What was the date of the Crucifixion?

[Phoneman777]

This continues from my previous thread, ‘Daniels 70-Weeks Timeline.’ It is related, but unfortunately there is not unanimous agreement about the date of the crucifixion. Experts differ from approximately AD27 to AD36 as to when the cross happened and followers say it doesn't matter much anyway. It does matter because it affects our count of weeks. Entire prophetic systems stand or fall on correct timing as it concerns the chronology of the cross.

So when? Exactly when was the Cross?

Let me give a bit of background to this issue. A couple of centuries ago Bible dates all followed the calculations made by Bishop Ussher (Annals of the World, AD1658) His date for the crucifixion was AD33 and commentaries followed his dates without much question. Sir Robert Anderson took it to the next level with his 360-day calendar (The Coming Prince, AD 1895) and his theory was picked up by Cyrus Schofield who spread it far and wide in his Bible notes.

However from the mid 20th century onwards Bible scholars have been questioning the AD33 crucifixion date. Most have concluded that it should be 7 April AD30 and there are very good arguments for that. For example, have a look at the NIV and the ESV study Bibles. They support the early date. So do secular encyclopedias.

To start with, here is a diagram: I hope to go through these arrow points one by one.

The reason for the lack of unanimity is the date 457 B.C. leads to the wrong conclusion for many, so on that basis alone they reject it.

The ONLY decree that makes sense is the 3rd decree of Artaxerxes - NOT the reinstatement of it in 444 B.C. after it was suspended pending the investigation - the initial decree in 457 B.C. 483 years later puts us at 27 A.D. when He was anointed "Messiah the prince" and 3 1/2 years later - spring of 31 A.D. - He was crucified.

 

[The Light]

just because you so loathe to be wrong.

LOL. You still don't get it. You think this is about who is right and who is wrong. It may be that for you, and apparently it is. To me it's about knowing the truth and speaking the truth. If you could find any scripture that proved what you are saying is right that would be just fine because my goal is to seek the truth. But we are way past that at this point. I already know what the truth is. I already know that by the Word of God we can know that Jesus did not die in AD 30. I've seen so much baloney on these threads that seem more interested in leading people from the truth, that I know it is not the truth that most here seek, and that is why so many walk in blindness and lack understanding.

 

[ewq1938]

He is not called King of kings in Revelation 14:14.

So? He is still the King of Kings.

As God He is King of kings and Lord of lords and wears many diadema - the crown of kings.

As God He is King of kings and Lord of lords and wears a Stephanos - the crown of kings.

 

[Zao is life]

As God He is King of kings and Lord of lords and wears a Stephanos - the crown of kings.

The Man Jesus Christ who is the judge is wearing a stephanos. The King of kings and Lord of Lords is wearing many diadema.

You have it as just a coincidence, so be it.

 

[Zao is life]

The reason for the lack of unanimity is the date 457 B.C. leads to the wrong conclusion for many, so on that basis alone they reject it.

I don't know who your "many" is in this thread. You + 1 isn't "many". But there is Chris + 3 other people I can recall supporting his dates in this thread. Your "many" is a penny and a half.

 

[The Light]

The reason for the lack of unanimity is the date 457 B.C. leads to the wrong conclusion for many, so on that basis alone they reject it.

It's rejected simply because it is the wrong decree.

The ONLY decree that makes sense is the 3rd decree of Artaxerxes - NOT the reinstatement of it in 444 B.C. after it was suspended pending the investigation - the initial decree in 457 B.C. 483 years later puts us at 27 A.D. when He was anointed "Messiah the prince" and 3 1/2 years later - spring of 31 A.D. - He was crucified.

AD 31 cannot be the year Jesus was crucified as Jesus died on a Friday, on the preparation day of the Passover. In AD 31 Passover is on a Monday. You might try April 3, AD 33.

 

[ewq1938]

The King of kings and Lord of Lords is wearing many diadema.

The King of kings and Lord of Lords is wearing a Stephanos also.

 

[ewq1938]

Not where He is called King of (all) kings and Lord of (all) Lords.

He's still the king of kings whether it's mentioned or not. Do you think he isn't God if it's not mentioned? You are defending a defenseless argument.

You are also wrong about what a stephanos can and cannot be.

 

[Zao is life]

He's still the king of kings whether it's mentioned or not. Do you think he isn't God if it's not mentioned? You are defending a defenseless argument.

You are also wrong about what a stephanos can and cannot be.

Hope you realize it's not my mouth you are putting words into. It's Jesus' mouth because He unveiled all these things to John.

He is King of kings and Lord of Lords despite the fact that it is not stated in Revelation 14:14 and the only places He is named with that title are Revelation 17:14 and Revelation 19:16 (and in both verses He is seen fighting against the armies of the beast).

In Revelation Chapter 1 there are different words used to describe His deity.

Keep putting words into the mouth of Christ if you like.

A king does not bestow his royal crown (diadema) upon anybody.

Like the sovereign in the U.K, different crowns are worn by them for different occasions. The massive crown placed on the Queen's head was placed on her head only once in her lifetime - at her coronation. The same will happen with king Charles III. Different crowns worn for different occasions. That's the way the ancient world worked and much of it is the way it still works in some traditions in countries like the U.K and others who have monarchies. Different garments worn for different occasions and ceremonies, and different crowns too. Different all sorts of items and ceremonial things symbolizing a host of stuff.

Christ earned His crown of honor (stephanos) with His own blood and righteousness and service and obedience to God and suffering. God the Father bestows the same type of crown upon those who are in Christ through faith in Christ. It's His honor and His victory that the saints share in, and that is why everything wearing a stephanos is what is made holy by God - except the crowns on the locusts which look like stephanos but are not the real thing.

The saints and servants of Christ will never get to wear His diadema - ever. That is His alone to wear. The king's crown (diadema) is his own crown by birthright and the king shares it with nobody and bestows it upon nobody.

Satan cannot bestow the honor of the stephanos crown on anybody. That is not his to give, and never will be. It's God's alone to give.

The stephanos is only bestowed upon the holy and righteous who are holy and righteous in Christ - as symbolized by the color white. That's why the "the shapes of the locusts were like horses prepared for battle. And on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men." (Revelation 9:7).

Like fool's gold. Not real.

Now I'm withdrawing from this debate, because you have stopped your ears in order that you may continue to believe what you want the truth to be and started falsely accusing me of saying things I did not say in desperate attempts to prove your unprovable position - not even realizing that I'm only quoting the Word of Christ in the Revelation in chapter 19 and chapter 14 where Christ is seen with a different type of crown each time, and explaining why, and what the different crowns that are seen worn by Jesus in each passage symbolize and mean. But you do not have ears to hear it.

Try put one of the crowns (diadema) worn by king Charles only on the Prime Minister's head and you'll see what happens to you. But the stephanos was a crown of honor and its origin is the crown placed on the victorious athlete's head by the king at the ancient Olympic Games.

 

[The Light]

Not where He is called King of (all) kings and Lord of (all) Lords.

He is wearing a stephanos in REVELATION 14:14 - that He earned, being the only one to earn His stephanos - as the Son of Man coming in judgment. The Man Jesus Christ who has been appointed as judge.

======================================​

Royal badges have been in use since the earliest stages of English heraldry. They are invariably simple devices, and numerous examples were adopted and inherited by various sovereigns. These are found in the glass and fabric of royal palaces and memorial chapels, and sometimes in the houses of those who enjoyed or anticipated royal patronage.
Royal badges of England - Wikipedia

====================================​

So someone owns a restaurant (pretend it's you). The king and queen frequently dine at your restaurant, so the king bestows upon you his royal badge for you to display proudly on your restaurant wall, so all your other patrons can see it too. It's an honor.

That's what a royal badge's use is.

A diadema is the king's crown and mark of his authority. He bestows it on nobody.

The 7 heads of the beast are 7 kings in Revelation 17 and in Revelation 12 the dragon has 7 diadema crowns in his 7 heads. The 10 kings of Revelation 13 are wearing diadema. The king of kings and Lord of Lords in Revelation 19 is wearing many diadema. The passage is showing His royal authority, unlike Revelation 14 which is showing His authority as the Son of man who has been appointed to be the judge and who has come to judge.

But the stephanos worn by the Son of man coming in judgment - the Man Jesus Christ who has been appointed the judge - in Revelation 14 is bestowed upon the saints who are wearing a stephanos in all these verses:

1 Corinthians 9:24-25
"Do you not know that all the runners in a stadium compete, but only one receives the prize? So run to win. Each competitor must exercise self-control in everything. They do it to receive a perishable crown [stéphanos], but we an imperishable one."

stéphanos is used in the same sense in reference to the saints in Philippians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 2 Timothy 4:8; 1 Peter 5:4; James 1:12; and Revelation 2:10 and Revelation 3:11. They are never wearing diadema.

The 24 elders are wearing stephanos in Revelation 4:4 and Revelation 4:10; and the woman of Revelation 12:1 is wearing a stephanos of 12 stars.

The white horse of Revelation 6:2 is NOT wearing a diadema (the king's crown) - he is wearing a stephanos.

The white horse symbolizes the gospel going forth and the rider symbolizes the witnesses of Christ - and the power behind them is Christ.

The red horse is the same color as the dragon and symbolizes the activities of the beast. Its rider symbolizes the beast and the power behind him is Satan.

The events are not chronological. It's an unveiling, not a chronology.

We need to get the seals right. If we get them wrong (like you are) we will get a whole lot of the unveiiing wrong too, because these are the seals. The seals seal the scroll. Get the seals wrong and the scroll remains mostly sealed to you. You're only catching glimpses of it.

LOL

 

[The Light]

He appeared long ago at Calvary in the midst of the 70th week.

I wonder why all the things that you believe have to be proven by a fudged date, a wrong decree, changing Passover, and a whole plethora of other nonsense, and it still doesn't work. And that does not give you cause to think that maybe, just maybe, you are in error. We know for sure that Jesus could not have died in 30 AD because Passover is on Wednesday in 30 AD and Jesus died on Friday the day of preparation of Passover. That basically completes the proof when Jesus died, as AD 30 is impossible. We know for a fact that He died April 3, AD 33.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Jesus could not have died in 30 AD because Passover is on Wednesday in 30 AD

Full moon was 9.36pm, Thursday, 6th April 30 AD. (Passover occurs on full moon)

See Grailhunter's diagram #186

 

[ewq1938]

He is King of kings and Lord of Lords despite the fact that it is not stated in Revelation 14:14

At least you have learned that from our exchange. Now you need to understand that stephanos can refer to a royal crown.

 

[ewq1938]

We know for sure that Jesus could not have died in 30 AD because Passover is on Wednesday in 30 AD and Jesus died on Friday the day of preparation of Passover.

Regardless of the year, Jesus did not die on a Friday. He died on a thursday, being in the grave thurs night and day, friday night and day and saturday night and day, completing the prophecy of being in the grave 3 days and 3 nights.

 

[Zao is life]

At least you have learned that from our exchange. Now you need to understand that stephanos can refer to a royal crown.

I never learned that from our exchange. Nothing you said that I was claiming about that is what I was claiming.

You on the other hand have learned nothing because you're still hanging onto your false notion about the white horse of the first seal. You have not learned that a stephanos is not the same as a kingly crown. The mark of a king's sovereign authority is not a stephanos. It is a diadema.

 

[ewq1938]

He is not called King of kings in Revelation 14:14.


He comes as King of all kings and Lord of all lords in Revelation 19.

Rev 14 is one of several depictions of the second coming and he is the King of kings there with his royal Stephanos crown.

As God He is King of kings and Lord of lords and wears a Stephanos - the crown of kings.

The Man Jesus Christ who is the judge is wearing a stephanos. The King of kings and Lord of Lords is wearing many diadema.

He's still the king of kings whether it's mentioned or not.

He is King of kings and Lord of Lords despite the fact that it is not stated in Revelation 14:14

 

[ewq1938]

You have not learned that a stephanos is not the same as a kingly crown. The mark of a king's sovereign authority is not a stephanos. It is a diadema.

The mark of a king's sovereign authority CAN BE a stephanos. You reject the knowledge and expertise of scholars to form your own personal non-scholarly opinion on these two words.

You spent post after post trying to make Jesus only a man in Rev 14 with a stephanos, and a King in Rev 19 with a diadem and when that failed, you just started repeating that Jesus is a King in Rev 14 even if not mentioned which is what I told you! You need to read more and post less so you can learn better and stop falsely teaching.

 

[Zao is life]

The mark of a king's sovereign authority CAN BE a stephanos. You reject the knowledge and expertise of scholars to form your own personal non-scholarly opinion on these two words.

You spent post after post trying to make Jesus only a man in Rev 14 with a stephanos, and a King in Rev 19 with a diadem and when that failed, you just started repeating that Jesus is a King in Rev 14 even if not mentioned which is what I told you! You need to read more and post less so you can learn better and stop falsely teaching.

LOL. But it's you who is rejecting the very definition of the word stephanos as given by the scholars you yourself quoted. LOL. And it's you who is rejecting the knowledge and the expertise of scholars to hang onto your own personal non-scholarly opinion on these two words.

Anyone can see that the words "royal badge" were easy to obtain the meaning of - yet you hang onto your own non-scholarly interpretation of what the scholars say about the meaning of stephanos.

LOL. This is ridiculous. The crown of the sovereign that represents his sovereignty is a diadema.

.. and you keep falsely implying - very underhandedly - that the fact that I mentioned Revelation 14:14 is not talking about Jesus in terms of His King of Kings and Lord of Lord status but in terms of His Son of man status and in this passage He is coming to gather His harvest, was me claiming He somehow loses His King of all kings status because the diadema is not mentioned in Revelation 14:14 but the stephanos - which is a crown of honor and His crown He wears as the Man Christ Jesus who is the judge of the earth.

I was not claiming that He loses His King of all kings and Lord of all Lords status and I think that much is obvious to anyone who approaches this subject from a scholarly standpoint.

Jesus is the only one to be wearing both types of crowns in the Revelation.

But you fail to understand. Your willful blindness and total lack of scholarly approach to this subject is as obvious as your false implications and insinuations that I'm claiming something that I'm not claiming regarding Christ's King of all kings and Lord of all Lords status.

@ewq1938 Now all you need is to develop a scholarly approach to understand that a stephanos never represents the sovereignty of a royal but a diadema always does.

I don't know any more if you're capable of that though. I used to think you are. But you've changed my mind about that.

 

[covenantee]

I wonder why all the things that you believe have to be proven by a fudged date, a wrong decree, changing Passover, and a whole plethora of other nonsense

It's not proven by those.

It's proven by this:

Daniel 9:24
"Seventy weeks are determined"

No plethora.

Just one indisputable declaration.

 

[The Light]

Full moon was 9.36pm, Thursday, 6th April 30 AD. (Passover occurs on full moon)

See Grailhunter's diagram #186

Passover occurs on a full moon? I am unaware of a scripture that says the Passover occurs on full moon. I am however aware of where the Lord God, maker of heaven and earth, says Passover occurs. That would be the 14th of Nisan.

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

As always, I'm going to have to go with the Word of God on this. Instead of trying to move Passover from the 14th of Nisan, where the Lord says it goes, why don't you just change your year from AD 30 to AD 33. You find that everything lines up perfectly with no need to fudge the facts.