In not after the fifteenth year.

[37818]

But it is impossible that 14 AD was the 2nd year of a reign . . .

Your saying that. It is not what I said. In the 2nd year, not was the second year. 15AD was the second year.

I am counting the start of his reign 14AD being counted as year I of his reign.

 

[JonC]

Your sarcasm is noted.
I understand your only going to allow between September,14AD to September 15AD to mean in the first year of his reign. So only between September 28AD to September 29AD to mean in the 15th 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.

 

[37818]

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.

In our modern reckoning. We started from zero.

 

[JonC]

Your saying that. It is not what I said. In the 2nd year, not was the second year. 15AD was the second year.

In the second year was 14 AD..

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.

 

[37818]

It is impossible for 14 AD to be the 2nd year of his reign because his reign did not start until 14 AD.

It, September 14AD, being creckoned as year 1. Not year 2. September 15AD is reckoned as year 2.

 

[JonC]

In our modern reckoning. We started from zero.

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).

 

[JonC]

It, September 14AD, being creckoned as year 1. Not year 2. September 15AD is reckoned as year 2.

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.

 

[37818]

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.

We will end up with no possible historically Biblical crucifixion date. I will not accept that. And you will not have one.

 

[JonC]

We will end up with no possible historically Biblical crucifixion date. I will not accept that. And you will not have one.

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.

 

[37818]

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

Mark 14:12, makes the Friday 14tb of Nisan crucifixion impossible. "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, . . ." It being that very day before.

 

[JonC]

Mark 14:12, makes the Friday 14tb of Nisan crucifixion impossible. "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, . . ." It being that very day before.

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.

 

[37818]

You insist either John or Mark must be wrong.

Neither are wrong. Only Mark 14:12 refers to Nisan 14th. John refers to the Passover week. See Numbers 28:17-22.

 

[JonC]

Neither are wrong. Only Mark 14:12 refers to Nisan 14th. John refers to the Passover week. See Numbers 28:17-22.

Neither are wrong. Only Mark 14:12 refers to Nisan 14th. John refers to the Passover week. See Numbers 28:17-22.

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

 

[robycop3]

Scriprure shows Jesus was born while Quirinius was Roman governor of Judea. He left that office in 6 BC. That makes the passover in question in 27 AD.

 

[JonC]

Scriprure shows Jesus was born while Quirinius was Roman governor of Judea. He left that office in 6 BC. That makes the passover in question in 27 AD.

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.

 

[37818]

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

I hold all 7 days of the Passover feast were days of Passover preparation. There was a lamb offered each day of the feast. See Numbers 28:17-25.