September 11, 3 B.C.

[Darto]

Dating Jesus' Birth according to Revelation 12.

[JohnnyDangerously]

Dating Jesus' Birth according to Revelation 12.

Fixed the link.

[RAMCLAP]

That is in fact when Jupiter was in Virgo with Scorpio at her feet. Otherwise known as the Virgin giving birth to a son and the dragon waiting to devour the child. This was the prophesy and what the Magi from the east saw in the sky.

[Sailormilan2]

The ecliptic, which is the plane that the planets, Sun, and Moon, follow, goes right through Virgo. So, it?s not unusual for any of the planets, Sun, or Moon to be there.
If it truly was in 3BC/BCE, that means Matthew is wrong, because Herod died in 4BC/BCE. It also means that Luke is wrong because Luke has Mary still very pregnant in 6AD/CE, which was when the taxation order of Cyrenius/Quirinius occurred.

[RAMCLAP]

Josephus records that the Jews were being taxed by the Romans from Syria as early as 44 B.C. Josephus records: "Cassius rode into Syria in order to take command of the army stationed there, and on the Jews he placed a tax of 700 silver talents. Cassius commited suicide in 42 BC. So, Matthew and Luke are not wrong.

[Sailormilan2]

I'm not really sure what Cassius taxing in 42BC/BCE has to do with a census order by Quirinius 50 years later. Google taxation of Cyrenius, or Quirinius. Very plainly stated in Luke, and is a documented, and verifiable date.
But then, the author of Luke/Acts has gotten other historical things wrong on other occasions.

Assuming that the 3BC is correct, that would put Jesus at about 33 years of age when He started His ministry, and about 34 when He was crucified. Is that correct? Going again by the historical dates the author of Luke has provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

[RAMCLAP]

It was Augustus that ordered the census so that everyone could be taxed. I'm not exactly sure how they arrived at Christ's age when He started his ministry. The length of His ministry is described from one to three years.

[Sailormilan2]

It was Augustus that ordered the census so that everyone could be taxed. I'm not exactly sure how they arrived at Christ's age when He started his ministry. The length of His ministry is described from one to three years.

I was raised with 3 1/2 years, to satisfy Daniel's, "In the midst of the week he shall be cut off, but not for himself". I've heard that all my life. I just went through the Gospel of John, and John has a timeline of 1 year. 1 Passover to the last Passover.

[RAMCLAP]

I was raised with 3 1/2 years, to satisfy Daniel's, "In the midst of the week he shall be cut off, but not for himself". I've heard that all my life. I just went through the Gospel of John, and John has a timeline of 1 year. 1 Passover to the last Passover.

I'm of the same conclusion.

[CVShooter]

I can't see the link. Most scholars 20 years ago put the year anywhere from 0-6 BCE (BC for the old-schoolers among us). I'm comfortable with ambiguity.

What's funny to me is that so many people miss the fact that Jesus wasn't born around winter solstice. Likely, that was a nod to pagan festivals as a way to replace their "devil worship" with something more acceptable to the Xtn authorities. Luke notes that the sheep were in the fields on the day that the angel announced Jesus's birth to the shepherds. That's probably late winter or early spring during the green-up -- Feb-April somewhere. Otherwise, they'd be would be in the hills (they'd call them mountains but we'd call them hills). So his birth would have actually have been closer to Easter than winter solstice.

[Sailormilan2]

Part of the problem with the timing according to the Gospel of Luke is that the earliest manuscripts of “Luke” are not complete. They are fragmentary. Papyrus 75 lacks the first two chapters of Luke, and picks up part way through Chapter 3.
So, the question is this: Are those chapters supposed to be there, but they’re not because the manuscript is “fragmentary”, missing parts? Or, is that part of the manuscript correct, and those chapters were never there in the first place, and added later?

[CVShooter]

Part of the problem with the timing according to the Gospel of Luke is that the earliest manuscripts of ?Luke? are not complete. They are fragmentary. Papyrus 75 lacks the first two chapters of Luke, and picks up part way through Chapter 3.
So, the question is this: Are those chapters supposed to be there, but they?re not because the manuscript is ?fragmentary?, missing parts? Or, is that part of the manuscript correct, and those chapters were never there in the first place, and added later?

Who knows? I've been out of the scholarly world for decades now. So I'll leave those questions to the real scholars.

[ZapThyCat]

Most scholars 20 years ago put the year anywhere from 0-6 BC

There was no year 0. It went from 1 BC to 1 AD. heh.

[TrailerparkTrash]

But then, the author of Luke/Acts has gotten other historical things wrong on other occasions.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

Curious, but how has Dr. Luke “gotten other historical things wrong on other occasions?”

I noticed you reference Wikipedia in the link above. If you?re trusting an untrustworthy source such as wiki for biblical accuracy, that would make your information presented… well then…

[RAMCLAP]

We have personal letters from 1st cent Greeks to each other. There is nothing missing and Luke got nothing wrong. It's an ancient tactic from you know who.