Posted by Gary [GLamotta] on March 31, 1999 at 16:31:42 {ohFII14TUcMRXA6xmpscboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: ***COJ, TIBERIUS AND THE TEMPLE posted by COJ on March 31, 1999 at 06:09:12:
Hello Carl,
Greetings.
Yes, I understood what you are saying and I
understand that, in this case, many persons
choose various optional dating. So I understand.
So basically, we're agreed.
That the date of Jesus' baptism is
subjective
to various interpretation; but that the rule
of Tiberius, in general, is a generally undisputed
historical reference.
I also understand that Paul's use of a certain term may have been more consistent, generally, to the co-rulership years. But apparently, it could also apply to his sole rulership years.
So, I accept totally the OPTIONALITY at this point of dating the baptism of Jesus in 29 vs 27CE based upon the language of Luke's reference to the 15th year of Tiberius.
My only point here would be that his language does not preclude the 29CE dating.
We're on the sidelines of what's already here, so all we can do is observe and compare, so that's all I'll pretend to do at this point.
Thanks for this information. I know we disagree on many things, but I've learned a lot from these detailed discussions and I appreciate your sharing.
Cheers,
Gary