Posted by COJ [COJ] on March 30, 1999 at 04:35:08 {.Oe37V.qjQEQYbG2EmDogBxZ1OC1i2}:
In Reply to: COJ, TIBERIUS AND THE TEMPLE posted by A closer look..``` on March 29, 1999 at 22:03:05:
Hi Gary,
Summarizing your comments, then, you agree with me (1) that the 29 AD date is a secular date (the dating of the reign of Tiberius being wholly based on secular documents), and (2) that it is also a questionable date, as there are several other alternative dates for Jesus' baptism. These were exactly my points, Gary. When Anstey and others arrived at the 455 BC date, they retrocalcultated from 29 AD, which is a secular and uncertain date.
Your alternative attempt to arrive at your revised chronology by retrocalculating from 1992 AD (your date for the coming of the latest "pseudo-Messiah", whoever he is) needs no comments from me.
Re. my statement on Cyrus, it is true that I wrote:
>"..different views are held regarding when and by
whom this "word" was sent forth.
>If we "just stick to the Bible," it seems to point to the Persian king Cyrus."
However, note that the words "just stick to the Bible" is within quotation marks. As is evident from THE CONTEXT, I quoted the opinion of Storrs, Anstey, and others, who believed that in interpreting the "70 weeks" and other prophecies, history can be ignored. It is quite evident from THE CONTEXT that I do not share this view! I used the "70 weeks" prophecy as an illustration to show that such an approach is naive and superficial and may easily lead us astray. Note, too, that I used the word "seem": The reading of Isaiah 44:28-45:13 "SEEMS to point to Cyrus." I did not bother to explain that the reading of other passages, such as Nehemiah, chapter 2, SEEMS to point to Artaxerxes. I used the Isaiah passage to demonstrate that a cursory reading of a passage may lead us astray if history and other Biblical passages are ignored. I applied this to the Watch Tower Society's application of the 70 years, which "ON THE SURFACE may seem to be supported by some passages in the Bible", but should be abandoned because it is in conflict both with history and other Biblical passages. That was my point, which is very obvious from THE CONTEXT. You didn't mention this, Gary, but have repeatedly misused my statement by quoting me OUT OF CONTEXT.
Carl