Biblical Evidence For 31 AD Crucifixion

[EclipseEventSigns]

I've always heard that Jesus was 30 years old when He began His ministry, He preached and granted miracles for 3 1/2 years, and was then crucified and resurrected in April 33 AD. I trusted that scholars had investigated all of this. I knew there were other theories but since they aren't popular, then there was nothing to them.

Recently I decided to really look into the matter. I was shocked at what I discovered. Really shocked. The date markers in the Gospels do not corroborate any of the common understanding - what most pastors and Sunday School teachers continually state.

Messiah Jesus actually began His ministry in early spring 29 AD. He ministered for just over 2 years. He was crucified and resurrected on April 25, 31 AD.

Evidence:
1. John the Baptizer
-started his ministry Luke 3:1-2
-it was in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar

"and in 14 CE, on August 19, Augustus died. Tiberius, now supreme, played politics with the Senate and did not allow it to name him emperor for almost a month, but on September 17 he succeeded to the principate. He was 54 years old."

Tiberius | Biography, Accomplishments, Facts, & Death | Britannica

Tiberius, second Roman emperor (14–37 CE), the adopted son of Augustus, whose imperial institutions and imperial boundaries he sought to preserve. In his last years he became a tyrannical recluse, inflicting a reign of terror against the major personages of Rome. Learn more about Tiberius in...

www.britannica.com

-15th year of Tiberius started in September, 28 AD

2. The Timeline in John's Gospel
Late winter/early spring 29 AD
-John the baptizer (John 1)
-in Bethany, across the Jordan (John 1:28)
-Jesus comes to the Jordan
-John tells of a previous visit when Jesus was baptized (John 1:32)
-Jesus immediately starts calling disciples

April 29 AD
-Jesus goes to Jerusalem for the Passover (John 2:13)
-it's 46 years since the temple was being built (John 2:20) Another time marker pointing to 29 AD

September/October 29 AD
-Jesus goes to Jerusalem for a feast (John 5:1)

April 30 AD
-Jesus feeds 5000 at Sea of Galilee when Passover approaching (John 6:1)

September/October 30 AD
-Jesus does not go to Jerusalem for Feast of Booths (John 7:1); but later shows up at the temple in Jerusalem (John 7:14)

December 30 AD
-Jesus goes to Jerusalem for Feast of Dedication in winter (John 10:22)

April 31 AD
-Passover (john 11:55)
-Triumphal entry (John 12:12)

--Update-- I've released a video that goes through all the evidence.

 

[Deborah~]

Messiah Jesus actually began His ministry in early spring 29 AD. He ministered for just over 2 years. He was crucified and resurrected on April 25, 31 AD.

Evidence:
1. John the Baptizer
-started his ministry Luke 3:1-2
-it was in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar

"and in 14 CE, on August 19, Augustus died. Tiberius, now supreme, played politics with the Senate and did not allow it to name him emperor for almost a month, but on September 17 he succeeded to the principate. He was 54 years old."

Tiberius | Biography, Accomplishments, Facts, & Death | Britannica

Tiberius, second Roman emperor (14–37 CE), the adopted son of Augustus, whose imperial institutions and imperial boundaries he sought to preserve. In his last years he became a tyrannical recluse, inflicting a reign of terror against the major personages of Rome. Learn more about Tiberius in...

www.britannica.com

-15th year of Tiberius started in September, 28 AD

I would like to offer some historical information that helps in constructing a chronology of the life of Jesus. While it is true that Augustus died in A.D. 14, Tiberius actually began his reign as co-regent in A.D. 12. This has been known and taken into consideration by historians and used to calculate the traditional A.D. 30 date for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

It has only been in recent years, with the advent of the new science of archaeology, that coins have been discovered that support this traditional view and show that the reign of Tiberius was reckoned from his co-regency with Augustus beginning September A.D. 12.

Augustus died in August A.D. 14 as you noted, and Tiberius immediately appointed Gratus as Prefect of Judea to replace Rufus (who had been Augustus' appointee), and in the same year Gratus minted coins with Tiberius' image that have the LB inscription, meaning the second year of Tiberius' reign. (Front and reverse of Gratus LB coin: minted A.D. 14, LB=Year 2 of Tiberius)

The chart below shows, according to the numismatic evidence, that the 15th year of Tiberius would have fallen from September A.D. 26 to September A.D. 27, historically held as the year Jesus began his ministry. This would place the Crucifixion of Jesus in the 18th year of Tiberius, A.D. 30.

I hope this will be helpful.
In Christ,
Deborah~

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I would like to offer some historical information that helps in constructing a chronology of the life of Jesus. While it is true that Augustus died in A.D. 14, Tiberius actually began his reign as co-regent in A.D. 12. This has been known and taken into consideration by historians and used to calculate the traditional A.D. 30 date for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

It has only been in recent years, with the advent of the new science of archaeology, that coins have been discovered that support this traditional view and show that the reign of Tiberius was reckoned from his co-regency with Augustus beginning September A.D. 12.

Augustus died in August A.D. 14 as you noted, and Tiberius immediately appointed Gratus as Prefect of Judea to replace Rufus (who had been Augustus' appointee), and in the same year Gratus minted coins with Tiberius' image that have the LB inscription, meaning the second year of Tiberius' reign. (Front and reverse of Gratus LB coin: minted A.D. 14, LB=Year 2 of Tiberius)

View attachment 331815

The chart below shows, according to the numismatic evidence, that the 15th year of Tiberius would have fallen from September A.D. 26 to September A.D. 27, historically held as the year Jesus began his ministry. This would place the Crucifixion of Jesus in the 18th year of Tiberius, A.D. 30.

View attachment 331816

I hope this will be helpful.
In Christ,
Deborah~

Yes, what you write is by people who NEED to change the evidence stated in the Bible to match their opinions. But it is not accurate.

 

[Deborah~]

That is a very unchristian response ...

In Christ,
Deborah~

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

That is a very unchristian response ...

In Christ,
Deborah~

I've done a lot of research in this area. And it is simply the truth. Nothing unchristian about that.

 

[Deborah~]

I've done a lot of research in this area. And it is simply the truth. Nothing unchristian about that.

I think you have a lot more research to do, but if you have been studying this question, which has kept historians and theologians and archaeologists and laymen alike fascinated for generations, then wonderful!, we should have a lot of things we can compare and talk about and discuss, in a spirit of Christian fellowship. Just because I don't agree with your conclusion doesn't mean I am manipulating the Bible. What it does mean is that there is a LOT of evidence that you are unaware of that would probably change your view. Notice I said change your view, not change the Bible.

I dearly love studying any and everything that pertains to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, and have been studying these things for over 40 years. And the highlight of my academic life has been some wonderful opportunities to share with fellow Christians and non-Christians alike. I would love to share with you what I have learned, for the sole purpose of building up your faith in the times and the seasons of the life of Jesus, the historical authenticity of the eyewitness accounts of his life in the Gospels, and the Christian observance of the most important events in the history of the world ... the Christmas observance of his birth, and the Easter observance of his death and resurrection.

I have no other motive than to testify of the historical evidence of the life of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

In His Name,
Deborah~

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Obviously I hit a nerve because of the generation of very defensive replies. It's EXACTLY the reason I phrased my response to say "people" and not "you" in particular. There are many who bring up this supposed co-regency evidence. It just does not hold water. The main and most obvious reason is that Luke would have said co-regency if he had meant co-regency. He was very particular in his historical details. In the chapter before he specifically brought up Augustus Caesar. So he was well aware of the political landscape of the time. The fact that he does not include Augustus Caesar when referring to Tiberius means that he did not mean to refer to any kind of co-regency (which is not absolutely proven anyway).

In John's Gospel he includes the historical fact of the 46 years of the temple construction. Combined with the 15th year of Tiberius, it points to exactly the same period of time. And yet both Gospel statements are twisted around by those who NEED to make them occur earlier than what the Gospel writers stated.

Fortunately, in my over 45 years of study I've had to confront the very problematic "facts" that make up the Western christian set of assumptions about exactly where and when the Biblical manuscripts were written and the Christian holiday calendar. Here again I specifically choose to use the word "assumptions" because when one really researches various topics one realizes just how close minded most scholars actually are and how little they challenge church traditions. This results in the spaghetti mishmash of contradictions, confusion, misinformation and destabilization of faith which is evident in modern Biblical academia.

Here's a list of some accepted beliefs that are based on provable error (not in any particular order).
1. That Messiah Jesus was born in 1 BC. because the calendar change from BC and AD was based on His year of birth. A lot of people now realize this is now incorrect, which is good.
2. That Messiah Jesus was born on Dec 25th. Again, a lot of people now realize this is incorrect. Yet, church tradition is so strong that no one is willing to change this and remove the pagan influence in Christianity.
3. That Messiah Jesus was crucified on a Friday because the Gospels say it was the day before the Sabbath.
4. That the crucifixion was in 33 AD because that's when the modern Jewish calendar shows a Friday matching Nisan 14 (Passover).
5. That Easter reflects the actual time of the month and historically accurate series of events of the Messiah's final week
6. That Anderson's/Hoehner's interpretation of the 70 Weeks in Daniel is based on 360 day Jewish years and there are exactly a certain number of days to the Triumphal Entry of Messiah Jesus.
7. That Messiah Jesus was 30 years old when He began His ministry
8. That the Jewish exile in Babylon was 70 years long
9. That the Judean population in the 1st century spoke Greek as their common language. Or even that they spoke Hebrew as their common language.
10. That the Koine Greek of the New Testament is written in pristine, perfectly grammatically correct Greek
11. That there is some way to determine what the original New Testament authors' actually wrote to be found in the various Greek manuscripts
12. That some of the strange and problematic sayings of Messiah Jesus found in the Gospels are actually what He said - we just don't know how to properly understand and interpret them

I'll stop the list for now. All of these are false - provably false. Yet, most believe them because most scholars promote them. I used to believe them all. I no longer do. That is because as I continued to find problems with Christian assumptions, I kept an open mind and began to diligently investigate. I did not ignore the problems. I did not get swayed by the egos of scholars who dismiss alternative ideas as ridiculous. I was not affected by scholars who stated that I could not possibly understand the issues since they were the experts. Yes, for a time I felt untethered because what I had always accepted as accurate turned out not to be accurate. But as I investigated I began to see alternatives for each one of the issues stated above. Everything began to align. Everything began to fit together. Not as the scholars said. But as the Bible text was revealed to be internally consistent and matched with historical evidence - without twisting things or making assumptions or relying on traditions. It was absolutely and utterly elegant. Things can be properly understood. Christianity is beyond doubt perfectly consistent and it can be shown to be. That is, if one jettisons Christian traditions which are ALL based on false assumptions.

My series of videos describe the journey through the errors and presents the actual factual information.

 

[Deborah~]

Obviously I hit a nerve because of the generation of very defensive replies. It's EXACTLY the reason I phrased my response to say "people" and not "you" in particular. There are many who bring up this supposed co-regency evidence. It just does not hold water. The main and most obvious reason is that Luke would have said co-regency if he had meant co-regency. He was very particular in his historical details. In the chapter before he specifically brought up Augustus Caesar. So he was well aware of the political landscape of the time. The fact that he does not include Augustus Caesar when referring to Tiberius means that he did not mean to refer to any kind of co-regency (which is not absolutely proven anyway).

In John's Gospel he includes the historical fact of the 46 years of the temple construction. Combined with the 15th year of Tiberius, it points to exactly the same period of time. And yet both Gospel statements are twisted around by those who NEED to make them occur earlier than what the Gospel writers stated.

Fortunately, in my over 45 years of study I've had to confront the very problematic "facts" that make up the Western christian set of assumptions about exactly where and when the Biblical manuscripts were written and the Christian holiday calendar. Here again I specifically choose to use the word "assumptions" because when one really researches various topics one realizes just how close minded most scholars actually are and how little they challenge church traditions. This results in the spaghetti mishmash of contradictions, confusion, misinformation and destabilization of faith which is evident in modern Biblical academia.

Here's a list of some accepted beliefs that are based on provable error (not in any particular order).
1. That Messiah Jesus was born in 1 BC. because the calendar change from BC and AD was based on His year of birth. A lot of people now realize this is now incorrect, which is good.
2. That Messiah Jesus was born on Dec 25th. Again, a lot of people now realize this is incorrect. Yet, church tradition is so strong that no one is willing to change this and remove the pagan influence in Christianity.
3. That Messiah Jesus was crucified on a Friday because the Gospels say it was the day before the Sabbath.
4. That the crucifixion was in 33 AD because that's when the modern Jewish calendar shows a Friday matching Nisan 14 (Passover).
5. That Easter reflects the actual time of the month and historically accurate series of events of the Messiah's final week
6. That Anderson's/Hoehner's interpretation of the 70 Weeks in Daniel is based on 360 day Jewish years and there are exactly a certain number of days to the Triumphal Entry of Messiah Jesus.
7. That Messiah Jesus was 30 years old when He began His ministry
8. That the Jewish exile in Babylon was 70 years long
9. That the Judean population in the 1st century spoke Greek as their common language. Or even that they spoke Hebrew as their common language.
10. That the Koine Greek of the New Testament is written in pristine, perfectly grammatically correct Greek
11. That there is some way to determine what the original New Testament authors' actually wrote to be found in the various Greek manuscripts
12. That some of the strange and problematic sayings of Messiah Jesus found in the Gospels are actually what He said - we just don't know how to properly understand and interpret them

I'll stop the list for now. All of these are false - provably false. Yet, most believe them because most scholars promote them. I used to believe them all. I no longer do. That is because as I continued to find problems with Christian assumptions, I kept an open mind and began to diligently investigate. I did not ignore the problems. I did not get swayed by the egos of scholars who dismiss alternative ideas as ridiculous. I was not affected by scholars who stated that I could not possibly understand the issues since they were the experts. Yes, for a time I felt untethered because what I had always accepted as accurate turned out not to be accurate. But as I investigated I began to see alternatives for each one of the issues stated above. Everything began to align. Everything began to fit together. Not as the scholars said. But as the Bible text was revealed to be internally consistent and matched with historical evidence - without twisting things or making assumptions or relying on traditions. It was absolutely and utterly elegant. Things can be properly understood. Christianity is beyond doubt perfectly consistent and it can be shown to be. That is, if one jettisons Christian traditions which are ALL based on false assumptions.

My series of videos describe the journey through the errors and presents the actual factual information.

Yes, insults do tend to strike people's nerves and put them on the defensive. It's a shame that it has to happen, but perhaps because of the anonymity, it is very common on social media.

As to your post,

> Luke would have said co-regency if he had meant co-regency

Probably the reason Luke didn’t say the 15th year of Tiberius’ co-regency is that Tiberius was only co-regent with Augustus the first two years, A.D. 12 – 14. By his 15th year, Tiberius had been sole regent for 13 years.

> he does not include Augustus Caesar when referring to Tiberius …

Luke probably didn’t include Augustus in his reckoning of the 15th year of Tiberius because Augustus had been dead for 12 years.

Also, Luke called Annas High Priest without saying anything about co-regency, although Annas had been deposed from that office 11 years earlier, in A.D. 15, by Valerius Gratus, the man who became Procurator of Judaea in A.D. 14 and his first coins minted that year were stamped that it was the 2nd year of Tiberius, coins which you deem inadmissible … why exactly?

So Caiaphas was the High Priest. But Luke must have included Annas in his reckoning of High Priests because Annas shared power with his son-in-law Caiaphas which is proven by the fact that the night Jesus was arrested he was taken first to Annas (John 18:13), and then Annas sent him to Caiaphas (John 18:24).

So it is completely in keeping with Luke’s manner of reckoning for him to include the years a man shared power even if he did not hold the official title.

The only item I agree with on your list is the first. The rest of those issues I don’t find any convincing evidence for. And by “evidence,” I mean actual historical, archaeological, and even meteorological evidence. In fact, all the evidence supports the date of December 25, 5 B.C. and Friday, Nisan 15, A.D. 30 as the dates of the birth and the crucifixion of Jesus.

In Christ,
Deborah~

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Yes, insults do tend to strike people's nerves and put them on the defensive. It's a shame that it has to happen, but perhaps because of the anonymity, it is very common on social media.

As to your post,

> Luke would have said co-regency if he had meant co-regency

Probably the reason Luke didn’t say the 15th year of Tiberius’ co-regency is that Tiberius was only co-regent with Augustus the first two years, A.D. 12 – 14. By his 15th year, Tiberius had been sole regent for 13 years.

> he does not include Augustus Caesar when referring to Tiberius …

Luke probably didn’t include Augustus in his reckoning of the 15th year of Tiberius because Augustus had been dead for 12 years.

Also, Luke called Annas High Priest without saying anything about co-regency, although Annas had been deposed from that office 11 years earlier, in A.D. 15, by Valerius Gratus, the man who became Procurator of Judaea in A.D. 14 and his first coins minted that year were stamped that it was the 2nd year of Tiberius, coins which you deem inadmissible … why exactly?

So Caiaphas was the High Priest. But Luke must have included Annas in his reckoning of High Priests because Annas shared power with his son-in-law Caiaphas which is proven by the fact that the night Jesus was arrested he was taken first to Annas (John 18:13), and then Annas sent him to Caiaphas (John 18:24).

So it is completely in keeping with Luke’s manner of reckoning for him to include the years a man shared power even if he did not hold the official title.

The only item I agree with on your list is the first. The rest of those issues I don’t find any convincing evidence for. And by “evidence,” I mean actual historical, archaeological, and even meteorological evidence. In fact, all the evidence supports the date of December 25, 5 B.C. and Friday, Nisan 15, A.D. 30 as the dates of the birth and the crucifixion of Jesus.

In Christ,
Deborah~

There was no insult anywhere. None. There's no point in responding to your posts. I'm not here to argue. If you are so inclined you can do some research into these areas outside of the accepted traditional understandings. Start with my videos. At that point, when there's a recognition of the facts that present an alternate and consistency within all supposed problems (not just within a single topic), then some good discussion can take place.

 

[Deborah~]

There was no insult anywhere. None. There's no point in responding to your posts. I'm not here to argue. If you are so inclined you can do some research into these areas outside of the accepted traditional understandings. Start with my videos. At that point, when there's a recognition of the facts that present an alternate and consistency within all supposed problems (not just within a single topic), then some good discussion can take place.

Why should I take the time to watch your videos? In our brief discussion, I already see that you are making claims that you cannot support with actual historical evidence. If you could, that's what you would have posted it in your first response to me. I offered archaeological evidence that the Procurator of Judaea, Valerius Gratus (A.D. 14-26), reckoned the reign of Tiberius beginning with his co-regency with Augustus in A.D. 12 making Tiberius' 15th year A.D. 26. That's not someone making up something to try to change the Bible. It's simply an historical (or more correctly an archaeological) fact that sheds light on this issue. It doesn't prove anything, except that it's possible that Luke reckoned Tiberius' reign according to the way the Roman Procurator in Judea reckoned it.

Most reputable students readily admit that there are sincere and learned Christians who hold differing views about this, there is no definitive proof, it's all a matter of weighing all the evidence before making conclusions. The weight of evidence, and the majority scholarly opinion, rests with the Friday, Nisan 15/April 7, A.D. 30 date as that of the Crucifixion. Not because it is tradition. It is tradition because the weight of evidence supports it.

And when I speak of the "weight of evidence," I am speaking of the primary historical sources, which are: 1) The Scriptures 2) Early Christian writings 3) Early Jewish writings 4) Roman records 5) Archaeological artifacts 6) Astronomical, Meteorological and Climatological evidence. If your conclusion is not based on the evidence found in these various sources, then your conclusion is based not on evidence, but on opinion.

The problem is, our opinions about New Testament history really don't matter, although too many students spend countless hours calculating this and that to try to date events in the life of Jesus based on their interpretation of some Bible passage or how they think things should have happened, particularly, how they think the Law should have been observed. But ans historians, we must seek to understand how the Jews during New Testament/2nd Temple period actually observed the Law. In terms of working out the chronology of the Passover and Jesus' Crucifixion, it really doesn't matter for example, when we think the Passover lambs should have been slain or when the Passover should have been eaten, what matters is when did the Jews actually sacrifice the Passover and when did they actually eat the Passover, because that determines, historically, when Jesus was crucified. We weren't there, we didn't make these decisions. We can "calculate" when we think the priestly courses should have served, for example, but we didn't run the Temple, the Jews did.

Most students that I have opportunity to talk with have never even read these Jewish writings. And yet, these writings are the very "oral traditions" that Jesus mentioned that had been handed down for generations. They were collected and written down in the 2nd century and represent the body of Jewish legal opinions on the observance of the Law and provide us with a window into the 2nd Temple period and the Jewish world as it existed at the time of Jesus. And these Rabbinical legal decisions were very exact, even down to arguments and judgments not only about what date the Passover was to be slain, but even the hour.

I engaged with a student recently who simply rejected the evidence of these early Christian and Jewish writings simply because they disagree with their theology. I am a Protestant Evangelical Christian and I certainly do not agree with the theology of Rabbinic Judaism, especially as regards Messianic theology, but I recognize that these early Jewish writings represent a rich source of historical information about 2nd Temple/New Testament Jewish beliefs and practices, whether I agree with their beliefs and practices or not.

But I digress. I would be more than happy to continue our discussion, I don't believe discussing the life and times of Jesus is ever pointless. Even if we are never able to come to agreement, it is edifying to dig deep into these matters, and perhaps we both might learn something new. I am always open to new information, and I am always willing to change my opinion ... if the evidence demands it.

Always In Christ,
Deborah ~

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Again, I'm not going to argue. It's only worth talking with someone who is honest in the pursuit of knowledge and doesn't think they know it all. It's just not worth my time. And no, I'm not going to post ALL my evidence here. I've written a book and made many videos where I have already laid everything out with each source to back up every single point with proof. If you aren't willing to investigate that, then there is nothing left to discuss.

But I can't let your statement go unchallenged : "The weight of evidence, and the majority scholarly opinion, rests with the Friday, Nisan 15/April 7, A.D. 30 date as that of the Crucifixion.". That is absolutely and utterly false. That view is at best, an alternative view. But by far the majority view is April 3, 33 AD. Both dates of 30 AD and 33 AD are incorrect - and very easy to prove why. The most obvious being that Passover is ALWAYS Nisan 14 and not Nisan 15 as you state.

In addition, the website you linked originally that supposedly gives evidence based on coin date, does not even agree with your Friday, 30 AD claim. He states that it was a WEDNESDAY in 30 AD for the crucifixion. So even the supposed evidence you give does not agree with your claim.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

It has only been in recent years, with the advent of the new science of archaeology, that coins have been discovered that support this traditional view and show that the reign of Tiberius was reckoned from his co-regency with Augustus beginning September A.D. 12.

Augustus died in August A.D. 14 as you noted, and Tiberius immediately appointed Gratus as Prefect of Judea to replace Rufus (who had been Augustus' appointee), and in the same year Gratus minted coins with Tiberius' image that have the LB inscription, meaning the second year of Tiberius' reign. (Front and reverse of Gratus LB coin: minted A.D. 14, LB=Year 2 of Tiberius)

View attachment 331815

I took a closer look at this particular website describing coins minted during the time of Pilate. You make the claim that this archaeological evidence supports a "traditional view" of co-regency starting in Sept AD 12. It does no such thing. Reading through all the information on that website, there is one paragraph that immediately disqualifies his view.

The mistakes made by numistmatists (as echoed by Fontinille) is to assume the 16th, 17th, and 18th years of Tiberius synchronize with A.D. 29, 30, and 31 respectively, and then reckon the years of Tiberius to be regnal accession years beginning with Augustus' death to justify that syncronization. But this ignores and fails to reconcile with Christ's baptism in A.D. 26 in Tiberius' 15th year, Christ's crucifixion in A.D. 30 after a 3.5 year ministry in Tiberius' 18th year, and further implies Tiberius' 1st regnal year was A.D. 14.

Exactly what evidence does he give for the mistakes by expert numismatists? Nothing scientific. Nothing based on historical records. Only 2 data points - his opinion that Messiah's baptism occurred in 26 AD and his opinion that Messiah's crucifixion occurred in 30 AD after a 3 1/2 year ministry. Those data points do not hold water in any serious research.

His website information actually PROVES exactly what I initially wrote outlining the actual timeline of Messiah Jesus. There are 3 coins minted in subsequent years by Pilate. Only the first coin includes the names of both Tiberius and Julia (his mother). And this first coin is marked as Year 16 which stands for the 16th year of Tiberius' reign. According to historical record, Julia died in 29 AD. And that makes perfect sense why the 2nd and 3rd coins do not include her name. Since Tiberius became Caesar in 14 AD, his 16th year was in 29 AD while his mother was still alive. The year after, her mother, having died, was no longer included on the coins minted in 30 AD and 31 AD.

It all works out perfectly. No need for any supposed Caesar co-regency with his father. Amazing, even this evidence is consistent with the timeline that I posted. I will have to make a video showing this as well.

 

[Deborah~]

Again, I'm not going to argue. It's only worth talking with someone who is honest in the pursuit of knowledge and doesn't think they know it all. It's just not worth my time. And no, I'm not going to post ALL my evidence here. I've written a book and made many videos where I have already laid everything out with each source to back up every single point with proof. If you aren't willing to investigate that, then there is nothing left to discuss.

But I can't let your statement go unchallenged : "The weight of evidence, and the majority scholarly opinion, rests with the Friday, Nisan 15/April 7, A.D. 30 date as that of the Crucifixion.". That is absolutely and utterly false. That view is at best, an alternative view. But by far the majority view is April 3, 33 AD. Both dates of 30 AD and 33 AD are incorrect - and very easy to prove why. The most obvious being that Passover is ALWAYS Nisan 14 and not Nisan 15 as you state.

In addition, the website you linked originally that supposedly gives evidence based on coin date, does not even agree with your Friday, 30 AD claim. He states that it was a WEDNESDAY in 30 AD for the crucifixion. So even the supposed evidence you give does not agree with your claim.

The coins provide evidence as to the reckoning of the years of Tiberius, which is all it sheds light on and all I commented on. What calendar date in that year or what week day of that year Nisan 14 fell on has to be determined by other means. I’ll address that in a moment, I think it’s really interesting.

I never said Passover is on Nisan 15. I said Jesus was crucified on Nisan 15.

All three synoptic gospels state that the disciples prepared the Passover, which historically would have been on Thursday afternoon, Nisan 14 (between 2:30 and 5:00 p.m. according to Mishnah tractate “Pesachim” 5:8a) and that Thursday night (technically the beginning of Nisan 15) they ate the Passover along with the first meal of unleavened bread. This is the testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and both Mark and Luke specifically say the first day of unleavened bread was the same day (of the week) the lambs were sacrificed.

Then that Thursday night, Nisan 15, after the Passover and unleavened bread was eaten, Jesus was arrested.

Then the next morning, Friday, still Nisan 15, he was crucified at 9:00 a.m. and died that Friday afternoon at 3:00 pm. and was hurriedly buried as the weekly Sabbath was about to begin, a “high” day when no work could be done, not even the work necessary to prepare the feast which the festival sabbaths, being “lesser” sabbaths or less strict, allowed. (Exodus 12:16- it is a mistake to assume that festival sabbaths required a “preparation day” when the Law specifically allowed that the work necessary to prepare the feast to be done on the festival sabbaths, but never on the weekly Sabbath.) The weekly sabbath commandments overrode all other commandments, even the festival commandments, and thus it was a “high” or “greater” day.

That the disciples prepared the Passover in the afternoon of Nisan 14 and Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover that evening (at the beginning of Nisan 15) before his arrest that night and crucifixion the next day proves Jesus could not have been crucified on Nisan 14.

I am aware that some suggest that Nisan 14 fell on a Wednesday, but I believe that is due to a very simple mistake. They are basing Nisan 1 having begun on the astronomical new moon which occurred on Wednesday, March 23, at 8:10 p.m. (that is a date certain) and they extrapolate from there that Nisan 14 therefore would begin at sunset Tuesday and the Passover sacrifice would fall on Wednesday afternoon. But the Jews did not begin the new months with the astronomical new moon, which is 0% visible. They began the months with the crescent new moon, when the first sliver of a crescent is visible to the naked eye, which occurs 1 – 2 days after the astronomical new moon. I’ll attach a chart which details when the astronomical new moon occurred and 1 of the 2 possible days when the crescent new moon would have been first visible and when the month of Nisan would have begun:

Now granted, as with all the actual historical evidence, this doesn’t “prove” definitively that Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 7/Nisan 15 of the year A.D. 30. But it does prove that it is certainly a possibility, as the new moon of the spring of that year and the corresponding dates line up with the Gospel accounts.

In Christ,
Deborah~

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The coins provide evidence as to the reckoning of the years of Tiberius, which is all it sheds light on and all I commented on. What calendar date in that year or what week day of that year Nisan 14 fell on has to be determined by other means. I’ll address that in a moment, I think it’s really interesting.

I never said Passover is on Nisan 15. I said Jesus was crucified on Nisan 15.

All three synoptic gospels state that the disciples prepared the Passover, which historically would have been on Thursday afternoon, Nisan 14 (between 2:30 and 5:00 p.m. according to Mishnah tractate “Pesachim” 5:8a) and that Thursday night (technically the beginning of Nisan 15) they ate the Passover along with the first meal of unleavened bread. This is the testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and both Mark and Luke specifically say the first day of unleavened bread was the same day (of the week) the lambs were sacrificed.

Then that Thursday night, Nisan 15, after the Passover and unleavened bread was eaten, Jesus was arrested.

Then the next morning, Friday, still Nisan 15, he was crucified at 9:00 a.m. and died that Friday afternoon at 3:00 pm. and was hurriedly buried as the weekly Sabbath was about to begin, a “high” day when no work could be done, not even the work necessary to prepare the feast which the festival sabbaths, being “lesser” sabbaths or less strict, allowed. (Exodus 12:16- it is a mistake to assume that festival sabbaths required a “preparation day” when the Law specifically allowed that the work necessary to prepare the feast to be done on the festival sabbaths, but never on the weekly Sabbath.) The weekly sabbath commandments overrode all other commandments, even the festival commandments, and thus it was a “high” or “greater” day.

That the disciples prepared the Passover in the afternoon of Nisan 14 and Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover that evening (at the beginning of Nisan 15) before his arrest that night and crucifixion the next day proves Jesus could not have been crucified on Nisan 14.

I am aware that some suggest that Nisan 14 fell on a Wednesday, but I believe that is due to a very simple mistake. They are basing Nisan 1 having begun on the astronomical new moon which occurred on Wednesday, March 23, at 8:10 p.m. (that is a date certain) and they extrapolate from there that Nisan 14 therefore would begin at sunset Tuesday and the Passover sacrifice would fall on Wednesday afternoon. But the Jews did not begin the new months with the astronomical new moon, which is 0% visible. They began the months with the crescent new moon, when the first sliver of a crescent is visible to the naked eye, which occurs 1 – 2 days after the astronomical new moon. I’ll attach a chart which details when the astronomical new moon occurred and 1 of the 2 possible days when the crescent new moon would have been first visible and when the month of Nisan would have begun:

View attachment 331898

Now granted, as with all the actual historical evidence, this doesn’t “prove” definitively that Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 7/Nisan 15 of the year A.D. 30. But it does prove that it is certainly a possibility, as the new moon of the spring of that year and the corresponding dates line up with the Gospel accounts.

In Christ,
Deborah~

Unfortunately everything you wrote about a Friday date is just not possible. The Gospels just do not support it. Historical evidence just does not support it. Botanical evidence does not support it. Geological evidence does not support it. Orbital mechanics does not support it. Ancient Jewish Mishnah does not support it. And there's much more evidence that does not support it. It's actually very easy to prove that it could not have been Friday. Even Jesus' very words "three days and three nights" immediately disqualify Friday.

 

[Deborah~]

Unfortunately everything you wrote about a Friday date is just not possible. The Gospels just do not support it. Historical evidence just does not support it. Botanical evidence does not support it. Geological evidence does not support it. Orbital mechanics does not support it. Ancient Jewish Mishnah does not support it. And there's much more evidence that does not support it. It's actually very easy to prove that it could not have been Friday. Even Jesus' very words "three days and three nights" immediately disqualify Friday.

Again, coins prove Tiberius' reign was reckoned by the Procurator of Judea as having begun with his co-regency in A.D. 12., which means there is actual historical evidence that prove Luke could have likewise reckoned Tiberius' 15th year from A.D. 12 meaning John the Baptist would have begun his ministry in the fall of A.D. 26 and Jesus’ baptism in early winter of A.D. 27, when he “began to be about 30 years old,” followed by a 3 1/2 year ministry and a crucifixion on Nisan 15, A.D. 30.

And secondly, astronomical new moons are scientifically ascertained and date certain, meaning actual new moon data corresponds with a Friday, Nisan 15/April 7, A.D. 30 date for the crucifixion.

Both of these are actual historical evidence and they both support a Friday, Nisan 15/April 7, A.D. 30 crucifixion.

You have not offered any actual historical evidence to support an A.D. 31 date. Bible interpretation of prophecy is not historical evidence.

As for the Gospels, I believe the A.D. 30 date absolutely does correspond with the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels, without the necessity of interpreting the prophecy that Jesus said would be a “sign” given to the Pharisees which they would not understand (Psalm 74:12: “For God is my King of old, working salvation in the heart of the earth”) while to his disciples he spoke plainly and expressed to them on a number of occasions what those three days and three nights would entail, including his being arrested and rejected by the Jewish elders, being condemned, beaten, and suffering the agonies of hanging for six long hours nailed to a cross, a night and a day of suffering before his dead body was placed in the tomb. As the disciples on the road to Emmaus said on that Sunday morning following Jesus’ resurrection, “today is the third day since these things were done,” (Luke 24:18-21) not the third day since Jesus was buried.

You speak of historical, botanical, and even geological evidence, but don’t actually cite any (I have no idea what flight mechanics has to do with the Gospels). I admit I do not have ALL the Jewish writings, but I do have both of the Talmuds complete, the complete Mishnah and Tosefta, some of the Midrash and a bit of the Halakhah and Kabbalah. So, I am curious to know what Mishnaic passage you believe does not support the Friday, Nisan 15/April 7, A.D. 30 date?

In Christ,
Deborah~

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I've already shown that the coin evidence does not support your views. The website's author himself says it was a Wednesday crucifixion. And he admits that there are coins that do not support a co-regency. That you point to this website as a support of your views is not accurate - it does not.

And I plainly stated I'm not going to give all my evidence here. It's just too much. I wrote an entire book and many videos explaining the evidence. I invited you to investigate but you refuse. If you really want to know, check those out.

 

[Deborah~]

I've already shown that the coin evidence does not support your views. The website's author himself says it was a Wednesday crucifixion. And he admits that there are coins that do not support a co-regency. You can't have it both ways.

And I plainly stated I'm not going to give all my evidence here. It's just too much. I wrote an entire book and many videos explaining the evidence. I invited you to investigate but you refuse. If you really want to know, check those out.

I didn't link that article to try to support what day of the year or day of the week Jesus was crucified.

I linked the article simply because it shows coins that prove that some people, specifically the Procurator of Judea, reckoned Tiberius' reign beginning with his co-regency. Others dated his reign beginning with his ascension as sole regent. Most 1st century records used inclusive reckoning, but not all. Even the New Testament uses various methods of reckoning, sometimes using Jewish reckoning and sometimes using Roman reckoning. The whole point is simply that you cannot just automatically rule out that Luke could have reckoned Tiberius' reign from his co-regency, the coins prove it is a possibility since the Roman official in Judea reckoned it that way and minted coins that were certainly circulating in Judea at the time Luke wrote his Gospel.

I offered other equally valid evidence (the scientifically-determined new moon dates) that support the date/day of Friday, Nisan 15 of A.D. 30 for the crucifixion (contrary to the conclusion drawn by the author of the article who I agree with on the year but not on the day/date).

I'm sorry, but asking someone to purchase your book or traffic your channel to search for your evidence to support claims you are making here in a public forum is not helpful. You don't have to "give all your evidence here," just start with one piece of evidence and we'll discuss it.

In Christ,
Deborah~

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I didn't link that article to try to support what day of the year or day of the week Jesus was crucified.

I linked the article simply because it shows coins that prove that some people, specifically the Procurator of Judea, reckoned Tiberius' reign beginning with his co-regency. Others dated his reign beginning with his ascension as sole regent. Most 1st century records used inclusive reckoning, but not all. Even the New Testament uses various methods of reckoning, sometimes using Jewish reckoning and sometimes using Roman reckoning. The whole point is simply that you cannot just automatically rule out that Luke could have reckoned Tiberius' reign from his co-regency, the coins prove it is a possibility since the Roman official in Judea reckoned it that way and minted coins that were certainly circulating in Judea at the time Luke wrote his Gospel.

I offered other equally valid evidence (the scientifically-determined new moon dates) that support the date/day of Friday, Nisan 15 of A.D. 30 for the crucifixion (contrary to the conclusion drawn by the author of the article who I agree with on the year but not on the day/date).

I'm sorry, but asking someone to purchase your book or traffic your channel to search for your evidence to support claims you are making here in a public forum is not helpful. You don't have to "give all your evidence here," just start with one piece of evidence and we'll discuss it.

In Christ,
Deborah~

It's useless to continue. You keep saying things that I've shown to be inaccurate. I don't have to "discuss" things that are proven to be wrong and neither do I want to continue waste time arguing. I spent a time going through the website you linked to in order to give the benefit of the doubt (and found how it doesn't match what you claim). It's very telling that you don't want to do that same to check out my evidence.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

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.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Why does something as Holy as the Bible need to talk about irrelevant things that God chose not to reveal to the world about the life of Jesus before,while, and after he began his ministry? Even the Bible says that all of Jesus's ministry isn't written down in the Bible. The apostles wrote about the important parts and not the trivial details.


Any and all of Jesus's life (aside from when he was 13 and Mary and Joseph found him in a synagogue) cannot be proven by the Bible. Instead they have been passed down through the ages. Like for instance that fact that he was a carpenter before he started his ministry. The fact that he started his ministry at 30 and died 3 years later. The day of Christmas (which may or may not have been when he was born. The apostles didn't think his actual birthday was important enough to write about) the fact that after Jesus died John took care of his mother and father. The fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters and therefore Mary was not a Virgin her whole life.


All of those facts have been passed down. That's how we know they're true. That and archeologists have found evidence that they are true.

Just like you would be an idiot for saying that Jesus never existed you would be an idiot for not accepting scientific evidence and things that were passed down over the last 2,000 years. It doesn't matter that these things are not in the Bible because the Bible is God's gift to man and everything that's in the Bible are things that God wants man to know without a shadow of a doubt because the Bible is the very words of God.