Did Jesus die on 33AD?

i keep seeing this mentioned always that Jesus died on 33AD. but haven't we established that Jesus wasn't born on 1AD? but rather 4-6BC because Herod couldn't have had the babies killed on 1AD because he was dead by then. also the timing of the census if i'm not mistaken would also fall around that time

so wouldn't Jesus have died on 27AD if he was born on 6BC?

Biblical chronologists do not agree on the date of the birth of Christ, nor on the date of His death.

Dates for His birth range from 15 B.C. to 1 B.C. or even 1 A.D. (implausibly).
Dates for His death range from 19 A.D. to 36 A.D.

Many scholars think that He died in either 30 or 33 A.D. Dates in the late 20’s used to be a common opinion, but have fallen out of favor.

The date of Herod’s death is still a matter of some dispute. Most scholars used to give a date of 4 B.C. for his death, but currently 1 B.C. is favored.

My chronology (from my book Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary) is:
born 15 B.C. November 25
Herods death was in early 8 B.C. (so the Holy Family was in Egypt for several years)
died 19 A.D. April 7
rose 19 A.D. April 9

This is a bit off topic but I just gotta say it.

Why are we using the BC/AD time scale in this discussion? Shouldn’t we be using the BCE/CE time scale?

Because if you say ‘Jesus was born in 1 BC’ that’s like saying He was born before He was born. Catch my drift? I don’t think the BC/AD time scale is appropriate. Once you determine His d.o.b then you can use BC/AD, IMO.

Sorry. I can really be a stickler for semantics :o

Pin-pointing chronological exact dates leading up to the actual Birth, Ministry, and final Death of Jesus can be fascinating but only to a point. The Jews, the Greeks and even the Chinese all had prophecies leading up to the actual Savior Birth of Christ. Biblical accounts all conclude that Jesus ministry was thirty-three years. In the prophecies leading up to Christ’s birth, China had the same expectation as the Jews and Greeks, but because Christ was born on the other side of the world, it believed that the great Wise Man would be born in the West. The Annals of the Chinese Celestial Empire contain this statement:

In the 24th year of Tchao-Wang of the dynasty of the Tcheou, on the 8th day of the 4th moon, a bright star appeared in the Southwest sky which illuminated the kings palace. The monarch, struck by splendor, interrogated the sages. That showed him books in which this prodigy signified the appearance of the great Saint of the West whose religion was to be introduced into their country.

The Greeks expect Him six centuries before Christ’s actual Birth.
How did the Magi of the East know of His coming? Probably from the many prophecies circulated through the world by the Jews as well as through the prophecy made to the Gentiles by Daniel centuries before Christ’s Birth.

Scholar’s may argue amongst themselves as to the actual Birth and Death of Christ but I say why argue? Jesus Christ is the Only person who divided human history in two halves.
Hence we have BC and AD.

[quote="centurionguard, post:4, topic:193275"]
. . . Biblical accounts all conclude that Jesus ministry was thirty-three years. In the prophecies leading up to Christ's birth, . . .

[/quote]

Can you give a reference for that? All I can find is Luke 3:23

23* * Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Thirty was the age at which a rabbi could start teaching at that time and it seems agreed that He ministered for three years so some conclude that He was 33 at death. However, it says "about",He may have been a few years older.

Re the calculating of AD, I think that was established by a French scholar in the early 9th century. He may have been more influenced by his desire to place Charlemagne's coronation on January 1, 800, than in being completely historically accurate.

I think the Synoptic Gospels imply 33 A.D while the Gospel of John implies 31 A.D.

All I can find is Luke 3:23 Thirty was the age at which a rabbi could start teaching at that time and it seems agreed that He ministered for three years so some conclude that He was 33 at death.

Sorry; your right…it was a typo error on my part. I meant to say three years of actual ministry as far as biblical records were concerned. Nothing substantial brings to light about the hidden ministry of Jesus before he reached the age of thirty.

Mark Chapter 1 takes on the biblical account of Jesus coming to the river Jordon to be Baptized by John the Baptist and then being lead into the desert to be tempted by Satan. Most biblical scholars agree this is where He branched off to begin His ministry.

[quote="choy, post:1, topic:193275"]
i keep seeing this mentioned always that Jesus died on 33AD. but haven't we established that Jesus wasn't born on 1AD? but rather 4-6BC because Herod couldn't have had the babies killed on 1AD because he was dead by then. also the timing of the census if i'm not mistaken would also fall around that time

so wouldn't Jesus have died on 27AD if he was born on 6BC?

[/quote]

By the Jewish liturgical calender, the the Julian calender or the Gregorian calender?

[quote="choy, post:1, topic:193275"]
i keep seeing this mentioned always that Jesus died on 33AD. but haven't we established that Jesus wasn't born on 1AD? but rather 4-6BC because Herod couldn't have had the babies killed on 1AD because he was dead by then. also the timing of the census if i'm not mistaken would also fall around that time

so wouldn't Jesus have died on 27AD if he was born on 6BC?

[/quote]

Although there is no agreement as to the exact dates of when Jesus died or was born, the 33 year is the number of years He was alive on earth. Thus, Christians have always maintained that He died and rose again from the dead in the year 33. The A.D. means "Anno Domini" in Latin - "In the year of the Lord" meaning that Christ is ALIVE IN OUR DAY. Many 'brainiac' CCD teachers have been teaching children that A.D. means "after death" which is heretical. And, if that were true, what do you do with the 33 years prior to that? That has been always one of my pet peeves. CCD teachers need to be instructed in what they teach and parishes should put an end to the nonsense.

[quote="peary, post:9, topic:193275"]
Although there is no agreement as to the exact dates of when Jesus died or was born, the 33 year is the number of years He was alive on earth. Thus, Christians have always maintained that He died and rose again from the dead in the year 33. The A.D. means "Anno Domini" in Latin - "In the year of the Lord" meaning that Christ is ALIVE IN OUR DAY. Many 'brainiac' CCD teachers have been teaching children that A.D. means "after death" which is heretical. And, if that were true, what do you do with the 33 years prior to that? That has been always one of my pet peeves. CCD teachers need to be instructed in what they teach and parishes should put an end to the nonsense.

[/quote]

*CCD teachers need to be instructed in what they teach and parishes should put an end to the nonsense. *

So much for the blind leading the blind. And one wonders why there is such a lack of catechesis in the Catholic Church when even Catholic adults don't know, study, or have a genuine interest in their catechism. Should it really surprise us? Perhaps it should not only surprise but shock us. When I was a kid there were parochial Catholic schools with Nuns, Brothers and Priest teaching catechism. Seems those archaic days have far gone by.

thankfully, being a Catechist myself, i do know that AD means Anno Domini, thanks to an 80s mini-series on the life of the Apostles

of course, AD relies on that Christ was born on 1AD. and since we have found that the given date for 1AD was inaccurate and 1AD should have been 6 years earlier, by some estimates

but given that we are not going to adjust 1AD back 4-6 years (making today instantly 2016), i’m just wondering why universally everyone still holds on to the 33AD death when the birth could be as far back as 6BC?

[quote="choy, post:11, topic:193275"]
thankfully, being a Catechist myself, i do know that AD means Anno Domini, thanks to an 80s mini-series on the life of the Apostles

of course, AD relies on that Christ was born on 1AD. and since we have found that the given date for 1AD was inaccurate and 1AD should have been 6 years earlier, by some estimates

but given that we are not going to adjust 1AD back 4-6 years (making today instantly 2016), i'm just wondering why universally everyone still holds on to the 33AD death when the birth could be as far back as 6BC?

[/quote]

Because time is a human construct of the mind, and 33 A.D. is the bookmark for the Resurrection.

April 3rd, 33AD … was the Day of the Cross.

www.bethlehemstar.net/ … gives the scientific evidence of date

This is a very interesting subject.

It depends on your interpretation on the accounts of the Death of Christ. Because we must decide how to understand the slight contradiction on the dates. In John 19, Christ dies in the preparation to the Passover, at the time the high priest was killing the lamb. This arises a small contradition with the synoptic gospels, it is said on the day of the feast of the unleavened bread, which implies the next day. This is difficult to resolve, but not impossible, Jews from Galilee had the custom of marking the beggining of the day at dawn of Thursday, and not at the dusk, therefore, Jesus and his galilean disciples were just following their customs.

So, assuming Joanine chronology, we must find a year whitin the reign of Tiberius, where Nisan 14 falls in a friday. And it happens that 33 AD is the best candidate, moreover, there was a lunar eclipse on that same day, which would explain some of the phenomena told in the gospel accounts.

This is obviously (as any chronology) disputed, But I find a rather ingenious calculation, and it was first proposed by no one more than Isaac Newton!

On the date of birth of Our Lord, we are in much worse state, as it would be expected. The gospel of Luke says: “ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα”, beggining at about thirty years old, which can mean a window from 28 to 33 years for the beggining of his ministry, Luke was not sure about the exact age (perhaps not even Mary, who may have been Luke’s source for these early accounts, and in a place wihtout baptism certificates and social security numbers, some dates must have been hard to track). so we can’t take this 30 years at face value. On the duration of his ministry, I would say 3 years is inferred from John, but it may well vary.

:thumbsup:

I think the lunar eclipse that could be seen in Jerusalem on Friday, the day before Passover, 3rd April 33AD is too co-incidental to dismiss.

I think when our calendar was established they got the year of His death right, but the year of His birth wrong. So I believe He was older than 33 when He was crucified. :twocents:

[quote="bdelykleon, post:14, topic:193275"]

So, assuming Joanine chronology, we must find a year whitin the reign of Tiberius, where Nisan 14 falls in a friday. And it happens that 33 AD is the best candidate, moreover, there was a lunar eclipse on that same day, which would explain some of the phenomena told in the gospel accounts.

This is obviously (as any chronology) disputed, But I find a rather ingenious calculation, and it was first proposed by no one more than Isaac Newton!

[/quote]

The lunar eclipse is the key in pinpointing the date of 4/3/33. John was at the foot of cross and witnessed all events in the sky that day. Peter stood afar, watching from a distance, but he too witnessed all events of the eclipse -- he covers in Acts 2:19-23, during his sermon at Pentecost.

Chinese astronomers recorded that a total lunar eclipse occurred on 4/3/33. This can be verified by running the sky backwards to 4/3/33 date ... and there we discover by computer imaging the Lunar Eclipse began shortly after noontime [Jerusalem timezone] and was TOTAL @ 3PM [the precise hour the Lord died].

At exactly 3PM ... if one were standing on the moon and looked back at earth, the Sun [representing the Son of God] was fully 'eclipsed' by the earth. Further proof of this date for death of Christ, is the Sun was centered in the Constellation Aries the Ram the Sheep] @ 3PM. It was exactly located in the center of that constellation ... precisely in the HEART of the Ram. The odds of this scientific phenomenon happening by chance are not lost upon astrononers/scientists/mathematicians [like Newton, Einstein, or any statistician].

Modern science has not only precisely identified the VERY HOUR in history of the Cross,but also has identified the dates of Annunciation and Birthdate of Jesus.

www.bethlehemstar.net/ .... gives the complete details

No scholar, no Biblical chronologist, would draw a conclusion as to the year of the death of Christ based solely or mainly on a lunar eclipse. Lunar eclipses are common events. There are at least two lunar eclipses every year, and there can be as many as three or four lunar eclipses in the same year. And since Passover occurs at the time of the full moon, any lunar eclipse that month would coincide with Passover.

Also, the lunar eclipse of April 3, AD 33, was not particularly remarkable, esp. from Jerusalem. It would have been visible from Jerusalem only for a brief time, as a partial lunar eclipse, just as it was ending, a little after sunset. There is no mention in the Gospels of such a lunar eclipse.

The prophecy of Joel, cited by Peter in Acts, (Acts 2:20; cf. Joel 2:31), is obviously not referring to the natural event of a lunar eclipse, since this event happens every year. Rather, it refers to very unusual signs in the sky, in the sun and moon, such as are also described in Revelation.

Peter is referring the events in nature that occurred on the Day of the Cross … which happened to coincide with the Lunar Eclipse on 4/3/33 … very precisesly coincided, to the exact HOUR …:slight_smile:

Science has disproven your ‘opinion’. :smiley:

[quote="brb3, post:19, topic:193275"]
Peter is referring the events in nature that occurred on the Day of the Cross ... which happened to coincide with the Lunar Eclipse on 4/3/33 .... very precisesly coincided, to the exact HOUR ...:)

Science has disproven your 'opinion'. :D

[/quote]

Jews knew what an eclipse was. It wasn't mentioned in Scripture on the day of the Crucifixion. It said that during the time, the sky was darkened. A longer than normall eclipse would have lasted. Luke says that the darkness began around noon and lasted until three, but then in the next phrase an eclipse *is *mentioned, depending on what translation one has. The Douay-Rheims has, for this, "And it was almost the sixth hour; and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." (Luke 23:44-45). Modern translations have assumed too much and are not keeping with an authentic translation.
And then we have the earthquake at the time of Christ's death which also caused damage to the Temple and and tore the curtains in the Holy of Holies.

So, actually, Ron is correct. Science has disproven nothing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.