What was the date of the Crucifixion 2?

[covenantee]

THE CHART IS A COMPLETE FABRICATION. IT IS NOT THE TRUTH.

John 19
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

Reason #3 The Chart is in TOTAL ERROR.
Jesus Died on Passover, Not the Day After.

Jesus died on Passover and are claiming that He died the day after Passover. In AD 30 Jesus, the year that you propose that Jesus died, Friday is the 15th of Nisan. Passover is the 14th of Nisan. Jesus dies on April 3, AD 33 not April 7, AD 30.

Leviticus 23
5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover.

You'll notice that Chris never describes your claims as being complete fabrications and total errors.

So why not cease your inflammatory rhetoric?

 

[The Light]

Thank you Light. Yes, Passover begins in the closing hours of the fourteenth and continues into the fifteenth day as it did in the Exodus.

However, could you keep the Passover discussion to the previous thread so that we can study other aspects of the crucifixion date? Would you like examples of co-regency similar to Augustus and Tiberius?

No. Not at all. This will work just fine.


"The dating of Tiberius Caesar’s reign is open to some debate. Jack Finegan has marvelously sorted through the data, writing some fourteen pages on the subject. He is detailed and precise. He demonstrates that the actual reign of Tiberius was from August 19, A.D. 14 through March 16, A.D. 37.

History tells us that he was co-regent with Augustus Caesar starting earlier in A.D. 11/12. This occurred because Augustus wanted a successor to his throne. Augustus’ first choice of an heir to the throne died before Augustus did. So he adopted his grandson Tiberius Caesar Augustus as a son in A.D. 4 so that he would be the heir to the throne. In A.D. 11/12 he was made co-regent and consequently became the ruler in August 19, A.D. 14 upon Augustus’ death.[1, 2]

According to Roman law, the first year is counted as the year of succession and not as a year in which he would have reigned. This can be confirmed by such Roman historians as Tacitus and Suetonius.[3] Consequently, that would mean his reign is counted from A.D. 15. This impacts the dating of the start of John the Baptist’s ministry as given by Luke in Luke 3:1-2."

 

[The Light]

Thank you Light. Yes, Passover begins in the closing hours of the fourteenth and continues into the fifteenth day as it did in the Exodus.

You seem to have a habit of dismissing the facts. The fact is the preparation of the Passover is on the 14th of Nisan. Jesus dies on the 14th of Nisan at 3PM, not on the 15th of Nissan at 3pm. Your AD 30 date is continually left wanting by the facts.

John 19
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

 

[Christian Gedge]

History tells us that he was co-regent with Augustus Caesar starting earlier in A.D. 11/12.

You quote Jack Finegan. Theodor Mommsen also showed a coregency in his 'History of Rome'.

So, I presume you agree there was a co-regency with Tiberius several years before Augustus' death? So, is there any reason why St. Luke could not count from the coregency as it shows on my timeline?

 

[The Light]

You quote Jack Finegan. Theodor Mommsen also showed a coregency in his 'History of Rome'.

So, I presume you agree there was a co-regency with Tiberius several years before Augustus' death? So, is there any reason why St. Luke could not count from the coregency as it shows on my timeline?

I have no problem with a co-regency as there certainly was one. However, you want to say AD 27 is the 15th year of Tiberius. That would be incorrect. AD 27 would be the 13th year of Tiberius. The 15th year of Tiberius would be AD 29.

You are trying to change time by calling the 1st year of Tiberius AD 12 because there was a co-regency. AD 12 would be the 39th year of Caesar Augustus, not the 1st year of Tiberius. So the chart is in error.

 

[Christian Gedge]

So, you have no problem with having a co-regency provided that we don’t count from it? I was going to give a few examples of how some events in history have been counted from a king’s co-regency and other events from his sole reign. (Tiberius is such an example) But your mind is made up no matter what I say. I was also going to quote a few of the Church fathers, but you will disrespect them.

Anyone who wants my chronology papers, go to Christian Gedge - Academia.edu

Anyone who wants to get ‘The Atonement Clock’, go to www.5loaves2fishes.net
Use the contact button for a chat.
Best regards,
Chris

 

[The Light]

So, you have no problem with having a co-regency provided that we don’t count from it?

As I said, you don't count from it until the Caesar in power dies. Caesar Augustus was still the Caesar of record UNTIL HE DIED. Then the following year after the death would become the 1st year of Tiberius Caesar. So Caesar Augustus dies in the middle of AD 14, he would be the Caesar of record for AD 14. Then AD 15 would be the 1st year of Tiberius. But I'm sure you already know these things and just disregard the facts as usual.

I was going to give a few examples of how some events in history have been counted from a king’s co-regency and other events from his sole reign. (Tiberius is such an example) But your mind is made up no matter what I say. I was also going to quote a few of the Church fathers, but you will disrespect them.

If by disrespecting them, you mean bring out the truth and the facts. Yes, you can count on it. I think by now, you know who I am, and I know who you are.

 

[Christian Gedge]

I was also going to quote a few of the Church fathers

Experimenting with a new diagram that show how some historians counted Tiberius reign from his sole reign and others from his co-regency.
Will add comment later.

 

[Timtofly]

Experimenting with a new diagram that show how some historians counted Tiberius reign from his sole reign and others from his co-regency.
Will add comment later.

View attachment 27110

John the Baptist was put in prison in the 15th year of the official reign. The top numbers in brown. About a year before the Cross.

In this chapter of Luke, it is not a definitive chronological layout. The 15th year is associated with John being put in prison not the beginning of his ministry. In fact Luke only mentions Jesus being baptized after the point of John's imprisonment.

I don't see how one can clearly say from Luke 3 that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius no matter which metric one uses. The thought starts out with the 15th year and concludes with John placed in prison that same year.

One would think that John's ministry was longer than a year.

 

[Christian Gedge]

I don't see how one can clearly say from Luke 3 that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius no matter which metric one uses. The thought starts out with the 15th year and concludes with John placed in prison that same year.

One would think that John's ministry was longer than a year.

Yes, that is why I showed the bottom green line. Luke was starting his count from the coregency. Incidentally Johns ministry was about two years. (Prophets never lasted long in those days. )

 

[Grailhunter]

THEREFORE: BC 1 and AD 1, both begin with the year already counted.
ONLY when BC1 and AD1 are over has 2 years elapsed.
BUT, on your chart #1, you make BC 1 & 2 and AD 1 & 2 add to 4 years, when actually only 2 have passed.
TO CORRECT this situation two year zero's must be added at the BC/AD changeover.

Furthermore, your year 20 BC is only 19 elapsed years and year 30 AD is only 29 elapsed years, total 48 years.

Adam to Abraham; exactly 2000 years.
Abraham to Jesus, exactly 2000 years.
Jesus' Ascension to Return, now 1992 years and counting.
The Millennium reign of Jesus, exactly 1000 years.
Gods decreed time for mankind, exactly 7000 years.

Got any ideas what's next for us right now?

2BC....1BC....1AD....2AD There are four full years defined here. But you are not going to have 2BC....1BC....0....1AD....2AD....five full years. Because there is no year 0 you effectively lose a year because there in not a year between 1BC and 0 and 1 year between 0 and 1AD. It is easier to see if you write it down. For example; If you were 10 years old in 2BC, you would be 11 in 1BC, you would be 12 in 1AD, 13 in 2AD, so you would age 3 years. Where as if there was a year 0 and you were 10 in 2BC, 11 in 1BC, 12 in the year 0, 13 in 1AD, 14 in 2AD you would age 4 years. So you can see you lose a year in the transition from BC and AD.

 

[Keraz]

2BC....1BC....1AD....2AD There are four full years defined here.

No there is not. Only 2 elapsed years, as 2BC and 2 AD are designated their year numbers at their commencement.
Our years are counted at the start. But only on midnight Dec 31, will 2022 years have actually passed.

Therefore when calculating a set period over the BC/AD switch, then you must add two years to make up the full elapsed years.
But for years within either BC or AD, we just add the periods normally.

 

[Grailhunter]

No there is not. Only 2 elapsed years, as 2BC and 2 AD are designated their year numbers at their commencement.
Our years are counted at the start. But only on midnight Dec 31, will 2022 years have actually passed.

Therefore when calculating a set period over the BC/AD switch, then you must add two years to make up the full elapsed years.
But for years within either BC or AD, we just add the periods normally.

I counted it out for you....that is the best I can do for you.

 

[Christian Gedge]

No there is not. Only 2 elapsed years, as 2BC and 2 AD are designated their year numbers at their commencement.
Our years are counted at the start. But only on midnight Dec 31, will 2022 years have actually passed.

Therefore when calculating a set period over the BC/AD switch, then you must add two years to make up the full elapsed years.
But for years within either BC or AD, we just add the periods normally.

 

[Timtofly]

2BC....1BC....1AD....2AD There are four full years defined here. But you are not going to have 2BC....1BC....0....1AD....2AD....five full years. Because there is no year 0 you effectively lose a year because there in not a year between 1BC and 0 and 1 year between 0 and 1AD.

You are wrong. There was a 0. There was not a 0 year.

Your statements do not say the same thing. Using a 0 is correct. 1BC and 1AD is not the same year. If you remove the 0 it makes them the same year. There are not 5 years with a 0 as a place holder. 0 is the point where 1BC ended and 1AD started. Except going higher in BC is moving back in time. Going higher in AD is moving forward in time.

It is 1AD or 1BC that can be used as the 0, but using a 0 works as well. You had to switch your .... unnecessarily and even wrong. The 1AD designation marks the end of the year, not the beginning.

Your first statement only shows 3 years, as you purposely did not place the ..... after 2 AD. You don't need .... after 2AD if you use a 0. Your first statement is not 4 years, only 3. Your last statement claims 2AD is two years, with an added year.

 

[Grailhunter]

You are wrong. There was a 0. There was not a 0 year.

Your statements do not say the same thing. Using a 0 is correct. 1BC and 1AD is not the same year. If you remove the 0 it makes them the same year. There are not 5 years with a 0 as a place holder. 0 is the point where 1BC ended and 1AD started. Except going higher in BC is moving back in time. Going higher in AD is moving forward in time.

It is 1AD or 1BC that can be used as the 0, but using a 0 works as well. You had to switch your .... unnecessarily and even wrong. The 1AD designation marks the end of the year, not the beginning.

Your first statement only shows 3 years, as you purposely did not place the ..... after 2 AD. You don't need .... after 2AD if you use a 0. Your first statement is not 4 years, only 3. Your last statement claims 2AD is two years, with an added year.

No.....No year 0 LOL....What year were you born in? I am proud to say I was born in zero year....you are funny.
One year passes between 1BC and 1AD. I counted it out that is all I can do for you. Post 51

 

[Christian Gedge]

I think I’m going cross-eyed.

 

[Keraz]

You all miss the fact that the great mistake of Dionysius when he prepared the Gregorian Calendar, was in counting the years at their commencement. I use the example of the world celebrating 2000 years, when only 1999 years had elapsed.
1 AD and 1 BC were not years at all, they were just the starting point of the Gregorian Calendar. After a year had passed from that start point; it was called 2 AD.

The fact is; the Christian era and year that commenced on the 1st January, was designated as I AD before any year had started and then the day after the 31st of December of that first year, 2 AD commenced. Therefore, at year 2, only one year had passed, so in order to find out where a given period of years, such as 46 fits over the BC/AD break, we must add two.

I have studied this issue of the BC/AD break very carefully. There is plenty of opinion out there, mostly quite confusing and none seem to get it right. Adding one does not account for the fact that the years are numbered from their commencement; both ways.
Keep in mind that this issue only arises when we try to calculate a given time period over this break.

 

[Christian Gedge]

OK, back to topic.

My first chart showed Tiberius’ co-regency starting in 12 AD. Yes, it was two years before his father, Augustus, passed away. Most of us accept the coregency, but the sticking point is whether Luke was counting from the coregency (AD12) or from his sole reign. (AD14) I say we count 15 years from 12 AD and it comes to Jesus’ baptism synchronising perfectly with the 46 years building the temple.

It is interesting to notice that various historians use either date, but they always count down to the crucifixion in AD30. Please look at my second chart. Luke, Hippolytus and Malalas of Antioch count from the coregency. Eusebius, Tertullian, Africanus and Jerome count from the official reign. However, they reduce their count by two years. I.O.W. some say Jesus died in Tiberius’ 16th year and others say his 18th year. In either case it comes to AD30.

Second chart below. I can supply quotes if you want.

https://static.wixstatic.com/shapes/3ef7a1_eac4712cbcf440368fd9c69702518097.svg

 

[Timtofly]

No.....No year 0 LOL....What year were you born in? I am proud to say I was born in zero year....you are funny.
One year passes between 1BC and 1AD. I counted it out that is all I can do for you. Post 51

Having a zero point is not having a zero year. The 1st BC is not the same year as the 1st AD. That is your point, that they are the same year.