Thread:TigvaWolfs/@comment-1777104-20160215045542

Thank you for your edit. I am sorry that I had to roll it back. The article is my "signature" article and I can defend the dates I used for the birth of Christ. I will consider your other edits tomorrow.

First, the original calendar reform, that dated Jesus' birth, had it right. Later scholarship noted an eclipse in 4 BC, but missed a more obvious one in 1 AD. Besides that, there is the sign in the heavens in Revelation 12:1-5. The new moon at the feet of the woman giving birth gives a precise day that happens about every 14 years or so. John was shown the same formation in either the 90's or 60's. (I prefer the 90's).

Whereas AD 30 works well, there was a definite "blood moon" (partial) eclipse at sunset on April 3, 33. Luke says that Jesus was "about 30," a bit odd for a man of details as he was. So, Jesus had reached the legal age to be anointed as a servant of God (though not a Levite, he was THE high priest). Besides that, the baptism was anointing him as a Prophet as well.

Since the exact dating as to the year of Tiberius' reign is given by Luke, we know only when John began his ministry -- at age 30 and as a priest. The 15th year of Tiberius would be in AD 29, with Jesus beginning in the spring of AD 30.

Good men disagree on much of this, and I am working on an internal dating system based on the genealogies of the Old Testament. There is some flexibility but it looks like the dates line up with dates of secular events of recorded history very well.

I encourage you to create new articles, based on our guidelines. If you are going to make changes like those dates, send a note to the main author of the article first. Part of collaboration is communication.

In Christ,

SouthWriter Administrator and "content manager" 