Biblical Evidence For 31 AD Crucifixion

[EclipseEventSigns]

Again, please cite just one historical source that proves 2nd Temple Jews were using the Metonic cycle in their calculations.

In Christ,
Deborah

Like I said, that is the wrong question. You don't know what you don't know. Yes, they were using it. The observation calendar uses the metonic cycle as the core of how the calendar functions.

Further, there are indications that Daniel himself knew the system of the metonic cycle when he was the head of the astrologers during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Of course, they would not have called it the "metonic cycle" at that point. But the mathematics behind the luni-solar calendar was most definitely known by the mid 600's BC. This is evident in the Babylonian calendar records of that era and researching at what point they began their year. At some point during the mid-600's, the Babylonian switched the start of their year from the fall to the spring - just like the biblical-era calendar. Right at the time when Daniel was in charge.

 

[AFrazier]

See post #50. That is the result of the math based on the historical evidences that have been discovered. And it's not "my calculations". It is the math that proves the biblical-era calendar was based on the observational method and the metonic cycle was discovered from it.

You are asking the wrong question. Watch the presentation and do the research and you will understand why that is.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but the Metonic Cycle was introduced by Meton of Athens in the fifth century BCE. That's why it's called the Metonic Cycle. The cycle was not "discovered" relative to the observational methods of the Biblical era. But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but the Metonic Cycle was introduced by Meton of Athens in the fifth century BCE. That's why it's called the Metonic Cycle. The cycle was not "discovered" relative to the observational methods of the Biblical era. But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement.

Yes, what I'm saying is not being understood correctly. Meton did discover what he discovered at the time of his discovery and the particular pattern of intercalation for luni-solar calendar was named after him. However, that does NOT mean other cultures (probably all cultures) with luni-solar calendars did not know the same mathematical relationships around the same era. There is alot of evidence that around 750 BC all cultures had to change their calendars to incorporate 5 additional days in the year. This was most likely after the miracle of the reversing sundial which God performed for King Hezekiah.

In any case, because Western culture is based on Greek history, most people assume the "metonic cycle" was solely discovered by Meton. That is not the case. The Jewish observational calendar also has the metonic cycle as the core algorithm. They would have discovered the same relationship as Meton. Same as the Babylonians. Same as the Zoroastrians. Same as the Indians. That I know for sure since that is what the ancient sources say who knew about this intercalation pattern. (from the writings of al-Biruni).

 

[AFrazier]

Yes, what I'm saying is not being understood correctly. Meton did discover what he discovered at the time of his discovery and the particular pattern of intercalation for luni-solar calendar was named after him. However, that does NOT mean other cultures (probably all cultures) with luni-solar calendars did not know the same mathematical relationships around the same era. There is alot of evidence that around 750 BC all cultures had to change their calendars to incorporate 5 additional days in the year. This was most likely after the miracle of the reversing sundial which God performed for King Hezekiah.

In any case, because Western culture is based on Greek history, most people assume the "metonic cycle" was solely discovered by Meton. That is not the case. The Jewish observational calendar also has the metonic cycle as the core algorithm. They would have discovered the same relationship as Meton. Same as the Babylonians. Same as the Zoroastrians. Same as the Indians. That I know for sure since that is what the ancient sources say who knew about this intercalation pattern. (from the writings of al-Biruni).

This is where I have to agree with Deborah. Sources please. I happen to know that the Babylonians used the actual Metonic cycle. The pattern is discernable through the Astronomical Almanacs. We have thousands of fragments recovered from Nineveh and elsewhere. And the Jews used lunar sightings, as she said. There is ample literature to corroborate that.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

This is where I have to agree with Deborah. Sources please. I happen to know that the Babylonians used the actual Metonic cycle. The pattern is discernable through the Astronomical Almanacs. We have thousands of fragments recovered from Nineveh and elsewhere. And the Jews used lunar sightings, as she said. There is ample literature to corroborate that.

And just where did I say the Babylonian calendar was not based on a metonic cycle for their luni-solar calendar? Please read closely what is said. Theirs was not a calculated calendar and was not specifically determined by applying a mathematical metonic cycle pattern. Their particular metonic cycle pattern resulted specifically because their years began at the next new moon after the spring equinox.

And where did I say that the biblical era calendar of the Jews was NOT based on observation? Read closely and comprehend.

What is this "actual" metonic cycle you state? Refer to the chart I posted above. I show exactly which of the 3 patterns of metonic cycle they used. I show how it is different from the one the Jewish observational cycle that was used. And it shows how the modern Jewish metonic cycle is different yet again.

I know it is difficult to understand the concepts I am talking about and that I have discovered. No one understands this and understands the math behind it. But sources are all available if you spend the time to watch the presentations or read my book.

 

[Deborah~]

The Jewish observational calendar also has the metonic cycle as the core algorithm.

That is the sticking point for me. The Jews did not actually have a calendar that listed months and festivals beyond whatever the current month was. The "core algorithm" for the beginning of months was based on visibly sighting the new moon, there were no calculations involved. The beginning of days and of Sabbaths were likewise based on visually sighting the evening stars. There were no mathematical calculations involved in any of these decisions. And because the beginning of each month was determined independently of the other months and solely by visual observation by spotters in Jerusalem, there was no "forecasting" in advance when the various festivals would occur. This was what created so much difficulty for Jews of the Diaspora. There was no way to know when a month officially began until they received word from Jerusalem, which could take longer than 2 weeks for those distant from the Holy City, and therefore they could miss Passover/Unleavened Bread or Trumpets or Day of Atonement or Tabernacles waiting for word of when that particular month actually began. If the Hebrew months during 2nd Temple were using or were even aided by any kind of calculations, this would not have been a problem, they could easily calculate the dates. And perhaps some did, and perhaps the cycle Meton discovered was known and even used by individuals or groups, but that would only give them an "approximate" date, the "legal" beginning of the month and therefore the "legal" day of a festival was solely determined by the Sanhedrin based on the testimony of the spotters atop the southeastern tower of the Temple, which always had a 1 to 2 day variance, so they were forced to wait for official word from Jerusalem.

Throughout Judea and Galilee, even for those 2 and 3 days distant from the Holy City, this problem was solved simply by a series of signal fires that not only announced the beginning of months and festivals, but also the beginning of Sabbaths. In Galilee, the signal fire was atop Mt. Tabor, which is clearly visible for all the towns and villages around the Sea of Galilee, the length and breadth of the Jezreel Valley, and from any of the ridges and peaks in the district. But for those living far removed from Jerusalem, it was another story.

And the same was true of the intercalations. There were no fixed intercalations based on calculations. Intercalations were made "as needed," if a visible examination of the barley during any given year showed it was insufficiently mature to be ready for harvest by the first Sabbath following Passover which consequently began the seven weeks of first fruit offerings. There were a number of variables that would affect the maturity of the barley, a winter crop usually sown in January that required 60 to 70 days to maturity, and even that depended on weather conditions that particular year. So even intercalations were arbitrary, based on the barley maturity each year.

All these factors make it virtually impossible to construct a definitive chronology of New Testament events down to the day, even local weather conditions on any particular day could affect the beginning of months and of years. As I said, any discovery of a "calendar" or a chart or record of events as they were actually observed during New Testament times would end the debate, but as yet there is none. Which is why it always catches my attention when anyone says they can "prove" what date/day any of these historical events took place, except of course those that have specific dated references, and even then, there are so many variables with different calendars and reckoning systems, that the best we can do, in all honesty, is offer an educated opinion ... and some are more educated than others.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

That is the sticking point for me. The Jews did not actually have a calendar that listed months and festivals beyond whatever the current month was. The "core algorithm" for the beginning of months was based on visibly sighting the new moon, there were no calculations involved. The beginning of days and of Sabbaths were likewise based on visually sighting the evening stars. There were no mathematical calculations involved in any of these decisions. And because the beginning of each month was determined independently of the other months and solely by visual observation by spotters in Jerusalem, there was no "forecasting" in advance when the various festivals would occur. This was what created so much difficulty for Jews of the Diaspora. There was no way to know when a month officially began until they received word from Jerusalem, which could take longer than 2 weeks for those distant from the Holy City, and therefore they could miss Passover/Unleavened Bread or Trumpets or Day of Atonement or Tabernacles waiting for word of when that particular month actually began. If the Hebrew months during 2nd Temple were using or were even aided by any kind of calculations, this would not have been a problem, they could easily calculate the dates. And perhaps some did, and perhaps the cycle Meton discovered was known and even used by individuals or groups, but that would only give them an "approximate" date, the "legal" beginning of the month and therefore the "legal" day of a festival was solely determined by the Sanhedrin based on the testimony of the spotters atop the southeastern tower of the Temple, which always had a 1 to 2 day variance, so they were forced to wait for official word from Jerusalem.

Throughout Judea and Galilee, even for those 2 and 3 days distant from the Holy City, this problem was solved simply by a series of signal fires that not only announced the beginning of months and festivals, but also the beginning of Sabbaths. In Galilee, the signal fire was atop Mt. Tabor, which is clearly visible for all the towns and villages around the Sea of Galilee, the length and breadth of the Jezreel Valley, and from any of the ridges and peaks in the district. But for those living far removed from Jerusalem, it was another story.

And the same was true of the intercalations. There were no fixed intercalations based on calculations. Intercalations were made "as needed," if a visible examination of the barley during any given year showed it was insufficiently mature to be ready for harvest by the first Sabbath following Passover which consequently began the seven weeks of first fruit offerings. There were a number of variables that would affect the maturity of the barley, a winter crop usually sown in January that required 60 to 70 days to maturity, and even that depended on weather conditions that particular year. So even intercalations were arbitrary, based on the barley maturity each year.

All these factors make it virtually impossible to construct a definitive chronology of New Testament events down to the day, even local weather conditions on any particular day could affect the beginning of months and of years. As I said, any discovery of a "calendar" or a chart or record of events as they were actually observed during New Testament times would end the debate, but as yet there is none. Which is why it always catches my attention when anyone says they can "prove" what date/day any of these historical events took place, except of course those that have specific dated references, and even then, there are so many variables with different calendars and reckoning systems, that the best we can do, in all honesty, is offer an educated opinion ... and some are more educated than others.

In Christ,
Deborah

Again, so much writing about things. And you don't even know what you don't know. Have you watched and checked out the sources yet? If not, it's really not much use in responding because you just don't understand the concepts yet. But don't feel bad, that's the problem. The entire modern age of dating the Biblical era with the modern Jewish calendar is totally wrong.

All the supposed problems you raise I have dealt with. There are sources for every single thing you talk about. And it all leads to a very exact timeline that CAN and HAS been built to date all the important events. The birth of Jesus, the start of his ministry, the exact day and date of his crucifixion, the date of resurrection. All of that can now be known with exact certainty. It has been obscured for centuries (maybe by design). But now during the last few years before the second coming, it is all revealed again to those that have the open minds and willingness to research it.

I don't know how much more clear to make it. You will never know the actual workings of the metonic cycle without reviewing my material. No one else that I know of or have researched has figured this out. And once you know it, things become so clear. And you realize just how much our assumptions of history are incorrect. But you have to get past your ego and what you think you know. Of course pieces of this puzzle are known but they've been put together wrong and the truth is in the details. Once you understand the details, everything you once knew becomes obvious why it's incorrect.

 

[AFrazier]

Okay, I watched your video. I don't mean this in any sort of ugly way. It's just a matter of fact statement. It was nothing profound or special.

You concluded that Jesus was born in 6 BCE, but without any proof.

You concluded that Luke's "about thirty years of age" actually meant that Jesus was 34 years old, again without any proof.

You demonstrated that you have no working knowledge of the Greek language. Word placement has no bearing on the Greek meaning in a sentence. The language is inflected. ἀρχόμενος (beginning) and ὤν (to be) are both nominative, singular, masculine present participles, modified by the adverb ὡσεί (about) (adverbs modify verbs, like "beginning" and "to be"). The word structure determines the association. Although it would be strange to see, you could literally put an adjective at the end of the sentence with the noun it modifies at the beginning of the sentence, and the declension would determine which noun the adjective modifies. A literal translation of the sentence in question would be, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old." Furthermore, a substantive is a noun replacement. It wouldn't be translated "is" or "are."

Seleucid year 304 is 8/7 BCE, not 6 BCE, and you didn't provide any evidence that Jesus was born so early. It's just speculation.

You would need to provide source material to establish that the year of Alexander and/or the year of Alexandria (whichever the Anno Alexandri is referencing) refers to the Seleucid year. I would also point out that this opinion of people a thousand years after the fact is not in agreement with the people one or two centuries after the fact, who almost unanimously placed Christ's birth around the 28th year of Augustus, or 3/2 BCE, depending on the specific calendar each was using. This piece of information you've given does not accurately reflect the majority belief of early Christians.

You concluded a shorter ministry, but without any proof. The argument from silence is not an argument. As they say, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

You concluded that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, which is impossible for a number of reasons. For all your piecing together of coincidental scriptures of synchronized dates, it might interest you to recognize that if Jesus died on a Wednesday, then there were merchants conducting business in the temple complex on the Sabbath. That had been strictly prohibited since the time of Nehemiah.

I honestly didn't see anything in the video that was new or mind-blowing. Even your point that most miss the fact that Jesus had already been baptized in the past tense in John's gospel wasn't new to me. I noticed that years ago.

The video was, in my honest opinion, rudimentary and base. Had I never had any of these discussions with you prior to seeing it, I wouldn't have been impressed. It came across to me as the work of an amateur who's done a little bit of internet research. It does not strike me as the work of a serious academic.

I apologize if this criticism stings your pride. Call it tough love. You have a lot of work to do. But at least know that someone took the time to watch it. You weren't dismissed or ignored. I watched it. I just disagree with your findings. You offer too little proof, and make too many speculations.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Okay, I watched your video. I don't mean this in any sort of ugly way. It's just a matter of fact statement. It was nothing profound or special.

You concluded that Jesus was born in 6 BCE, but without any proof.

You concluded that Luke's "about thirty years of age" actually meant that Jesus was 34 years old, again without any proof.

You demonstrated that you have no working knowledge of the Greek language. Word placement has no bearing on the Greek meaning in a sentence. The language is inflected. ἀρχόμενος (beginning) and ὤν (to be) are both nominative, singular, masculine present participles, modified by the adverb ὡσεί (about) (adverbs modify verbs, like "beginning" and "to be"). The word structure determines the association. Although it would be strange to see, you could literally put an adjective at the end of the sentence with the noun it modifies at the beginning of the sentence, and the declension would determine which noun the adjective modifies. A literal translation of the sentence in question would be, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old." Furthermore, a substantive is a noun replacement. It wouldn't be translated "is" or "are."

Seleucid year 304 is 8/7 BCE, not 6 BCE, and you didn't provide any evidence that Jesus was born so early. It's just speculation.

You would need to provide source material to establish that the year of Alexander and/or the year of Alexandria (whichever the Anno Alexandri is referencing) refers to the Seleucid year. I would also point out that this opinion of people a thousand years after the fact is not in agreement with the people one or two centuries after the fact, who almost unanimously placed Christ's birth around the 28th year of Augustus, or 3/2 BCE, depending on the specific calendar each was using. This piece of information you've given does not accurately reflect the majority belief of early Christians.

You concluded a shorter ministry, but without any proof. The argument from silence is not an argument. As they say, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

You concluded that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, which is impossible for a number of reasons. For all your piecing together of coincidental scriptures of synchronized dates, it might interest you to recognize that if Jesus died on a Wednesday, then there were merchants conducting business in the temple complex on the Sabbath. That had been strictly prohibited since the time of Nehemiah.

I honestly didn't see anything in the video that was new or mind-blowing. Even your point that most miss the fact that Jesus had already been baptized in the past tense in John's gospel wasn't new to me. I noticed that years ago.

The video was, in my honest opinion, rudimentary and base. Had I never had any of these discussions with you prior to seeing it, I wouldn't have been impressed. It came across to me as the work of an amateur who's done a little bit of internet research. It does not strike me as the work of a serious academic.

I apologize if this criticism stings your pride. Call it tough love. You have a lot of work to do. But at least know that someone took the time to watch it. You weren't dismissed or ignored. I watched it. I just disagree with your findings. You offer too little proof, and make too many speculations.

Doesn't bother me in the least your baseless and pointless comments. It's obvious you didn't watch and understand anything. I couldn't care less people like you whose egos can't take having their entire world view threatened. You are a liar for saying there was no evidence or sources presented. Every single point has evidence that can be checked and verified. Your baseless opinions do not change the facts.

Oh, and by the way, thousands have already watched these and I've had quite a bit of positive feedback that what I have presented is actually the way things should be understood. So I don't care one iota that you don't understand what's being said. It's sad. But it really is your problem.

 

[AFrazier]

Doesn't bother me in the least your baseless and pointless comments. It's obvious you didn't watch and understand anything. I couldn't care less people like you whose egos can't take having their entire world view threatened. You are a liar for saying there was no evidence or sources presented. Every single point has evidence that can be checked and verified. Your baseless opinions do not change the facts.

Oh, and by the way, thousands have already watched these and I've had quite a bit of positive feedback that what I have presented is actually the way things should be understood. So I don't care one iota that you don't understand what's being said. It's sad. But it really is your problem.

You need to take a moment and listen.

You have pushed and pushed and pushed, "watch my video. It explains everything." You promised sources in the video. You promised profound insight that has allegedly eluded scholars. You even said, in post #19:

I've just released a new video that goes through all the evidence that Messiah Jesus began His ministry in 29 AD, preached and performed miracles for just over 2 years and was crucified April 25, 31 AD and resurrected exactly 3 days and 3 nights later.

The challenge still stands for anyone to show anything that is inaccurate or false about any content. It's been over 7 years now since I released this information to the public and no one has been able to find fault with anything. It's been over 15 years since I started contacting well-known Bible teachers, pastors and prophecy experts. No one has responded with any issues so far.

In post #24 I refuted the Wednesday crucifixion. I did it with scripture. I asked you to respond to the argument of scripture before wasting my time with anything else. You've yet to answer to those scriptures.

At this point, I have now watched the video, and you insult me by claiming that I did not. Begging your pardon, but I watched the whole grueling fortyish minutes of it. I felt like a college student being forced to sit through a sixth grade pre algebra class where the teacher insists that in a + b = c, c = 5, whereas a and b remain unknown variables.

I understood your video just fine. As I said, there was nothing new, barring your synchronization of 4ths, which really doesn't mean squat to me. I don't deduce history by theology, prophecy, or other fantastic means. I just use the actual historical evidence.

The breakdown of the failure of your hypothesis is as follows:

Supposition: That Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, April 25th, 31 CE.

The entirety of this rests on the Wednesday crucifixion. April 25th in 31 CE was a Wednesday. So, if Wednesday is incorrect, then 31 CE is incorrect, and April 25th of said year is incorrect.

A Wednesday crucifixion requires that it occurred on the 14th day of the month. The gospels are unanimous in stating that the day following the crucifixion was the Sabbath. For the/a Sabbath to occur on a Thursday in harmony with a Wednesday crucifixion, it must be of the holiday variety; i.e. it must be the 15th of Nisan. If he was crucified on any other date, whether the 12th, 15th, 16th, etc., the only Sabbath that can meet the stated requirement is the weekly Sabbath on Saturday.

Matthew 26:17-21 says:

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat […]

This is the first day of unleavened bread, which is the 14th day of the month. Jesus blatantly claims that he will keep the passover at the man's house with his disciples. Two of the disciples went and made ready the passover. When evening came, Jesus came with the rest of the disciples, and they ate.

Mark 14:12-18 says:

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat […]

This is also the first day of unleavened bread, which is the 14th day of the month. It is noted that it is likewise the day when they killed the passover, which is also the 14th day of the month. Jesus blatantly claims that he will eat the passover at the goodman's house with his disciples. Two of the disciples went and made ready the passover. When evening came, Jesus came with the rest of the disciples, and they ate.

Luke 33:7-15 says:

Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he shall show you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.

This is also the first day of unleavened bread, which is the 14th day of the month. It is likewise the day when the passover must be killed, which is also the 14th day of the month. Jesus blatantly claims that he will eat the passover at the goodman's house with his disciples. Two of the disciples went and made ready the passover. When evening came, Jesus came with the rest of the disciples, and they ate.

The truth is established in the mouths of two or more witnesses. We have three here who claim that on the first day of unleavened bread (the 14th), when the lamb was slain (the 14th), two disciples, Peter and John, were sent to procure a room and prepare the passover (the 14th), which they did. At evening, Jesus came with the other disciples, and they all ate. This was the last supper, and it was the passover. It was the 14th day of the month, becoming the 15th day of the month at sunset.

Jesus was arrested that night, and then condemned and crucified the next morning. He died on the 15th. The only Sabbath that can meet the requirement of the Sabbath following the day of the crucifixion is the Saturday Sabbath.

So, rest assured, your hypothesis is refuted.

---

On another note, relative to this, "The challenge still stands for anyone to show anything that is inaccurate or false about any content," I did show you things that were inaccurate or false. SE 304, for example, is 8/7 BCE, not 6 BCE.

Around 6:00 in the video, you state that Tiberius accepted the empire on September 17th. What is the source for this? I know of no document or epigraph that gives the date.

At approximately 7:00-9:06 in the video, you decisively link Livia and Tiberius to an inscription concerning Lysanias. But this is a complete speculation. The inscription does not identify the Lords imperial.

You also claim Jesus was born in 6 BCE, but without any supporting evidence. It's clear that you think this is correct, but a proper academic paper has to prove that it's true. Those who decisively state that Jesus was born in 3 BCE, 2 BCE, 5 BCE, etc., do so based on Luke's "about thirty years of age" statement. By your logic and lack of substantiation, I can just as easily argue that Jesus was 32 years old, and born in 4 BCE, rather than 34 years old, born in 6 BCE. What you're arguing is arbitrary. It's not based on fact, as you claim. It is pure speculation. You assume that Luke doesn't mean thirty when he says "about" thirty. But have you done an analysis on his typical idiosyncrasies? I have. Luke uses "about" like a Valley girl uses "like."

I acknowledge that my criticism was harsh. It's hard to be direct and to the point without it hurting feelings and ruffling feathers. I accept that you have a valid cause for defensiveness. But as I said, it's tough love. You, as you claim, only recently started looking into all of this. Some of us on here talking with you have been researching this stuff for decades. There is a reason why certain things you're trying to claim have been blown off by scholars. It's because it's garbage. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. And while any hypothesis can be challenged, you don't challenge the work of reputable scholars and declare them essentially incompetent by countering them with an elementary level work that lacks any serious critical substantiation, defies known evidence, and basically revolves around assumptions.

You don't see your conclusions that way, obviously. But to the outside eye looking for your proofs, they just aren't there.

Finally, to address this:

Doesn't bother me in the least your baseless and pointless comments. It's obvious you didn't watch and understand anything. I couldn't care less people like you whose egos can't take having their entire world view threatened. You are a liar for saying there was no evidence or sources presented. Every single point has evidence that can be checked and verified. Your baseless opinions do not change the facts.

I did watch the video. I did understand the video. I'm not egotistical. I'm educated. This has nothing to do with any world view. I resent you calling me a liar when I have specifically laid out where you have failed to show evidence. My statements of fact are not baseless.

And what I had to say clearly bothered you. You don't like being disagreed with.

 

[Deborah~]

Again, so much writing about things. And you don't even know what you don't know. Have you watched and checked out the sources yet? If not, it's really not much use in responding because you just don't understand the concepts yet. But don't feel bad, that's the problem. The entire modern age of dating the Biblical era with the modern Jewish calendar is totally wrong.

All the supposed problems you raise I have dealt with. There are sources for every single thing you talk about. And it all leads to a very exact timeline that CAN and HAS been built to date all the important events. The birth of Jesus, the start of his ministry, the exact day and date of his crucifixion, the date of resurrection. All of that can now be known with exact certainty. It has been obscured for centuries (maybe by design). But now during the last few years before the second coming, it is all revealed again to those that have the open minds and willingness to research it.

I don't know how much more clear to make it. You will never know the actual workings of the metonic cycle without reviewing my material. No one else that I know of or have researched has figured this out. And once you know it, things become so clear. And you realize just how much our assumptions of history are incorrect. But you have to get past your ego and what you think you know. Of course pieces of this puzzle are known but they've been put together wrong and the truth is in the details. Once you understand the details, everything you once knew becomes obvious why it's incorrect.

It's really not that difficult.

The modern Jewish calendar is a lunisolar calendar, that is, a calendar based on the Metonic lunar cycle with periodic monthly intercalations.

But during New Testament times, they used a strictly lunar calendar, that is, a calendar based solely on visible observations of the new moons with adjustments as needed based solely on visible inspections of the barley maturity.

To quote Dr. P. Kenneth Seidelmann, Director of Astrometry at the U.S. Naval Observatory, "In the long term, only a purely observational calendar maintains synchrony with astronomical phenomena. However, an observational calendar exhibits short-term uncertainty, because the natural phenomena are complex and the observations are subject to error.

As I have maintained throughout our discussion.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[AFrazier]

It's really not that difficult.

The modern Jewish calendar is a lunisolar calendar, that is, a calendar based on the Metonic lunar cycle with periodic monthly intercalations.

But during New Testament times, they used a strictly lunar calendar, that is, a calendar based solely on visible observations of the new moons with adjustments as needed based solely on visible inspections of the barley maturity.

To quote Dr. P. Kenneth Seidelmann, Director of Astrometry at the U.S. Naval Observatory, "In the long term, only a purely observational calendar maintains synchrony with astronomical phenomena. However, an observational calendar exhibits short-term uncertainty, because the natural phenomena are complex and the observations are subject to error.

As I have maintained throughout our discussion.

In Christ,
Deborah

He clarifies in the video that he believes we modern historians are dating the ancient events by the modern Jewish calendar. Unless I am misunderstanding him, he is not actually suggesting that the ancient dates should be figured according to a lunisolar calendar. He, for example, determines April 25th of 31 CE for the crucifixion in the standard way you or I would calculate it, and then accuses modern scholars of using a modern calendar system rather than the proper method that he uses.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

He clarifies in the video that he believes we modern historians are dating the ancient events by the modern Jewish calendar. Unless I am misunderstanding him, he is not actually suggesting that the ancient dates should be figured according to a lunisolar calendar. He, for example, determines April 25th of 31 CE for the crucifixion in the standard way you or I would calculate it, and then accuses modern scholars of using a modern calendar system rather than the proper method that he uses.

Wrong again. You continually claim things which are just not true. I'm really not interested in discussing with people like you who continually misrepresent and purposely state falsehoods.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

It's really not that difficult.

The modern Jewish calendar is a lunisolar calendar, that is, a calendar based on the Metonic lunar cycle with periodic monthly intercalations.

But during New Testament times, they used a strictly lunar calendar, that is, a calendar based solely on visible observations of the new moons with adjustments as needed based solely on visible inspections of the barley maturity.

To quote Dr. P. Kenneth Seidelmann, Director of Astrometry at the U.S. Naval Observatory, "In the long term, only a purely observational calendar maintains synchrony with astronomical phenomena. However, an observational calendar exhibits short-term uncertainty, because the natural phenomena are complex and the observations are subject to error.

As I have maintained throughout our discussion.

In Christ,
Deborah

Again, not the point. You just don't undestand the actual concepts behind all of this. Neither does the supposed "expert" you quote.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You need to take a moment and listen.

You have pushed and pushed and pushed, "watch my video. It explains everything." You promised sources in the video. You promised profound insight that has allegedly eluded scholars. You even said, in post #19:



And what I had to say clearly bothered you. You don't like being disagreed with.

"tough love"? Hardly. Your posts and comments don't even reflect a proper understanding of the material. So there is no need to go point by point through your misrepresentations. You demonstrate a purposeful stating of falsehoods in order to denigrate my material. Not interested.

So for anyone reading this exchange, this person is purposely stating things which are NOT true. Every single point I make is backed by sources and evidence. Every single one. Otherwise, yes, it would only be an assumption. All my material is based on verifiable sources, proven science, mathematics and culturally accurate history.

 

[Deborah~]

Jesus was arrested that night, and then condemned and crucified the next morning. He died on the 15th. The only Sabbath that can meet the requirement of the Sabbath following the day of the crucifixion is the Saturday Sabbath.

We have used somewhat different criteria but have arrived at the same conclusion (imagine that).

But allow me to add a bit to this whole discussion about which sabbath was a "high day." I'm sure you are familiar with this subject, but allow me to address it a bit more thoroughly for those who might be reading and are not as familiar.

The popular theory is that the sabbath which John says was a "high day" was a festival sabbath. That's the popular theory. But that is an assumption made by those who are perhaps not well-studied in the Mosaic Code or in the manner in which the Jews historically observed the feasts.

Leviticus 23 enumerates 8 different "sabbaths." There is the weekly sabbath (v. 3) that occurred every Saturday, beginning in the evening the day before. There were also seven "annual" sabbaths, that is, certain feast days that were specifically commanded by God to be observed as sabbaths: The first and seventh days of Unleavened Bread (v. 7-8), Pentecost (v. 21), Trumpets (v. 24-25), Day of Atonement (v. 28), and the first and eighth days of Tabernacles (v. 35-36). These were all "festival sabbaths," that is sabbaths that occurred on particular feast days, regardless of the day of the week they fell on, which could be a Monday one year, and a Thursday the next year.

There is a perhaps minor point of Law that seems to be absent in this discussion about all this, but certainly the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees all would have known. In Exodus 12:14-16, when God was initially laying out the festival commandments, it is stated that on these annual festival sabbaths, "... no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must [do to] eat, that only may be done of you."

So it is important to understand that these festival sabbaths were less strict. Certain work was allowed to be done, that work which was necessary for the people to eat the feast on those feast days: carrying the sacrifice to the temple and sacrificing it, carrying the appropriate portions home, carrying wood, lighting a fire, cooking, carrying water, setting out dishes, preparing other foods, carrying them to table, even cleaning up afterward. All the various work required in order to prepare and eat the feast that day, even on festival sabbaths, was allowed by law.

Even the shops that sold provisions for the festivals were allowed to be open. There were many thousands of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem from distant cities and even distant countries. Even if it was convenient to bring along live animals and crates and sacks of produce, it was not allowed by law. Everything offered in the temple and all the provisions for the feasts had to be grown in the land, so they had to be purchased by the pilgrims once they arrived in the Holy City. Even the money that was offered had to be converted to the Temple coinage which could only be purchased from the money changers in the courts of the Temple. This was why the markets in the Temple did such a booming business, and why the family of Annas who oversaw the trade and profited from it was so wealthy, and why Jesus became so incensed over it.

However, what happened when one of these feast days fell on the weekly sabbath? On the weekly sabbath, no work of any kind could be done at all, not even the work necessary to eat the feast that day. The weekly sabbath commandments took precedence over any other commandments, thus the weekly sabbaths that fell during a festival week overruled the festival commandments, thus those sabbaths were "high days." On those weekly sabbaths on which a feast day fell (any feast day could fall on the weekly sabbath in any given year), the people were required to prepare enough to eat for two days the day before, on Friday, "the Preparation."

Thus, we never see in Scripture or in all the Talmudic literature any reference to the day before a festival being called, "the preparation." They are always called "the eve of" that particular festival. The only day of the Jewish year that required preparation the day before was the weekly sabbath, which commandments to do no work were inviolable.

As I said, this may be one of the finer points of law, but the law ruled, and no one has ever been more studied in all the finer points and nuances of the Mosaic Code than Rabbinic Jews during New Testament times. It's just unfortunate that their slavish devotion to the letter tended to blind them to the lesson.

Hope this might add some small factor into your reckoning.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

Again, not the point. You just don't undestand the actual concepts behind all of this. Neither does the supposed "expert" you quote.

"Supposed" expert? Do you not realize your disdain for anyone you disagree with hampers the cause of Christ? Here is a brief curriculum vitae for Dr. Seidelmann:

"Dr. P. Kenneth Seidelmann is Director of Astrometry at the U.S. Naval Observatory. He was a leader in the international revisions of reference systems. He directed the modernizing of the almanacs and the introduction of electronic almanacs. Dr. Seidelmann edited the "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac." He is a codiscoverer of the Saturn satellite Calypso. He calculated the analemma for the Longwood Gardens Sundial, and prepared the star charts for the Einstein Statues on the National Academy of Sciences grounds in Washington and Jerusalem. He was a member of the Wide Field/Planetary Camera Team of the Hubble Space Telescope. He is chair of the Science Team of the Fullsky Astrometric Mapping Explorer (FAME). Dr. Seidelmann received an E.E., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees and also a Distinguished Alumni Award, from the University of Cincinnati. He is author of over one hundred scientific papers and coeditor of seven books. Ken is president of IAU Division I and the Celestial Mechanics Institute. He is past president of The Institute of Navigation and recipient of the Hays Award. Minor planet 3217 is named "Seidelmann" in his honor." (ION Fellow - Dr. P. Kenneth Seidelmann)

Since you are so dismissive of Dr. Seidelmann's expertise, please share your credentials.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

We have used somewhat different criteria but have arrived at the same conclusion (imagine that).

But allow me to add a bit to this whole discussion about which sabbath was a "high day." I'm sure you are familiar with this subject, but allow me to address it a bit more thoroughly for those who might be reading and are not as familiar.

The popular theory is that the sabbath which John says was a "high day" was a festival sabbath. That's the popular theory. But that is an assumption made by those who are perhaps not well-studied in the Mosaic Code or in the manner in which the Jews historically observed the feasts.


In Christ,
Deborah

Again you are writing things which are not true. You can not support these conclusions and I challenge you to provide a single bit of evidence that does so.

"High days" do in fact refer to any "sabbath" or "holy convocation" as is specified for a Feast of Yahweh. It is not anything to do with the Feast Day coinciding with the weekly Sabbath. Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

"Preparation day" occurs only in the Greek text. Josephus also uses this term to refer to the day before a Feast Day holy convocation sabbath. (Antiquities 16, 163). It has nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath in his text.

The original New Testament text, in Aramaic, always refers to this day as the "eve". That was the term used in the Jewish culture. And this term is used of ANY day of the week that is before a Feast sabbath. This occurs in extra-biblical literature.

“And she fasted all the days of her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths, and the sabbaths, and the eves of the new moons, and the new moons and the feasts and solemn days of the house of Israel.” (Judith 8:6)

All the sabbaths are included along with their "eve". There is no differentiation made.

So your claim is false and does not stand up to historical records.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

"Supposed" expert? Do you not realize your disdain for anyone you disagree with hampers the cause of Christ? Here is a brief curriculum vitae for Dr. Seidelmann:

"Dr. P. Kenneth Seidelmann is Director of Astrometry at the U.S. Naval Observatory. He was a leader in the international revisions of reference systems. He directed the modernizing of the almanacs and the introduction of electronic almanacs. Dr. Seidelmann edited the "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac." He is a codiscoverer of the Saturn satellite Calypso. He calculated the analemma for the Longwood Gardens Sundial, and prepared the star charts for the Einstein Statues on the National Academy of Sciences grounds in Washington and Jerusalem. He was a member of the Wide Field/Planetary Camera Team of the Hubble Space Telescope. He is chair of the Science Team of the Fullsky Astrometric Mapping Explorer (FAME). Dr. Seidelmann received an E.E., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees and also a Distinguished Alumni Award, from the University of Cincinnati. He is author of over one hundred scientific papers and coeditor of seven books. Ken is president of IAU Division I and the Celestial Mechanics Institute. He is past president of The Institute of Navigation and recipient of the Hays Award. Minor planet 3217 is named "Seidelmann" in his honor." (ION Fellow - Dr. P. Kenneth Seidelmann)

Since you are so dismissive of Dr. Seidelmann's expertise, please share your credentials.

In Christ,
Deborah

I really could not care less what kind of worldly education system someone has earned. The important thing is what he/she says true? Is it factual? What you quote of his writing is not completely accurate. So he can be thrown out as someone who does not fully understand the topic.

 

[AFrazier]

"tough love"? Hardly. Your posts and comments don't even reflect a proper understanding of the material. So there is no need to go point by point through your misrepresentations. You demonstrate a purposeful stating of falsehoods in order to denigrate my material. Not interested.

So for anyone reading this exchange, this person is purposely stating things which are NOT true. Every single point I make is backed by sources and evidence. Every single one. Otherwise, yes, it would only be an assumption. All my material is based on verifiable sources, proven science, mathematics and culturally accurate history.

In the same post you quoted, I refuted your hypothesis. Feel free to answer to the blatant scriptural evidence, or just bow out. Anyone who chooses to watch your video will see the same thing I saw.

Don’t call me a liar. I listed the things you didn’t substantiate.

1) Christ born in 6 BCE. Not proven.
2) 34 years old at his baptism. Not proven.
3) The relationship of the Lysanias inscription to Livia and Tiberius. Not proven.
4) Anno Alexandria 304 being the Seleucid year. Not proven.

Also, I have a very firm grasp of the material.

Your hypothesis is incorrect. Your methodology is both assumptive and presumptive. You display arrogance, condescending to centuries of scholars whose education far exceeds yours. You state things as fact without a shred of evidence. And then you lie about it and denigrate the reputation of others who dare speak against your precious miracle of self discovery.

We don’t have to talk anymore. You and your video can go have a conversation with each other. It’s the only agreement you’re going to find.