One of the historical "markers" in the 70 weeks -- A.D. 27

[Stewart (SDA)]

A study on one of the historical 'markers' in the "70 week" prophecy.

Perhaps this will be of interest to some.

__________________________________

In the 3rd chapter of Luke, the Bible gives us a time marker. The 15th year of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, is specified as the year of Jesus’ baptism, and of His anointing with the Holy Spirit.

The 15th year of Tiberius is important to us as a people. It is one of the key dates relating to our understanding of the 2300 day prophecy.

 

Generally, we teach that “history says” that the 15th year of Tiberius was AD 27, but the reality is not nearly this convenient. History does not “say” as explicitly as we might hope, that the 15th year of Tiberius was AD 27. It is just not that easy to pin-point.

 

Now I do not doubt the correctness of the AD 27 date, and yet many historians [today it is “most” historians] do not believe that “the 15th year” was AD 27. There ARE reasonable objections to some of our prophetic teachings, and it worth being aware of these, so that when those objections are raised we don’t simply resort to contempt because we have no rational answers to give.

 

Let’s consider a few details.

 

Tiberius was adopted by Caesar Augustus when Augustus’ two surviving heirs (Lucius and Gaius) died within 18 months of each other.

 

Augustus, suddenly finding himself bereft of an heir, adopted Tiberius in A.D. 4 when Tiberius was 46 years old. Ten years after this, Augustus died (A.D. 14) and Tiberius became Ceasar.

The year of Augustus’ death and Tiberius’ succession is indisputably fixed at AD 14. (This AD 14 date is doubly confirmed by a Lunar eclipse which was recorded by various Roman historians, Tacitus (Annals, Bk 1, para.28), and Cassius Dio, etc., and the eclipse occurred shortly after Tiberius’ succession. (Lunar eclipses can be dated very accurately.))

 

If Tiberius’ ‘year-count’ began in AD 14 (the year in which his step-father Augustus died,) then his 15th year would be AD 29. We teach, however, that the 15th year of Tiberius was two years earlier, namely, A.D. 27.

 

Why this difference?

 

If the 15th year of Tiberius was indeed AD 29, then our explanation of the 2300 days, and the “70 weeks”, begins to fall apart – in the end it does not work.

 

So again, what reason do we have for placing Tiberius’ 15th year at the earlier point, i.e., in AD27?

A brief explanation is offered as follows:

 

The historian Gibbon explains that, prior to his death, Augustus “dictated a law by which the future prince [Tiberius] was invested with an authority equal to his own, over the provinces and the armies.” (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol 1. p.30.)

 

In “the provinces”, Tiberius had equal standing and authority with Ceasar Augustus. But it is worth pointing out, I think, that even while Augustus was still alive and technically holding superiority in Rome, “all Rome, which hated [Tiberius] for his stern puritanism, resigned itself to the fact that though Augustus was still prince [i.e. the living Emperor], Tiberius had begun to rule.” (Durant vol.3 p.231.)

 

Judea was one of the Roman provinces in which Tiberius’ authority was equal to Ceasar Augustus’, and of course it was in Judea that Luke wrote his account – dating the baptism of Jesus in the 15th year of Tiberius.

 

Another relevant point is that Augustus’ health had been failing for some years, and he was “an invalid at sixty [2 B.C.]” (See, Durant vol.3, p.231)). Augustus made Tiberius his co-regent, and in Judea, the reign of Tiberius was dated – not from the death of Augustus (as would normally have been the case) – but from that time, two years prior to the death of Augustus (AD 12), when Tiberius was given legal equality with Augustus.

 

Legally, and for all practical purposes, Tiberius was Emperor over the province of Judea, even while Augustus was still living. His reign began in AD 12, and so the 15th year of Tiberius was indeed AD 27.

[phkrause]

Interesting stuff Stewart

[phkrause]

Exactly

[JoeMo]

Jackson says:

"Now many can and do argue that the antitypical day of atonement did not begin in 1844. But they must then explain what did happen in 1844, or more to the point, what was to be cleansed in 1844.They cannot deny that the 2300 days ended in 1844 because the 2300 prophecy and its accompanying 70 week prophecy were given one one starting date, 457 BC."

 

I don't believe that you can say with any authority or certainty that ANYTHING happened in 1844 except that Jesus did NOT come to earth.  To define 1844 as the end-point of the 2300 days, one must assume that the"day-for-year principle applies to the 2,300 day prophecy; and that the specific decree which supposedly marks the beginning of the 2300 was in 457BC; and that the 2300 "days" were actually 24-hour days and not a reference to the routine daily sacrifices (the "evening" and the "morning" sacrifices).  If the "evenings and mornings" refer to the sacrifices,  we have 1150 days.Furthermore, I find it a little shaky to say that Jesus entered the Most Holy place in 1844, when Hebrews makes it clear that he went before the Father (wherever the Father is is the "Holy of Holies") when He ascended into heaven.  I infer that almost all of Hebrews 9 deals with Christ's activities in the Most Holy Place in heaven, as they are talking about yearly sacrifices that only took place on Yom Kippur.  Why would He need to re-enter the Most Holy Place in 1844 if He had already been in there for over 1800 years?

 

Also, to arrive at 1844, one must assume a historicist or preterist view of prophecy; neither of which is as robust as the futurist view (which assumes that most eschatalogical prophecy would take place long after Daniel and John had died).

[8thdaypriest]

Every time Jackson wants to "prove" that the cleansing of the Sanctuary began in 1844, he points to the 70 weeks, which he says are confirmed by the 27 AD baptism and 31AD death of Christ.

 

William Miller, and SDAs today teach that the prophecy of Daniel Chapter 8 and the prophecy of Daniel Chapter 9 are essentially one prophecy. 

 

The 2300 "evening mornings" of Daniel 8, begins with the command to restore and to build Jerusalem.  But that command is in Daniel Cpt 9 which is a DIFFERENT visitation. 

What specific words join those TWO prophecies into ONE?  

 

The vision of the ram and the goat of Daniel Cpt 8 is specifically said to refer "to the time of the end" (v. 17).   "I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation;."  The LORD commands Daniel to "seal up the vision" (v. 26). "Go your way Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the END." (12:9). 

 

Daniel was praying about earthly Jerusalem, and about his people (the Jews). 

The angel is sent to "give skill to understanding concerning" just what would happen to them, after the end of the 70 years of captivity, prophesied by Jeremiah.  

 

In the vision of Daniel cpt 8, AFTER the goat hits the ram and breaks both horns, the "notable horn" on the goat is "broken without hand". 

Four horns come up in place of the ONE, and then a "little horn" comes from one of the four horns.

The horn then persecutes the people of God, and "takes away the daily".

"A holy one" then asks HOW LONG WILL THE PERIOD OF PERSECUTION LAST, during which the "daily" will be "taken away" and the "host" will be trampled.

He wants to know about the period of persecution.   Daniel would assume the taking away of "the daily" means the Temple would be destroyed ONCE AGAIN.

The answer to his question is, "for 2300 evening mornings". 

 

Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7, Revelation 13:5, Revelation 12:6, Revelation 11:2-3 ALL SAY THAT THE PERIOD OF PERSECUTION WILL BE "time, times, and a part" (1260 days, 42 months).

 

The period of persecution ENDS with judgment being made in favor of the saints of the most high, and time time comes for them to inherit the kingdom.  (Daniel 7:25).

They inherit the kingdom AT THE END OF THE PERIOD OF PERSECUTION!

 

So - this CANNOT be talking about 2300 years from Daniel's day to 1844. 

 

Just my opinion.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Stewart,

Adventists not only can confidently use 27 AD as the year Jesus was annointed but can with assurance count back 483 years and  declare 457 AD as the year of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem...

I certainly agree with you Jackson, but I am seeing many of our teachers building "uncertainty factors" into our doctrines.

 

The second lesson in the current Sabbath School Quarterly takes, what is to me, a significant step. Referring to the multiple historical 'markers' [for AD27] given in Luke 3:1-2, the Lesson says, "Scholars put all these historic personalities together and give us a date close to A.D. 27 or 28 for the start of the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus."

 

The significance of that statement might easily be over-looked. But of course "close to A.D. 27 or 28" implies that in the near vacinity of these dates, Jesus was baptised, annointed, and began His public ministry. This practice of making room for uncertainty or doubt is fast becoming popular. It is called, I believe, Progressive Adventism.

[Stewart (SDA)]

...William Miller, and SDAs today teach that the prophecy of Daniel Chapter 8 and the prophecy of Daniel Chapter 9 are essentially one prophecy. 

 

The 2300 "evening mornings" of Daniel 8, begins with the command to restore and to build Jerusalem.  But that command is in Daniel Cpt 9 which is a DIFFERENT visitation. 

 

What specific words join those TWO prophecies into ONE?  

 

 

Rachel I suggest that there is a sequence of “specific words” showing that there is only ONE prophecy spanning Daniel chapters 8 and 9. I'm sorry if I am only repeating ideas you've already heard... I really don't want to weary you. But this (in summary) is our basic explanation linking the two chapters :

 

In Daniel chapter 8 Gabriel is commanded, “make this man to understand the vision” (8:16) regarding the Ram, the Goat, etc.

 

Gabriel undertakes his mission, but he is unable to complete it.

Daniel explains the reason : “I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days... I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.” (8:27) [Or as it is in Fenton's Translation, “...I was astonished at the revelation, and could not understand it.” Daniel's primary concern seems to have been the timing, because all the other elements seem quite clear.]

 

Then about 15 years later, Gabriel returns to Daniel and he resumes his work.

 

Daniel recognizes Gabriel whom he “had seen in the vision at the beginning.” (9:21) This (I think it is clear,) is a direct reference to the Daniel8 vision. (Daniel immediately associated Gabriel with that earlier vision seen in the 3^rd year of Belshazzar involving the Ram, the Goat, the Little horn, and the 2300 days.)

 

And then Gabriel says to Daniel, “understand the matter and consider the vision”. Again, I suggest that this is a call to consider that earlier vision which has come to Daniel's mind. I see no indication that Gabriel is speaking here about a new vision. (No additional imagery of Beasts, etc. is introduced.)

 

The only piece of the Daniel8 vision that Gabriel did not explain, all those years earlier, was the 2300 evening-mornings. And so it seems quite natural that the angel should now begin to speak about periods of time.

[Samie]

A study on one of the historical 'markers' in the "70 week" prophecy.

Perhaps this will be of interest to some.

__________________________________

. . .

 

If Tiberius’ ‘year-count’ began in AD 14 (the year in which his step-father Augustus died,) then his 15th year would be AD 29. We teach, however, that the 15th year of Tiberius was two years earlier, namely, A.D. 27.

 

Why this difference?

 

If the 15th year of Tiberius was indeed AD 29, then our explanation of the 2300 days, and the “70 weeks”, begins to fall apart – in the end it does not work.

 

So again, what reason do we have for placing Tiberius’ 15th year at the earlier point, i.e., in AD27?

A brief explanation is offered as follows:

 

. . .

 

Legally, and for all practical purposes, Tiberius was Emperor over the province of Judea, even while Augustus was still living. His reign began in AD 12, and so the 15th year of Tiberius was indeed AD 27.

 

When was Tiberius' 15th year of reign as emperor?

 

If he started to reign in 12 AD then his first year of reign is 12 AD:

 

1st year: 12 AD

2nd Year: 13 AD

3rd year: 14 AD

4th year: 15 AD

5th Year: 16 AD

6th year: 17 AD

7th year: 18 AD

8th year: 19 AD

9th Year: 20 AD

10th year: 21 AD

11th year: 22 AD

12th Year: 23 AD

13th year: 24 AD

14th year: 25 AD

15th Year: 26 AD

 

If he started to reign in 14 AD then:

 

1st year: 14 AD

2nd Year: 15 AD

3rd year: 16 AD

4th year: 17 AD

5th Year: 18 AD

6th year: 19 AD

7th year: 20 AD

8th year: 21 AD

9th Year: 22 AD

10th year: 23 AD

11th year: 24 AD

12th Year: 25 AD

13th year: 26 AD

14th year: 27 AD

15th Year: 28 AD

 

The ordinal count above shows that AD 27 as 15th year is off by a year, both from 12 AD or 14 AD.

[Samie]

Let us try to allow history corroborate Scriptural account in this issue of the 15th year of reign of Tiberius.

 

Stewart, quoted below (emphasis mine), correctly pointed out that it was 14 AD when Tiberius succeeded Augustus:

 

A study on one of the historical 'markers' in the "70 week" prophecy.

Perhaps this will be of interest to some.

__________________________________

In the 3rd chapter of Luke, the Bible gives us a time marker. The 15th year of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, is specified as the year of Jesus’ baptism, and of His anointing with the Holy Spirit.

The 15th year of Tiberius is important to us as a people. It is one of the key dates relating to our understanding of the 2300 day prophecy.

 

Generally, we teach that “history says” that the 15th year of Tiberius was AD 27, but the reality is not nearly this convenient. History does not “say” as explicitly as we might hope, that the 15th year of Tiberius was AD 27. It is just not that easy to pin-point.

 

Now I do not doubt the correctness of the AD 27 date, and yet many historians [today it is “most” historians] do not believe that “the 15th year” was AD 27. There ARE reasonable objections to some of our prophetic teachings, and it worth being aware of these, so that when those objections are raised we don’t simply resort to contempt because we have no rational answers to give.

 

Let’s consider a few details.

 

Tiberius was adopted by Caesar Augustus when Augustus’ two surviving heirs (Lucius and Gaius) died within 18 months of each other.

 

Augustus, suddenly finding himself bereft of an heir, adopted Tiberius in A.D. 4 when Tiberius was 46 years old. Ten years after this, Augustus died (A.D. 14) and Tiberius became Ceasar.

The year of Augustus’ death and Tiberius’ succession is indisputably fixed at AD 14. (This AD 14 date is doubly confirmed by a Lunar eclipse which was recorded by various Roman historians, Tacitus (Annals, Bk 1, para.28), and Cassius Dio, etc., and the eclipse occurred shortly after Tiberius’ succession. (Lunar eclipses can be dated very accurately.))

. . .

 

From 14 AD, the 15th year is 28 AD, not 29 AD (Please see my previous post). What is the significance of 28 AD? The year 28 AD correctly places the crucifixion of our Savior in 31 AD! How?

 

John records 3 Passover feasts that transpired between baptism and crucifixion of our Lord. The first Passover occurred after the Lord was baptized. Notice that after His baptism He was immediately led by the Holy Spirit to the wilderness to be tempted 40 days and 40 nights. Remember that Passover - a yearly feast - is on the evening after sunset of the 14th day of the first month of the year. Counting 40 days backward from day 14 of the year will bring us to the previous year, the year when Jesus was baptized; Counting 3 Passovers from the first one will bring us to the year of His crucifixion.

 

Scriptures record that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius reign as emperor. This was in 28 AD. The first Passover after His baptism was in 29 AD. The 2nd Passover was in 30 AD. The 3rd and last Passover, was in the year He was crucified, 31 AD.

[LifeHiscost]

Exactly

LightBearer's Ministry (SDA) are giving away a free copy of a book entitled "Messiah" which was discussed for a couple of hours on 3ABN, so intriguing I called to acquire one. If it doesn't slip my mind I'll comment on it after it arrives.

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Stewart (SDA)]

When was Tiberius' 15th year of reign as emperor?

 

If he started to reign in 12 AD then his first year of reign is 12 AD:

 

1st year: 12 AD

2nd Year: 13 AD

3rd year: 14 AD

4th year: 15 AD

5th Year: 16 AD

6th year: 17 AD

7th year: 18 AD

8th year: 19 AD

9th Year: 20 AD

10th year: 21 AD

11th year: 22 AD

12th Year: 23 AD

13th year: 24 AD

14th year: 25 AD

15th Year: 26 AD

 

...

Samie,

in reply to the dating table which shows the 15^th year of Tiberius as A.D.26, I would answer :

If the reign of Tiberius began (for example) in the Spring of A.D.12 then his anniversary would fall in the Spring of the following year. Do you see what I'm saying? His first “year” would not be limited to A.D.12 but would include part of A.D.13. And if this idea is extrapolated out to his 15^th year, then Tiberius' 15^th year would include part of A.D.27. I see no difficulty with this.

But if Tiberius' first year was limited to what-ever fragment of A.D.12 remained after he took office, then yes, I think I would have a problem, but I do not think that this was the case.

____________

It may be expedient for me to mention, Samie, that much of my library was lost to me when I left the United States, and that I am now unable to consult the source materials from which I drew the A.D.12 date. Gibbon does not appear to date the beginning of the co-regency, but now I see that another writer comments thus,

“In A.D.13, when the aged emperor's strength showed signs of failing, he procured a law by which Tiberius was invested with an unlimited “imperium proconsulare” and thus became his co-regent.” (History of Rome, Cary, p.515.)

Cary, in my view, is less authoritative than some other writers, but it seems that either way, (whether Tiberius began to reign in Judea in A.D.12 or A.D.13,) that there is still ample room for the A.D.27 date.

[JoeMo]

Why do we insist that the 70th week immediately follows the 69th week?

 

"And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.  And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” (Dan 9:26-27; ESV)

 

"After" doesn't necessarily mean immediately after.  From the context, the 70th week is cut off from the previous 69.  Just my opinion, but the 70th week is cut off until the time of the end.

 

The "annointed one" and "prince" (Capitalization in other translations was added by translators) sure doesn't sound like Jesus - He never destroyed the city.

 

Just my opinion; but the 70th week (of years) refers to a seven-yeat period of the "Time of the End". Then after half of that week, he puts an end to sacrifice.  Sounds like the prince is more of an Antichrist than a Christ.  To me, the last half of the 70th week week refers to the 1,260 days and the "time, times, and part of a time" refered to elsewhere in scripture.  Sacrifice and offering are ended because the Antichrist is ruling from the Temple Mount at this time.

 

I don't know if it was in this thread or another; but someone said that Daniel 9 is a continuation of the interpretation of the dream from Daniel 8.  If this is so, the angel in Daniel 8 said:

“Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.”  And when he had spoken to me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground. But he touched me and made me stand up. He said, “Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation, for it refers to the appointed time of the end." (Dan. 8:17-19)

 

If this is true, the appointed time of the end was NOT 457 BC to 33 AD; but we may currently be in (or about to enter) this time frame in our time.

[Samie]

There is reason to believe that the decree issued by Artaxerxes Longimanus in 457 BC was NOT for rebuilding of Jerusalem, but for beautification of the temple in Jerusalem. Ezra himself EXPLICITLY tells us this fact:

 

KJV Ezra 7:27 Blessed be the LORD God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem

 

I think there is a world of difference between rebuilding / restoration of the city of Jerusalem FROM beautification of the temple in Jerusalem. And Scriptures specify a decree for rebuilding / restoration of Jerusalem (Dan 9:25), NOT a decree for beautification of the temple in Jerusalem.

[Samie]

Ezra 4:12 is a statement of those who oppose the building of the temple in Jerusalem. See Ezra 4:1-9

 

Ezra 7:27 is Ezra's statement.

 

I rather side with Ezra than with the adversaries of Judah.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Samie, I agree that the beautification of the temple is irrelevant (in terms of prophetic fulfilment). But Artaxerxes' decree included other elements. I submit a few notes here, taken from an earlier thought.  I do suggest also, that the re-building and the restoration were two quite distinct things:

 

 

DECREE #3 : The Final Elements Added.

December 465B.C.
Artaxerxes [Longimanus] becomes King of Persia.

Ezra solicits a further decree from the King to fill up the lack of the preceding two decrees.
“And the King granted him all his request... in the 7th year [of the reign] of Artaxerxes”. (Ezra 7:6-7)

457B.C.
Artaxerxes issues the decree COMPLETING the specifications given in the prophecy of Daniel 9:25.

Jerusalem could now legally be “restored” to the condition it had prior to its destruction in 586BC.

The decree exempts the church from taxation.
Ezra 7:24 “...it shall not be lawful to impose tax, tribute, or custom on any of the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, Nethinim, or servants of this house of God.”

It also allows Jerusalem to implement its JUDICIAL system.

THIS IS THE CRITICAL POINT.
The power to restore the Jewish State had not been given the Jews in any of the previous decrees.

Ezra 7:25-26
“And you, Ezra, according to your God-given wisdom, set [“appoint”] magistrates and judges who may judge all the people who are in the region beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God; and teach those who do not know them. Whoever will not observe the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily on him, whether it be death, or banishment, or confiscation of goods, or imprisonment.”

An old historian (non-SDA) comments:                                   

“In the 7th year of Artaxerxes, Ezra obtained of the king... an ample commission, empowering him to return to Jerusalem with all such Jews as would follow him thither, in order to RE-ESTABLISH THE JEWISH GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION...” (Ancient History of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Grecians, and Macedonians" Vol. 1, Rollin, p.183.)
 

[Samie]

Why not believe them both???????

Both the Godly and the ungodly? I'll choose Ezra, the Godly.

[Samie]

You seem to  only want to believe what fits your doctrine. Artaxerxes decree is plain enough and Exra's reply expressing joy about the temple part of the decree in no way changes the contents of the decree.

 

Not what fits my doctrine; it's what fits Bible specs: Restoration of Jerusalem, NOT beautification of the temple. And the 457 BC Achaemenid decree of Longimanus is for beautification of the temple, says Ezra; his words, not mine.

 

That shows the decree pointed to by Dan 9:25 is not what you think it is.  All prophecies in Daniel that are related with the setting up of the abomination of desolation will yet find fulfillment before the Lord comes again (see Matt 24:15-31). And the 70-week-prophecy of Daniel 9 is among them.

[Samie]

That Jesus was baptized in 27 AD is off by a year.

 

John recorded THREE (3) Passover feasts after Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius whose first year of reign is 14 AD. From 14 AD, the second year is 15 AD, the 3rd year is 16 AD, and so on, and the 15th year would be 28 AD.

 

The first Passover after His baptism would be in 29 AD, the second in 30 AD, and the third in 31 AD, the year He was crucified.

[Samie]

In 31 AD, first full moon after the spring equinox was on Tuesday, March 27. Jesus ate Passover nighttime after that March 27 sunset. He was arrested that same night. Crucified daytime Wednesday, March 28, preparation day of Passover of the Jews (John 19:14). The Jews had their Passover meal eaten after sunset Wednesday, already Thursday by sunset to sunset reckoning, and was Passover Sabbath of the Jews.

[Stewart (SDA)]

That Jesus was baptized in 27 AD is off by a year.

 

...the 15th year of Tiberius whose first year of reign is 14 AD. From 14 AD, the second year is 15 AD, the 3rd year is 16 AD, and so on, and the 15th year would be 28 AD.

Samie,

Earlier in the thread I posted a quote from a historian, placing the beginning of Tiberius' reign [co-regency] at A.D.13 :

“In A.D.13, when the aged emperor's  [i.e. Caesar Augustus'] strength showed signs of failing, he procured a law by which Tiberius was invested with an unlimited “imperium proconsulare” and thus became his co-regent.” (History of Rome, Cary, p.515.)

I do not, as yet, understand your insistence that A.D,14 is the correct date.

Jackson has also posted quotes from Britannica, etc., giving A.D.13 as the year marking the beginning of Tiberius' reign.

[Samie]

Samie,

Earlier in the thread I posted a quote from a historian, placing the beginning of Tiberius' reign [co-regency] at A.D.13 :

“In A.D.13, when the aged emperor's  [i.e. Caesar Augustus'] strength showed signs of failing, he procured a law by which Tiberius was invested with an unlimited “imperium proconsulare” and thus became his co-regent.” (History of Rome, Cary, p.515.)

I do not, as yet, understand your insistence that A.D,14 is the correct date.

Jackson has also posted quotes from Britannica, etc., giving A.D.13 as the year marking the beginning of Tiberius' reign.

 

Not insisting, just citing the correct date, and you know it. 

 

Remember your OP?

If Tiberius’ ‘year-count’ began in AD 14 (the year in which his step-father Augustus died,) then his 15th year would be AD 29. We teach, however, that the 15th year of Tiberius was two years earlier, namely, A.D. 27.

 

. . .

 

Legally, and for all practical purposes, Tiberius was Emperor over the province of Judea, even while Augustus was still living. His reign began in AD 12, and so the 15th year of Tiberius was indeed AD 27.

 

And when shown your count is off by one you changed course.  Are you sure of where you stand, you changed your view so soon?

[Stewart (SDA)]

Samie, in the absence of historical reference material to show otherwise, yes, I have been willing to change the view expressed in my opening post.

Both Jackson and I have presented sources citing AD 13, but thus far it seems that you are resting upon assertion only, when speaking about AD14.

 

And I am sorry Samie, but I humbly disallow the thought that I know that the correct date is AD14.

 

If we charge one another with duplicity (or with any form of deceit), we really do need to be able to show good reason for it.

[8thdaypriest]

I'm with Joe on the 70th week.  I believe that last week will be the last 7 years of this age. 

 

I believe that last "week" will commence with an international command to restore and to rebuild the City of Jerusalem.

Which MEANS that  the City WILL be destroyed once again, at some point - future. 

Maybe not the WHOLE City. Just the old City - the ancient one. 

 

An evil "prince" to come will make a covenant with "the people" covering one "week".

But in the middle of that "week", that prince will break the covenant, ending the daily (sacrifices) to set himself up as "god", to "sit in the Temple, showing himself that he is God." 

 

Then will commence the final period of 1260 days of persecution. 

That persecution only ENDS when dominion is given to the Son of Man at the heavenly judgment (Daniel 7:25).

 

The point being - that the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 accurately predicted the coming and death of Messiah. 

We don't have to take that away, in order to ALSO believe that the last 7 years will be the final of this age. 

It is those verses concerning the last "week" of the seventy, which I believe have been misinterpreted. 

 

The sanctuary is cleansed - perfect tense - completed act - at the END of the 70 weeks. 

If you bring that last "week" down to the very END of this age, then the prophecy did not END in 1844!!

 

The prophetic "clock" will begin ticking again WHEN Israel's right to exist is internationally recognized with a command to restore and to rebuild THAT City, including the Temple. 

 

Just my opinion.

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[8thdaypriest]

Just a note about the day of the crucifixion:

 

The Passover Lamb was marked for death on the 10th day of Nissan. 

It was killed on the afternoon of the 14th.

 

When was Jesus "marked for death" and tethered to "the house" for inspection by every family member??

Was it not at the triumphal entry and subsequent presence in the Temple for 4 days.

 

IF Jesus was killed on a Wednesday, then the triumphal entry had to take place on a 7th Day Sabbath.  Yet there is NOT ONE WORD from the priests concerning that entry taking place on a Sabbath.  Riding an animal on a Sabbath was forbidden.  Walking the 2 miles from Bethany was also forbidden.  A "Sabbath day's journey was about half a mile.

 

IF Jesus was killed on a Thursday, then the triumphal entry had to take place on a Sunday.  But Jesus walked the 12 miles - uphill - from Jericho to Bethany, the day before the triumphal entry.   No Jew would have walked 12 miles - uphill - on a Sabbath.  Didn't happen!!  Especially with all the pilgrims traveling the same route.  That is WHY He stayed at Zacchaeus' house. 

 

IMO - the triumphal entry actually took place on a Monday, and Jesus died on a Friday afternoon.

 

There is a study at my website titled "Three Days and Three Nights" under the button for Doctrinal Studies.

 

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Samie]

Edited May 3, 2015 by Samie
I was wondering why the image file I pasted to the reply window did not show up upon posting the reply.