| Date: 2006-05-29 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 0 of 0 |
| This is a picture of Jesus using the motif of the Sun God. It's from the 3rd Century and is a mosaic in the Vatican Grottoes under St Peter's Basilica in Rome. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
  |
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-07-03 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| This mosaic was found in the Tomb of Julii (aka Mausoleum M) which was a Christian tomb, hence the likelihood that they were celebrating Jesus rather than Mithras or Helios. Other mosaics in this tomb include Jonah and the whale, the good shepherd carrying a lamb, and fishermen. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-10-30 |
Username: DanUnterbrink |
Helpful: 3 of 3 |
| If John the Baptist died in 35 AD, then Jesus must have died in 36 AD. This is the only date possible if Jesus died after John. However, this later timeframe for Jesus confuses the timeline for Paul. In Acts 18:1, the 50 AD persecution of the Jews by Claudius is mentioned. If Paul's 2nd missionary journey lasted 2-3 years and the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) occurred 17 years after Paul's conversion (Galatians 1:18 and 2:1), then Paul must have been converted around 32 AD. Could Paul have been converted before the death of Jesus? NO! The only reasonable answer is that Jesus died before John the Baptist. That is the reason why Josephus claimed that John held so much power over the people. (Ant. 18.118) The Messianic Jews were split at this point in history (35-36 AD). Some followed the resurrected Jesus while others followed the living John the Baptist. Later Gospel writers could not tolerate this split. They simply made John the Baptist subservient to Jesus at the beginning, middle and end of his career. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-01-27 |
Username: rabbiray1 |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| Yeshuah was born in about May-June of 02 A.D. and he only lived for 33 1/3 Years so he must have died in about 36 AD |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-01-29 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 1 of 1 |
| Hi Rabbi. Can you explain your rationale for believing that Jesus was born in 2 AD. Most people date his birth around 6 BC and some even use 6 AD, but this is the first time I've seen 2 AD. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-01-31 |
Username: rabbiray1 |
Helpful: 0 of 1 |
| If you add it (or subtract it for that matter) you will find that 36 AD subtract 33 1/3 you will come to 2 AD.
So if you do the math you will see this.
Also, all the information followers this matter, It was this year when the taxation went to all Israel to be taxed, it was also the same that the Kabbalah was the strongest (most practiced) throughout the Middel-East. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-02-01 |
Username: gkhaas |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| OK, rabbiray1,
What is your source for 36 A.D. and what is your source for 33 1/3 years of life? The Gospels themselves are inconsistent in their statements of when he was born, and we have only a terminus ad quem on when he died, given that all agree he died under the administration of Pontius Pilate. Now, Pilate's governance apparently ended in 36 A.D., so that may be your source for dating the end of Jesus' life, but where does the 33 1/3 come from? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-02-07 |
Username: rabbiray1 |
Helpful: 1 of 3 |
| Ok, I will try to explain to you,
When Yahwehshuah was born there was a star that shows every 200 years (this is the King Star (Megan-Malaik) so you trace this star back to when it could have seen by the Magi and you will find at this time was the year 2AD |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-02-07 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 1 of 1 |
| Hi Rabbi. Most scholars believe that the story of the "Star of Bethlehem" was a literary device, not an actual star or even a conjunction of stars. See the link in the right hand column for more info about this. Moreover, when I google "King Star" or "Megan-Malaik" I get no links. What are your sources for this hypothesis? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-02-15 |
Username: rabbiray1 |
Helpful: 0 of 1 |
| This is a star which is said to be beleived in by those who study the Kabbalah |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-02-15 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 2 of 3 |
| Hi Rabbi. I'm not sure that because people who practice the Kaballah believe in the star, that this constitutes evidence that the star existed. Again, do you have any links you can refer us to which provides some evidence for the existence of this star? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-12-24 |
Username: tall |
Helpful: 3 of 3 |
| I was surprised that your position is that because nearly everyone agrees John was killed before Jesus then it must be so. I note that just because nearly everyone believes that Mark was written in the first century you still disagree. I note that in the section “Jesus had a small following” you wrote, “since I know that these topics are (generally speaking) not the accepted ideas. …. So I'm not opposed to counter claims and evidence that refutes what I've put forward.”
While we agree that John was mostly likely killed in 35AD I was questioning the theory that Jesus died after this. I think the only evidence is Mark 6:14-29 and parallels. I suppose that you have no evidence outside of the gospels either way and so will not consider the possibility.
|
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-12-25 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 3 of 3 |
| Hi Tall. Apart from the fact that almost everyone thinks that John was killed first, and that all the gospels claim that John was killed first, it also makes common sense. John was the older person, had been politically active for a longer period of time, and was clearly more "in your face" in terms of his marketing techniques. The fact that Jesus was baptized by John implies that Jesus was a disciple of John, and thus, a more likely target. If that's not enough, there is a tradition among the Eastern Orthodox that John was in Hades preaching while Jesus still walked the earth. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-12-27 |
Username: tall |
Helpful: 3 of 4 |
| I agree that Jesus’ baptism by John implies that Jesus was a disciple of John. This then implies that John was around before Jesus and therefore likely to have ended his mission first but it is all implication. However there is a possibility that John’s mission lasted longer than Jesus’ did and ended afterwards. I can not accept as factual any tradition about someone being in Hades. All that can be said is that the Eastern Orthodox Church agrees with the gospels that John died before Jesus. I am not sure I am convinced that Jesus died first but the evidence either way is weak. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-28 |
Username: tall |
Helpful: 1 of 1 |
| Dear James Gardner I think Dan Unterbrink raises an interesting point about the timeline for Paul, which you have not responded to. I would like to bring to your attention different evidence from 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 we know that Paul was in Damascus during the reign of Aretas the king. Aretas IV Philopatris was King of the Nabataeans roughly 9 BC to 40 AD. Therefore this event at the latest happened before 41 AD.
In Galatians 1: 18 Paul states that after three years he went to Jerusalem and saw Cephas and James the Lord’s brother. Therefore if Paul escaped from Damascus in 40 AD this Jerusalem visit could be as late as 43 AD. Then Paul states he went to Syria and Cilicia. Then in Galatians 2:1 Paul states that after 14 years he went to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus. This could be 57 AD.
However while I am not sure how much weight to give to the timeline in Acts there are two dates that are of interest. In Acts 18:12-16 while Paul is in Corinth he appears before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia. Gallio was only proconsul for one year and this is most likely to have been 51-52 AD. Acts 24:27-25:1 states “But when two years had elapsed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison. Now when Festus had come into his province, after three days he went up to Jerusalem from Caesare'a.” It is generally believed that Porcius Festus was procurator of Judea from about 60 to 62 AD. Therefore it appears that Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea in 58-60 AD. These dates from Acts make it more likely that Paul was converted before 41AD. I think it is generally assumed that Paul’s visit to Corinth (50-52 AD) was just before he went to Jerusalem (Acts 18:21-22). Therefore if Paul went to Jerusalem in 53 AD, 17 years before would bring the date of his conversion down to 36 AD at the latest. While this might fit your 36 AD date for the crucifixion of Jesus it does raise issues that need addressing. However if he went in 52 AD then he would have been converted in 35 AD and therefore Jesus could not have been crucified the year after in 36 AD.
While it is generally accepted that Paul talks about three visits to Jerusalem Acts has five visits of Paul to Jerusalem, the third being the “Council of Jerusalem” which corresponds with the visit in Galatians 2:1-10 and using the timeline in Acts moves the date back even more. In Acts Paul stays in Corinth during which he appears before Gallio, which is dated to 50-52 AD, comes after the “Council of Jerusalem” which is then pushed back to about 49 AD and moves Paul’s conversion back to 32 AD. Therefore using Acts Paul’s conversion rules out a date for Jesus’ crucifixion of 33 AD.
|
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-05-12 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| Hi Tall. As you and Dan both point out, it is difficult to get firm dates for Paul's travels. Bear in mind that Paul's work is not "history" any more than the gospels are "history" and many of the things reported in the letters of Paul are clearly not historical. One has to balance this evidence (Paul's leters) against other historical information (e.g., death of Herod's brother Philip, removal of Caiaphas, removal of Pilate). I think there can be no question that the removal of Caiaphas and Pilate and the death of Philip are better place markers than the letters of Paul. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-07-02 |
Username: tall |
Helpful: 0 of 0 |
| James I am disappointed in your response to how the possible dating of Paul’s conversion affects the date of Jesus’ crucifixion. While we can both agree that it is difficult to discover history in Paul’s letters, Acts or the Gospels, both of us must believe that these can be used as sources for historical data or to weigh up the evidence to determine what we think happened and when it happened. I state that you use one gospel passage and its parallels as the main base to build the case that Jesus was crucified in 35 AD and question if it should be used as the base for this case. What you should have said was “one has to balance the Marcan passage and its parallels against Paul’s letters and Acts” The removal of Caiaphas and Pilate and the death of Philip are not better place markers than the letters of Paul for Jesus’ crucifixion. All that can be said about the date of the removal of Caiaphas and Pilate is that Jesus’ crucifixion most likely happened when they were in office. I am not sure that the death of Philip is a good place marker, but even if it is, it can only be used for the date of the death of John. The date of the death of John is only relevant if Jesus died afterwards and the only evidence of this comes from the unhistorical gospels. Maybe we are left with making a choice? One can look at Acts and Paul’s letters and conclude that it is highly unlikely that Jesus was crucified in 36 AD. One can look at the gospels and conclude that there are theological reasons for the Gospels to state that John died before Jesus. Or one can conclude that Mark is more likely to be historical when he writes that John died first and that either Paul in his letters was mistaken about when he was converted or that his letters were edited more than the gospels by the early church. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2009-07-23 |
Username: fivish |
Helpful: 0 of 2 |
| Jesus did not die, he never lived! This discussion is irrelevant. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
