Another ancient interpretation is: "Judah shall possess the sceptre till he comes to whom it belongs." So, in substance, the Septuagint (according to one reading), Aquila, Symmachus, the Peohito, Onkelos, one Arabic, and most of the ancient versions, the Jerusalem Targum, Jahn, Von Bohlen, DeWette, Krummacher, etc.
Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me;and the Lord, whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in, behold, he comes, says the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 3:1)
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of thegreat and terribel day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction." (Malachi 3:23-24) [this selection is almost never included in Christian translations].
A. John as literal Elijah
- According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus, himself, considered Malachi's prophesy concerning Elijah, the harbinger of the messiah, as completely fulfilled in John. -- (See: Mt. 17:10-11; Mk. 9:12-13) (Mt. 11:13-14; Luke 7:27-28)
- But, JOHN HIMSELF rejects the claim that he is Elijah! (John 1:21)
John was Elias in a figurative but not a literal sense. John's denial was that he was the literal Elias. He came in the spirit and power of the Tishbite prophet, and was the Elias of his day. Our Saviour's words, "If ye will receive it" (if ye can comprehend the meaning of the prophecy), "this is Elias which was to come," (Matt 11:14) show that a literal fulfilment was not intended.
B. John as Elijah in spirit
Christians counter: John was to represent Elijah in respect of Elijah's "spirit and power" (Luke 1:17).
- If Malachi had intended this fulfillment, then he would have used terms such as "like Elijah" or "spirit of Elijah".
- Instead, Hebrew text is explicit. It reads: hinay anochi sholayach lachem et Ayliya hanavi ("Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet")
- Et is placed before the direct object of a verb if the object it indicates is definite. Elijah is a proper noun and is regarded as definite. The participle et emphasizes that the individual who is to appear will be Elijah.
Malachi 4:5 can also be understood in this sense as it is not uncommon in the semantics of the language.
Take for example,
Hosea 3:5 "Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days."
Ezekiel 34:23,24 "I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken."
The same argument could apply to these, "David" being the proper noun. Yet these are messianic, speaking of the Messiah being King David, though in fact the Messiah is not King David himself. For in other places he is spoken of as being the "son of David", for example. This is an example of "Typology". David is a "type" of messiah. And John the Baptist is a "type" of Elijah. The semantics of the language allow for such an interpretation.
C. Jesus considered John the Baptist to be Elijah in the flesh.
- While John was still alive, Jesus said of him: "But, I am saying to you Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him." (Mt. 17:12).
- But John rejects this. So, either Jesus or John is lying (wrong).
D. If John was Elijah, he failed to carry out God's commission to Elijah.
- The forerunner of Messiah is to usher in an era of peace (between fathers and sons) and to be a messenger.
- Luke writes of this applying to John:"And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Lk. 1:17)
"And thou, child, shall be called before him all the days of our life. And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Hightest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways" (Lk. 1:76-77)
- Yet, John
- fails to accomplish this (turn hearts; turn disobedient; make ready people (prepare); be called "prophet of the Highest")
- rejects claim that he is Elijah (John 1:21)
It doesn't say that he would effect everyone. There is no promise of an era of peace as you interpret it.
E. Moreover, Elijah is alleged to have appeared to some of the disciples< (Mt.10:34-35; Mk. 9:11). However:
- If John is either Elijah or possessing the spirit of Elijah, then how can Elijah appear to him? One thing can't be in two places at once.
- How could the disciples have known someone to be Elijah (or Moses)? [Did they have wallet photos? Would you be able to know Elijah by sight?]
- The so-called Elijah did not perform the commission of God.
All answered above.
F. Jesus declared his mission to be precisely the opposite of Elijah's. (Mt.10:34-35; Lk.12:49-53)"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather divisio; for from now on five members in one household will be diided, three against two, and two gainst three. They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daugher, and ddaughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:49-53).
But isn't this completely consistent with the prophecy? "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet - before the great and terrible day of the Lord" Mal 4:5 So if the Lord is Jesus in what way are his statements inconsistent with this prophecy?
-- According to Isaiah 11:1, the Messiah is called a "shoot" from the stock of Jesse. If Jesus is not such a "shoot", then he fails to fulfill prophecy.
A. Central Problem:
- According to Christian theology, Joseph is not the father of Jesus. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in consort with Mary while she was yet a virgin.
- Therefore, tracing Jesus' ancestry through Joseph is worthless, as Jesus did not descend from Joseph.
It's worthless if you think that being the father of someone has only to do with genetics. At his time Jesus was considered to be the son of Joseph legally.
B. Two geneologies (Mt. 1:1-6; Luke 3:23-38) do not agree.
- Matthew claims that Jesus was the son of David" (Mt. 1:1).
- But how can Mt.1:6, which states: "David the king begot Solomon", be reconciled with Luke 3:31, where it says "Nathan, which was the son of David"?
- Through which son of David was Jesus supposed to have descended?
Both. For example is it a contradiction to say I have two grandfathers? I have a grandfather on my father's side and a grandfather on my mother's side. So what's your problem?
C. Stock reply given by Christians: One geneology (Luke's) is actually the geneology of Mary.
- Matthew enumerates forty-one generations from Abraham; Luke counts fifty-six.
- Who was the husband of Mary? Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat? Or, Joseph, the son of Jacob, the son of Matthan?
- There is no scriptural support for this. Where does the N.T. give a geneology of Mary?Mt.1:16: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
Lk 3:23: "And Jesus himself began to be about thrity years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,". [some Christians argue that the "as was supposed" phrase indicates the geneology given is not actually Joseph's geneology. But, this is to give the words a meaning they simply don't have; the direct Greek translation of "as was supposed" shows this to be true]
- The N.T. is clear that these geneologies are from Joseph; and Joseph is not the father of Jesus.
- A literal translation of the Greek found in Luke 3 says: "Joseph of the Heli of the Matthat of the Levi of the Melchi...of the Judah of the Jacob of the Isaac of the Abraham of the Terah." - It is clear from the context that the Greek "of the" is to be rendered "son of". - If Christians contend that Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli, then- to be consistent- they must contend that Jacob is the son-in-law of Issac! For, the same construction is used there as is used between Joseph and Heli.
- There is no official genealogical record in the Hebrew scriptures which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law.
- It is inconceivable, in that patriarchal society, that Joseph would have adopted the genealogy of his father-in-law in lieu of that of his own father.
Even if Luke's geneology is Mary's, her geneology is worthless insofar as establishing royal lineage, for maternal connection does not determine succession to the throne of David, which is passed only through the male line. (Moreover, Jesus had to follow the customs, for he came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Mt.5:17). )"There shall not be cut off to David a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel..." (Jeremiah 33:17) [By mentioning "David" and not his wife, Jeremiah is implying royal succession follows male line].
When Athaliah sought to destroy the royal seed of David, she only killed the king's sons, evidently because the female line no right of succession [or transmission of succession]. Thus, Jehosheba, a royal daughter, could save Joash and hide him in the Temple, where her husband was a priest (2 Kings 11:1-3, 2 Chronicles 22:10-12). [She had to save Joash because she knew only he and not herself could perpetuate the Davidic line].
Royal lineage can only be passed through the bloodline of the biological father; it cannot be passed through a step-father (as some Christians contend).1 Chronicles 17:11: "I will raise up your seed after you, which shall be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom."
Jeremiah 33:20-22: "If you can break My covenant with the day, and My covenant with the night, so that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, My ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David My servant, and the Levites that minister to Me." (Jeremiah 33:20-22). - [Thus, it is only David's seed that carries blessed royal lineage]
There are two principal theories respecting the genealogies found in Matt 1:16 and Luke 3:23
- That both geneaologies are Joseph's; Matthew exhibiting him as the legal heir to the throne of David, that is, naming the successive heirs of the kingdom from David to Jesus the reputed son of Joseph; while Luke gives Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent.
- That Matthew gives Joseph's and Luke, Mary's geneaology. Personally I give preference to this second for the following reasons:
- The latter theory seems supported by several early Christian writers - Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Justin Martyr
- It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. Lightfoot cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews towards the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that is her genealogy in Luke
- This theory shows us in what way Christ was the "Son of David." If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through is reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother. Jews even today inherit their Jewishness through their mother. If your mother isn't Jewish, neither are you. So biologically, the Son of God had to be born of a Jewish woman to be considered a Jew.
- This theory affords a very simple explanation of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son. (Thus your objection against the son-in-law theory is incorrect) So Joseph was that actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli.
D. Genealogies Erroneous
- The genealogical record used by Matthew is not taken from the Hebrew Scriptures.
- Mt. 1:8: "...and Asa the father of Josaphat, and Josaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Ozias." This genealogy is taken directly from the Septuagint and does not accord with what is found in the Hebrew bible.
- In the Hebrew Scriptures, we find that Asa's son was Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat's son was Joram, Joram's son was Ahaziah, Ahaziah's son was Joash, Joash's son was Amaziah, and Amaziah's son was Azariah (Uzziah) (1 Chonicles 3:10-11)
- Luke's genealogy is also erroneous.
- Luke inserts a second "Cainan" (the first being the son of Enos[Enosh], who is called Kenan in Genesis 5:9-14 and 1 Chronicles 1:2) between Arphaxad (Arpachshad) and his son Sala (Shelah) (Luke 3:35-36).
- Cainan (kenan) is not found in this position in the Hebrew text (Gen. 10:24, 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24).
- Furthermore, Luke's additional use of this name is found neither in the Samaritan Hebrew text of Genesis nor in any of the Targumim. -- It is found ONLY in the Septuagint.
All these are resolved when you come to realize that the New Testament writers were using the Septuagint. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Septuagint was accept at the time as the greed translation of the Old Testament. So rather than making their own translation of the scriptures, the New Testament writers would merely quote directly from the accepted greek translation. The petty differences due to translation from the Hebrew have so little bearing on the meaning of the text that even the even the most literalist Jews at the time found little reason to accept its use.
E. Listings Further DivergeANSWER
- The respective genealogical listings given by the evangelists diverge after Solomon and Nathan.
- They briefly come together again with the mention of Shealtieland his son Zerubbabel. Matthew lists Shealtiel as the son of Jeconiah but leaves out his grandfather, Jehoiakim, from his record (Mt. 1:11).
- Luke lists Neri as the father of Shealtiel (Luke 3:27) although the Hebrew text says that Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah and the grandson of Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16-17).
If Shealtiel's mother had no brothers, then it could be according to the law of Moses that Shealtiel be reckoned the descendant of his grandfather on his mother's side, in a similar way as Heli was also reckoned the grandfather of Jesus.OBJECTION
F. The Curse upon JeconiahANSWER
- **Yet, no descendent of Jehoiakim can inherit the throne (legally or otherwise). The Davidic line is cut off through him**.-- "Write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah (Jeremiah 22:30). [this connects to Gen. 49:10- Until Shiloh comes]
-- So, BOTH Joseph's and Mary's ancestral lines are cursed; BOTH cannot transmit the right to claim the throne.
All the sons of Josiah who had reigned had a similar curse on them in that they were all taken into captivity. The Davidic line was not cut off permanently through Jeconiah. Rather Jeremiah was referring to his immediate descendants, as the phrase "in his day" indicates. Jeconiah was taken into captivity and his sons did not reign, thus the prophecy was fulfilled.
G. Not a descendant of Solomon?
- Moreover, the right to the royal throne can only be given to a male descendent of Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 28:5, 29:1; Psalms 9:29-38).Mary's ancestor is Nathan and not Solomon, so even if she could have transmited royal lineage, she couldn't because of Nathan.
Joseph was not Jesus' father, so Joseph's ancestor being Solomon does not affect Jesus.
Joseph was indeed called Jesus' father and reckoned so by the society.
But what do you mean when you use the word "God" in your argument? You cannot disprove his deity by a mere tautology unless you clearly define your terms.Argument#2
You assume that the time between his birth and death were all there was to his existence. Yet the scripture says that "All things were made by him and without him nothing was made that has been made" John 1:3 Your logic only works if you make certain presumptions.Argument #3
Do you really want me to point out all the presumptions made in this argument?Argument #4
(a) is again a presumption. More correctly, Jesus' birth was an effect. Similary for (b). So this argument is shown to be falacious.
Your experience contradicts your interpretation. Have you considered other interpretations that don't contradict your experience? Have you attempted to resolve the contradictions you see or are you only interested in creating them?
One interpretation is that many of these promises were given to the disciples at the time in order to affirm the message. Which is somewhat the point of having Apostles back then rather than now.
Another interpretation was that there were implied conditions of answer to prayer as indicated by "in my name" and "believing". Where the condition is not to have sufficient faith in faith, but sufficient faith in God. Futhermore it is assumed that they are praying as believers and followers of Jesus, so that the purpose of their prayers are according to God's desires and not necessarily their own.
The relationship between the believer and God is not like a sort of witch-devil relationship which you may derive from your cultural background, but as a father-son relationship. To the Christian, praying is not like waving a magic wand. Rather it's like a son talking with his Father. To the extent that the son is in tune with his Father's desires is the extent to which he will get what he asks.
If you want to gain an understanding of the application of prayer, why don't you go through the New Testament letters and see how the Apostles prayed for the Church.
As for the Mark 16 section, for one thing that section is not contained in the earliest manuscripts (checkout the footnotes in you bible). Furthermore, as I mentioned, this may have been applied only to the Apostles or early disciples (checkout Acts 28:3-6 for example) Some have also interpreted the poison and serpents figuratively in that Satanic things have no effect on real Christians.
The quotation is from Mal 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. As to the discrepency, Robertson says that is was common to combine quotations from the prophets.
In Jesus time, Israel was geographically broken into two parts, the northern part being Galilee, separated by Samaria. Those in the norther were not respected very much just because they were from the outskirts. Nazareth was a town in Galilee. The Messiah had to come from Galiliee according to Isaiah 9:1. And of Galilee, Nazareth may have been reputed as the town most characteristic of that region (John 1:46) So the apostle is interpreting Isaiah's prophecy in a way that people of the time would recognize its application rather than quoting it literally.
According to the Jewish writers, Jeremiah was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed first in the book of the prophets. Matthew, in quoting this book, may have quoted it under the name which stood first in it. The prophecy is actually found in Zech 11:12,13
Or, the difficulty may have arisen from abridgment of the names. In the Greek, Jeremiah, instead of being written in full, might stand thus, "Iriou"; Zechariah thus, "Zriou." By the mere change of Z into I, the mistake would have been made.
John was obviously not being as literal as Mark was. This is probably because Mark was written directly from Peter's account. And Peter would probably want to be quite accurate as to what he went through. John's account is self-consistent if you look at the fulfillment in John 18:25-27. So where's the false prophecy?
- But Jesus was killed and buried sometime on a Friday afternoon and raised sometime on the following Saturday night or Sunday morning. (See Sigal 240-1 for details)
At the time, Orientals (the Jewish cultural background), regarded any part of a day as a whole day. So being buried on Friday and rising Sunday would be considered 3 days.
Matt 16:28; Mark 9:1: Luke 9:27 All come just before the transfiguration, which may have been their fulfillment.
(26-7) " And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."
According to Wuest, the word for "generation" was used in papyri manuscripts in the sense of "race, lineage." It denoted family, without individual reference. It was used in a will to speak for a person's issue, his descendants. From the context it appears to refer to the Jewish race. In which case the application is obvious and this prophecy is still for a future time.
However, this could also refer to the first Century Christians - their words, spirit and influence. For notice the next phrase "by my words shall not pass away". In the same passage , Jesus had also promised, "Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit." Mark 13:11
The words that make up the New Testament are the words of Jesus spoken through the apostles and prophets of the early Christian Church. They have had a major influence on the development of western civilization and still have not passed away. Each generation of Christians makes some attempt to model itself after that first generation. That generation of Christians certainly has not passed away.
Dealt with this already.
Because his spirit was not in the tomb, only his body was.
- "...if my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)
- "...sin is couching at the door; and it desires you but you may rule over it" (Genesis 4:7).- Whatever sins we may have had, God erases them:
"O Yisra'el thou shalt not be forgotten by me. I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return to me ; for I have redeemed thee." (Is. 44:21-22)
- Says Isaiah: "Israel is saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation" (Isaiah 45:17).
- Says Psalm 145:18: "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and gracious in all his works. The LORD is near to all those who call upon him to all who call upon him in truth. He will fulfil the desire of those who fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them. The LORD preserves all those who love him: but all the wicked he will destroy."
I suggest you do a more thorough study of Romans and Hebrews, which clarify these issues. In brief, the atonement and forgiveness that God provided in the Old Testament was only due to the fact that he knew that he would be providing a sufficient sacrifice - that of His Son, which would demonstrate his righteousness. Otherwise it would have been unrighteous for God to have forgiven sin without requiring any payment for it.
Furthermore, God had provided another agreement (covenant) with the Jews that if any fully obey his commandments, it would be righteousness for them (Deut 6:25) However, as Paul points out, noone has ever done this, which explains Rom 3:21
Heb 10:4 "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins"
The sacrifices under the Mosaic Law were only good as a temporary covering. However, in actual practice provisions were made for the poor who could afford expensive sacrifices. The money example was to illustrate that payment had to be made for sins. The intercessary role of the priests was symbolic of Christ's intercessary role. However, in fact, none of these actually forgave sin. They were all symbolic of and dependent on the sacrifice of the Christ. The scriptures itself says that money cannot redeem one's soul"No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him - for the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever - that he should live eternally; that he should not see the pit" Ps 49:7-9
There are many who fail to see the difference between violence and righteous indignation; who fail to distingish a legal executioner with a murderer. Such people have difficulty with the concept of justice. The interpretation of "violence" as described in Isaiah and as applied above is inconsistent with Isaiah's description of the Messiah.
I suppose one could blame God for all the evil in the world because He allows it in many cases. In this case it would seem to me that it was the demons, and not Jesus that forced the swine to die.
[Jews were not allowed to eat pigs, but were allowed to raise them and sell them to foreigners. Perhaps you could clarify how this indicates a dis-credibility of the NT]
Maybe you could clarify where you feel it's against the Law of God to kill a fig tree. (I've heard of animal activists, but don't you think you're being a bit ridiculous?) Besides, the Law you're using only refers to fruitbearing trees, and as Jesus pointed out, this was not a tree which was bearing fruit.
Luke 12:49-53: "I am come to send fire on the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!...Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son sgainst the father; the mother against the daugher, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her son-in-law, and the daugher-in- law against her mother-in-law." [father against son contrary to Malachi 3:23-24].
Why don't you read the book of Acts to see how this actually applied. If you were a Jew, even today and became a Christian, your family will ostracize you. Even the orthodox will hold a funeral service for family member who becomes a Christian. It's even more dangerous if your a Muslim and become a Christian. So what Jesus said was true. However, what he meant was that the Christian would suffer a great deal of hostility against them. (You may be a minor case in point) Why is it that the world is so hostile against the message of having peace with God through Jesus Christ? Why such persecution of Christians? (China - a case in point) The message itself tells why. Do you hate Christians? Why?
Again Isaiah is refering to unjust violence as opposed to judgment.
Jesus did no violence here. He wanted them to have swords only that he would appear as a criminal to fulfill scripture. (Does owning a gun mean that you're a violent person?) Can Jesus be held accountable for Peter's action? I think not. Furthermore, what do you suppose he meant by "his kingdom", if it is not of this world. Therefore Peter could not have been a member in it if you consider Peter a member of this world. And contrary to Peter's action, Jesus immediately healed Malchus' ear.
-- When Jesus assured his disciples that the end of the world was imminent and that his own triumphant return to judge all men before the generation then living had passed away (Mt. 24:34, Mk. 13:30; Luke 21:32), he used deceit for he knew it was not true.
These were already dealt with
Already dealt with
Already dealt with
In John 8 they didn't try to take him into custody, they just tried to stone him to death.
I don't see where you get the "it only applies to a period of 3.5 years ..." Perhaps you could elaborate. Otherwise I can't see the contradiction.
His first coming was for justification. His second will be for judgment. That's why. There's more to God's plan than just fulfilling the Law.
Paul is only saying that a means of justification, obedience to the Law is ineffective (only in the sense that noone does it, except Christ who fulfilled it). However, he says that it continues to carry on its function of revealing sin. So there's no contradiction, only a clarification.
Of 300 glasses of wine, 299 glasses of wine have poison in them; one glass is not poisoned. Would you take the chance of driking one of these glasses of wine??? Would you take that chance if I told you the one unpoisoned glass has been taken out?
But wouldn't you have expected God to have made it very difficult to fulfill his prophecies. Wouldn't you have expected God to do improbable things just to prove that He's God? If the prophecies were easy to fulfill then you would have been arguing that anyone could have done it and therefore you set youself into a position where nothing will logically convince you. You're argument is that since it is so difficult for Jesus to have fulfilled all the prophecies, therefore he probably didn't even though you can't think or a conclusive example. Try this one for example:Dan 9:24-26 "Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and 62 weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. And after the 62 weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined."Now the comamnd to restore and build jerusalem was given in 445BCE (Before the Command Era) by King Artaxerxes in the 20th year of his reign (recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8)
From that date if you add 7 weeks and 62 weeks 69 weeks (of years) you come up with a date of 445-483 38+1 39 AD You had to add 1 because there's no 0 AD. Also you have to correct for the fact that the Biblical Hebrew Calendar was based on 360 days/year. So you have to subtract 5 days / year of the 483 years (5x483 6.6years) Then 39AD-6.6years 32.4 A.D.
The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources