believe that they would cling to accuracy if it disrupts the unity of the celebration.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #976 on: August 11, 2009, 03:44:55 PM »

...
The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.
... You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?
...


Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?

It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #977 on: August 11, 2009, 04:25:42 PM »

well i think they wanted a unified celebration and of course it makes sense to pick the astronomically correct date rather than just some arbitrary date. but i find it hard to believe that they would cling to accuracy if it disrupts the unity of the celebration.
Actually, the Revised Julian is deliberately not astronomically accurate in order to maintain the unity of the Paschalion. There was a proposal at the 1923 Synod to adopt an astronomically correct method of determining the date of Pascha which was not adopted since it would occassionally lead to differences between the Julian and Revised Julian Paschalions.
The Revised Julian is only "astronomically accurate" insofar as it adopted the Milankovic rule for calculating the century Leap Years. Milankovic's rule is that a century year is a Leap Year only if, when it is divided by 900 the remainder is 200 or 600 (as compared to the Gregorian rule which makes century years Leap Years if divisible by 400). It means that the Revised Julian is a much closer approximation to the average length of time it actually takes the Earth to orbit the Sun.
None of the calendars  (Gregorian, Julian, Revised Julian) are actually "astronomically accurate" since none of them use actual astronomic observations. The Canons of the first Ecumenical Council decreed that Pascha would be the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox. But all the calendars assume that the date of the Vernal Equinox is March 21, whereas in fact it currently ranges from March 20-22 and as time progresses, even these dates will change due to the Progression of the Equinoxes. Furthermore, on the Julian and Revised Julian, the date of the Paschal Full Moon is determined by ancient calculation tables (not actual observation).
The rejected proposal was that the Vernal Equinox would be defined by actual astronomical observation as observed from Jerusalem. Adopting this would in fact align our practice for calculating Pascha more closely with the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, but it was rejected in favour of maintaining unity.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 04:27:28 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #978 on: August 11, 2009, 05:11:13 PM »

I think, rather, that they wanted the whole Church to follow their lead and were quite disappointed when some refused for dogmatic reasons.

That couldn't possibly be the case.

In 1923, with ongoing genocide of Orthodox in Russia and Turkey (well, I do include here OO, too), there were much more important worries to worry.

Besided, "Proto-Synod" was held in Vatopedi earlier the same year (or a year before), where St. Nikolai of Ohrid and Zica told Mekletios Metraxakis that there was no chance that Serbs adopt calendar reform, which appeared true.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #979 on: August 11, 2009, 07:55:36 PM »

...
The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.
... You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?
...


Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?

It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal.

Thank you for this very interesting contribution.  I understand that Milankovic's contribution was to simply adjust the calculation of leap years in the calendar proposed by Trpkovic. 

Quote
There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.

Orthodoxlurker,  is there an easy way to jump to pages 144-157, without having to trudge through every single page?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #980 on: August 11, 2009, 08:21:07 PM »

A monograph from Veselka Trajkovska (Astronomical Observatory, Belgrade) which contributes to our discussion.

"On the Fundamental Contribution of Maxim Trpkovic's
Project to the Pan-Orthodox Solution of
the Calendar Reform in Constantinople in 1923"

http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

Abstract: "In this paper Maksim Trpkovic's contribution to the calendar reform from the
late XIX century and the first decades of the XX one is discussed. The importance and
the contribution of his project in the solving of the calendar reform at the Pan-
Orthodox Congress in Constantinople in 1923 is specially presented. In this context
one also considers the controverse question whether the modification of Trpkovic's
project [the leap year modification] done at the Congress by Milutin
Milankovic is Trpkovic-Milankovic's calendar or Milankovic's calendar."

Full monograph :: http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 08:22:26 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #981 on: August 12, 2009, 01:21:25 AM »

...
The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.
... You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?
...


Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?

It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.

Orthodoxlurker,

Forgive me.  I am forgetting my manners. I need to thank you.  Several times Ozgeorge accused me of spreading misinformation and made suggestions that I am a liar.  For example:  "Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar..."

Thank you for the information you have found because it proves that there is indeed evidence to support the claim that the Revised Julian Calendar is not the Milankovic Calendar.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 01:32:14 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #982 on: August 12, 2009, 02:48:41 AM »

...
The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.
... You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?
...


Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?

It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.

Orthodoxlurker,

Forgive me.  I am forgetting my manners. I need to thank you.  Several times Ozgeorge accused me of spreading misinformation and made suggestions that I am a liar.  For example:  "Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar..."

Thank you for the information you have found because it proves that there is indeed evidence to support the claim that the Revised Julian Calendar is not the Milankovic Calendar.

The book is entirely in Serbian, so unless we can get to translate it another Serb not known for kissing your feet, all we have is orthodoxlurker's word on what it says.  I've personally learned not to trust him, for he will readily support anything you say.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #983 on: August 12, 2009, 02:53:54 AM »

...
The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.
... You have provided nothing to support your claims.


1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

If this were true would you say they are the same calendar?
...


Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
Or are you just a liar by nature?

It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.

Orthodoxlurker,

Forgive me.  I am forgetting my manners. I need to thank you.  Several times Ozgeorge accused me of spreading misinformation and made suggestions that I am a liar.  For example:  "Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar..."

Thank you for the information you have found because it proves that there is indeed evidence to support the claim that the Revised Julian Calendar is not the Milankovic Calendar.

The book is entirely in Serbian, so unless we can get to translate it another Serb not known for kissing your feet, all we have is orthodoxlurker's word on what it says.  I've personally learned not to trust him, for he will readily support anything you say.

Have we ever known orthodoxlurker to lie?  Could you reference whatever messages that have caused you not to trust him.

Did you read the monograph of Veselka Trajkovska?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #984 on: August 12, 2009, 03:10:32 AM »

Thank you for the information you have found because it proves that there is indeed evidence to support the claim that the Revised Julian Calendar is not the Milankovic Calendar.

The book is entirely in Serbian, so unless we can get to translate it another Serb not known for kissing your feet, all we have is orthodoxlurker's word on what it says.  I've personally learned not to trust him, for he will readily support anything you say.

Have we ever known orthodoxlurker to lie?  Could you reference whatever messages that have caused you not to trust him.
I'm not going to derail this thread by explaining in greater detail why I don't trust orthodoxlurker.  All you need to know is that I don't and that you'll need to cite an authority other than him to satisfy my formal request in Reply #953.

Did you read the monograph of Veselka Trajkovska?
Yes, I did.  Thank you for posting it.  However, all it says is that Maksim Trpkovic generally doesn't get the credit due him for producing much of the calendar that Milankovic eventually proposed to the Calendar Reform Synod of 1923.  I didn't see anything that would justify your claim that the Synod adopted a calendar different from the one Milankovic submitted to them, even if it wasn't totally his work.  If you can point out to me where this article actually does back up your claim so I can read the pertinent excerpt for myself, I will admit my error.  Otherwise, I have no choice but to reject the evidence and ask you to cite some other document.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 03:12:52 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #985 on: August 12, 2009, 03:25:28 AM »

Veselka Trajkovska:

"At the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, in May 1923, at which the
question of calendar reform was solved, the official proposal of the Serbian
Orthodox Church was Maksim Trpkovic's project.

"One of the delegates Milutin Milankovic (1879-1958), as the only scientist
present at the Congress, modified Trpkovic's project and proposed this variant
to the Congress which was finally adopted by the Congress after a long debate,
due to Milankovic's authority. Milankovic adopts the basic idea of Trpkovic's
 project but changes the intercalation rule only


The intercalation rule refers of course the calculation of leap years.

Trajkovska notes this was the ONLY change Milankovic made to Trpkovic's calendar.  It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Calendar is Milankovic's.

 http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

P.S:  This is getting rather weird and far too personal --- we know the Calendar question rouses passions but so far it has been suggested more than once by one member that I am a liar and also guilty of spreading misinformation and orthodoxlurker has been accused of being untrustworthy and also of kissing another man's feet.  Let's get this discussion back onto a more professional and more charitable level.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 03:26:53 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #986 on: August 12, 2009, 04:00:14 AM »

Veselka Trajkovska:

"At the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, in May 1923, at which the
question of calendar reform was solved, the official proposal of the Serbian
Orthodox Church was Maksim Trpkovic's project.

"One of the delegates Milutin Milankovic (1879-1958), as the only scientist
present at the Congress, modified Trpkovic's project and proposed this variant
to the Congress which was finally adopted by the Congress after a long debate,
due to Milankovic's authority. Milankovic adopts the basic idea of Trpkovic's
 project but changes the intercalation rule only


The intercalation rule refers of course the calculation of leap years.

Trajkovska notes this was the ONLY change Milankovic made to Trpkovic's calendar.  It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Calendar is Milankovic's.

 http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf
I can see that your tactic right now is to argue that the Milankovic Calendar the synod approved was really someone else's calendar, for which Milankovic was wrongly given credit, therefore making the calendar the synod approved NOT the Milankovic Calendar.  This, however, skirts the issue on which ozgeorge, Nebelpfade, and I confronted you.  A calendar was proposed to the Synod of 1923.  This calendar was [wrongly?] attributed to Milankovic.  Your original claim was that this calendar was rejected in favor of a less accurate alternative that did better at bringing the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sanctoral cycles (the fixed feastdays) into conformity.  THIS is the claim you need to substantiate, and all you've done so far is try to distract us with a red herring.

P.S:  This is getting rather weird and far too personal --- we know the Calendar question rouses passions but so far it has been suggested more than once by one member that I am a liar and also guilty of spreading misinformation
Ozgeorge posted reference to a scientific paper that appears to refute your assertions, thus showing your assertions to quite likely be misinformation.  Yet you continued to repeat your claim verbatim, even after it had been refuted, thus showing very clear intent to spread misinformation.  And generally the intentional spreading of misinformation is known as lying, is it not?  What are those who lie called?

If you don't want to be called a liar, then don't continue to spread misinformation even after being corrected on it.  People unwittingly spread misinformation all the time, but when they are proven wrong, they need to have the humility to admit it and recant their error.  To refuse to admit this error and insist on proclaiming it does not speak well of your honesty, does it?  If you don't want to have your honesty impugned, then admit that you erred and be done with it.

and orthodoxlurker has been accused of being untrustworthy and also of kissing another man's feet.
Does not orthodoxlurker's custom title say, "Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit)"?  Might not some take this to be rather sycophantic?  Might this alone not be enough for his objectivity to be called into question when he actually does offer up "evidence" to back up one of your spurious claims?

Let's get this discussion back onto a more professional and more charitable level.
I implored you to be honest.  That's all I ask of you is that you be honest with us and prove that you're not lying.  Right now, that's how I prefer to relate to you, with the utmost honesty, even if you don't like what I'm saying.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 04:10:10 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #987 on: August 12, 2009, 04:17:02 AM »

Veselka Trajkovska:

"At the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, in May 1923, at which the
question of calendar reform was solved, the official proposal of the Serbian
Orthodox Church was Maksim Trpkovic's project.

"One of the delegates Milutin Milankovic (1879-1958), as the only scientist
present at the Congress, modified Trpkovic's project and proposed this variant
to the Congress which was finally adopted by the Congress after a long debate,
due to Milankovic's authority. Milankovic adopts the basic idea of Trpkovic's
 project but changes the intercalation rule only


The intercalation rule refers of course the calculation of leap years.

Trajkovska notes this was the ONLY change Milankovic made to Trpkovic's calendar.  It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Calendar is Milankovic's.

 http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf
I can see that your tactic right now is to argue that the Milankovic Calendar the synod approved was really someone else's calendar, for which Milankovic was wrongly given credit, therefore making the calendar the synod approved NOT the Milankovic Calendar.  This, however, skirts the issue on which ozgeorge, Nebelpfade, and I confronted you.  A calendar was proposed to the Synod of 1923.  This calendar was [wrongly?] attributed to Milankovic.  Your original claim was that this calendar was rejected in favor of something else that was closer to the Gregorian Calendar.  THIS is the claim you need to substantiate, and all you've done so far is try to distract us with a red herring.

P.S:  This is getting rather weird and far too personal --- we know the Calendar question rouses passions but so far it has been suggested more than once by one member that I am a liar and also guilty of spreading misinformation
Ozgeorge posted reference to a scientific paper that appears to refute your assertions, thus showing your assertions to quite likely be misinformation.  Yet you continued to repeat your claim verbatim, even after it had been refuted, thus showing very clear intent to spread misinformation.  And generally the intentional spreading of misinformation is known as lying, is it not?  What are those who lie called?

If you don't want to be called a liar, then don't continue to spread misinformation even after being corrected on it.  People unwittingly spread misinformation all the time, but when they are proven wrong, they need to have the humility to admit it and recant their error.  To refuse to admit this error and insist on proclaiming it does not speak well of your honesty, does it?  If you don't want to have your honesty impugned, then admit that you erred and be done with it.

and orthodoxlurker has been accused of being untrustworthy and also of kissing another man's feet.
Does not orthodoxlurker's custom title say, "Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit)"?  Might not some take this to be rather sycophantic?  Might this alone not be enough for his objectivity to be called into question when he actually does offer up "evidence" to back up one of your spurious claims?

Let's get this discussion back onto a more professional and more charitable level.
I implored you to be honest.

I implore you to stop impugning my integrity by suggesting that I am dishonest.

Quote
That's all I ask of you is that you be honest with us and prove that you're not lying.

So the default assumption is that I am lying and must prove otherwise?

Quote
  Right now, that's how I prefer to relate to you, with the utmost honesty, even if you don't like what I'm saying.

No, I do not like what either you or ozgeorge are saying.  I also do not like that you have accused a Serb of demeaning himself by kissing my feet. 

Look, I wish that you would leave off with the personal stuff.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #988 on: August 12, 2009, 04:25:33 AM »

Veselka Trajkovska:

"At the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, in May 1923, at which the
question of calendar reform was solved, the official proposal of the Serbian
Orthodox Church was Maksim Trpkovic's project.

"One of the delegates Milutin Milankovic (1879-1958), as the only scientist
present at the Congress, modified Trpkovic's project and proposed this variant
to the Congress which was finally adopted by the Congress after a long debate,
due to Milankovic's authority. Milankovic adopts the basic idea of Trpkovic's
 project but changes the intercalation rule only


The intercalation rule refers of course the calculation of leap years.

Trajkovska notes this was the ONLY change Milankovic made to Trpkovic's calendar.  It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Calendar is Milankovic's.

 http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf
I can see that your tactic right now is to argue that the Milankovic Calendar the synod approved was really someone else's calendar, for which Milankovic was wrongly given credit, therefore making the calendar the synod approved NOT the Milankovic Calendar.  This, however, skirts the issue on which ozgeorge, Nebelpfade, and I confronted you.  A calendar was proposed to the Synod of 1923.  This calendar was [wrongly?] attributed to Milankovic.  Your original claim was that this calendar was rejected in favor of something else that was closer to the Gregorian Calendar.  THIS is the claim you need to substantiate, and all you've done so far is try to distract us with a red herring.

P.S:  This is getting rather weird and far too personal --- we know the Calendar question rouses passions but so far it has been suggested more than once by one member that I am a liar and also guilty of spreading misinformation
Ozgeorge posted reference to a scientific paper that appears to refute your assertions, thus showing your assertions to quite likely be misinformation.  Yet you continued to repeat your claim verbatim, even after it had been refuted, thus showing very clear intent to spread misinformation.  And generally the intentional spreading of misinformation is known as lying, is it not?  What are those who lie called?

If you don't want to be called a liar, then don't continue to spread misinformation even after being corrected on it.  People unwittingly spread misinformation all the time, but when they are proven wrong, they need to have the humility to admit it and recant their error.  To refuse to admit this error and insist on proclaiming it does not speak well of your honesty, does it?  If you don't want to have your honesty impugned, then admit that you erred and be done with it.

and orthodoxlurker has been accused of being untrustworthy and also of kissing another man's feet.
Does not orthodoxlurker's custom title say, "Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit)"?  Might not some take this to be rather sycophantic?  Might this alone not be enough for his objectivity to be called into question when he actually does offer up "evidence" to back up one of your spurious claims?

Let's get this discussion back onto a more professional and more charitable level.
I implored you to be honest.

I implore you to stop impugning my integrity by suggesting that I am dishonest.
Then comply with my formal request in Reply #953 if you want to be known for your honesty.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #989 on: August 12, 2009, 04:32:37 AM »


If you don't want to be called a liar, then don't continue to spread misinformation even after being corrected on it.

So you see the monograph of Veselka Trajkovska as misinformation?

Quote
People unwittingly spread misinformation all the time, but when they are proven wrong, they need to have the humility to admit it and recant their error.

The monograph of Veselka Trajkovska says that I have not been proven wrong.

Quote
  To refuse to admit this error and insist on proclaiming it does not speak well of your honesty, does it?

What then of the honesty of someone who has a report before him from the Belgrade Astronomical Observatory and does not take it into consideration?

Quote
  If you don't want to have your honesty impugned, then admit that you erred and be done with it.

I have not erred.  Besides studying the monograph of Veselka Trajkovska there are other reports of a similar nature available if one uses "Trpkovic" in an Internet search.  I have no further intention of interacting with you in this thread (how many insults must I bear?) so I shan't be providing those links.

This constant banging on and bullying about my dishonesty and lack of integrity and lack of humility is pulling this thread down to a gutter level of discussion.  I am drawing a line under responding to you because all I am now receiving is insults.
Logged
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort nobody cares 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.233 seconds with 73 queries.