Featured In not after the fifteenth year.

Actually, no.

We have two options.

1. The actual 1st year of his reign was Sep 14 AD to Sep 15 AD. That was, literally, the 1st year of his reign.

2. If you were speaking of years and not his reign, then you could say 15 AD was the 2nd year.

But those are the only two options. It is impossible for 14 AD to be the 2nd year of his reign because his reign did not start until 14 AD.


So in the 15th year of his reign is actually 28 AD to 29 AD.

But if we are using his reign to denote calendar years then the 15th year on which he reigned would be 28 AD.

Either way 30 AD is too early for the crucifixion. The earliest possible year (if John is correct) is 31 AD. I lean towards 33 AD with a 3.5 year earthly ministry.

 

But you are wrong.

In the second year" could not be 14 AD if Tiberius began his reign in 14 AD.

His second year reigning was Sep 15 AD to Sep 16 AD.

The second year in which he reigned was 15 AD.

 

Not in counting years somebody is in office.

Biden began his presidency Jan 2021.

We are now in Biden's 4 year of presidency.

By your calculation we would be in his 5th year.

Brother, slow down and think. You are completely wrong here and just scrambling to make the math support your theory. It doesn't.

Even if we use a yearly calendar count 30 AD is too early (Biblically).

 

You can count it that way. But 30 AD is still too early. I don't believe most scholars would agree to Jesus' ministry being 2 years. But you can hold whatever opinion you want.

I personally lean towards a 33 AD Crucifixion with the Pasdover being slaughtered in Mark 14 referring not to the Temple sacrifice but the Galilean (the Pharisees practice of 8 days of Unleavened bread, with sacrifices on 13 Nisan).

The readon I side with this being the Last Supper is that it was the peoples observance rather than the Temple observance (and it fits perfectly with John's account).

I lean towards the 15th year of Tiberius' reign to be literal rather than following a Julian calendar as well (literally in the 15th year of his reign).

But each to their own opinion.

 

This is false.

You ignore history to come up with a date. That is not "having one". It is making the Crucifixion a myth.

I have God's Word, so I have a Resurrection.

AND I have a date. It makes the same assumption as you (that the month started on time and fits the post-Talmudic calendar).

My opinion is that Chriat died on Friday, 14 Nisan 33 AD.

It fits not only with historical fact but also with the Biblical account (Mark and John).

The difference is I know it is a theory and I trust God's Word, so even without a date I still have a hostorical and present Savior.

 

No it doesn't.

John describes tge crucifixion as occurring on 14 Nissan (the next day being 15 Nisan).

You insist either John or Mark must be wrong.

I am saying both passages are correct and you are wrong.

Mark 14:12 could be either 14 Nisan or 13 Nisan depending on whose observance. John 19 places the crucifixion on the day before 15 Nisan. That tells us Mark not have been referring to Galilean practices (not Temple observance).

When you divorce Scripture from history you make Christianity into a mythology. But you are also contradicting Scripture.

 

That does not work because John states the date as the "preperation for the Passover". This is, per Exodus, 14 Nisan.

 

That does help with His birth, but not the Passover in question.

We get to estimate a birth year, Luke gives us that Jesus was around 30 when He started His ministry, but there are no references to a number of Passovers.

The issue with 27 AD for Jesus' crucifixion is this would fall about a year before He was baptized (per Luke).

We could theorized that Tiberius reigned jointly. But there is no historical evidence (it's just a theory to make Jesus' baptism fit into a timeline).


It doesn't matter, however, because you and I have God's Word. We know what occurred. The "when" is just fun to consider.