First issue is, it's not important at all to establish the date, merely the era, unless you're trying to date-set in the present as OP implies, but date-setting is ultimately not a Christian activity: ever-readiness is.
WP Chronology of Jesus knows nothing about these "2/3" of scholars who prefer 30; it gives 33 unqualified precedence in all coverage.
It's not generally accepted that Herod died in March, 4 BC; what's generally accepted is that he was sick unto death as of the eclipse of 13 Mar 4 BC. I grant that Reiss, Filmer, Gertoux, Steinmann, and Young have argued that Herod died before Passover of 11 Apr 4 BC, but most recognize there are too many events to compress into that schedule, including Whiston, Anderson, Schurer, Zuckermann, Thiele, Hoehner, Lanser IIRC, and basically everyone else who has commented on it. As Whiston's excursus shows, a simple reading of Josephus knowing the Bible and with ordinary assumptions demonstrates it absurd to imagine all these events happened within a month's time (I have enumerated those events myself but don't have the link right now, so will need to refer you to searching for the excursus on Herod's death).
There is no evidence that "at least a few months must have passed between Jesus' birth and Herod's death". Rather, Jesus is born, the Magi arrive, Jesus flees to Egypt, and there Joseph is told that Herod is dead. I have put this period at three weeks. An argument could be made that Jesus was presented in the temple on his 40th day and that some who think about it put the flight to Egypt after this point, but unfortunately to this theory I long ago realized that Luke 2:39 says after the presentation Jesus went to Nazareth, not Egypt, and there is no flight from Nazareth. The idea that the flight should be inserted into Luke 2:39 is textually incongruous, but inserting it between 2:21 and 2:22, a natural gap, is an inference to the best explanation. The enemy has done some hard work to convince people Jesus's sojourn in Egypt was long, maybe several years, but there is no reason for it to have been more than a night, aside from the time taken in travel.
The Gospel does not state that "Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30"; no, Luke 3:23 says Jesus was "about" 30 or literally "as if" 30. In the Herod link I show that this idea comes from Filmer's illogical insistence that "about" means "exactly", while I give evidence that Luke is very deliberate with using "about" to mean "about". The ultimate arrival at a 30 crucifixion relies on compressing several points back in time (Jesus's birth relative to Herod's death, Herod's death relative to the eclipse, Jesus's ministry relative to his 30th year), and in each case the later period has better evidence but the earlier period is taken so as to get the whole 3-year gap made up. However, this theory also ignores the beginning of John's ministry in Tiberius's 15th year (28-29), the same standard way everything else in the era was dated. Those arguing for crucifixion in 30 make a special pleading to find an event in Tiberius's life 2 years earlier, in 12 instead of 14, when he had partial authority, and then apply that theoretical epoch to this one instance while refusing to use it for any other historical date attributed to the reign of Tiberius. Therefore the neglected error as to data being unused is greater than the errors made to justify the data being used.
If John began ministering in 28-29, it is impossible for Jesus to begin ministering before spring of 29 (John 2:20). So either the 46 years of the Temple must fit that later date, or the 15 years of Tiberius must fit an earlier date. But changing the reign of Tiberius is arcane and unsupported, while flexibility in the beginning of the Temple is easily supported.
It is well-known that the beginning of construction on the Herodian temple rework is not a firm date, partly because of reconciling the math of Josephus, and partly because of confusion between beginning work on the site and beginning the laying of the stones that came somewhat later. This allows a range of 20-17 BC for the calculation date, yielding 26-30 AD for the beginning of Jesus's ministry (depending on whether inclusive or exclusive counting is used). Since this is a more disputed point, I will keep it in mind next time I review the phases of the beginning of Herodian construction.
The idea of 40 years, which is a round number, is typological and not historical, but even if it were taken as historical it could easily refer to Jesus starting ministry in 30 AD. It is clear that Jonah began with a message of 40 days of repentance, but since Nineveh required 3 days to travel through the whole city this corresponds better typologically to Jesus ministering for the first 3 years of the period 30-70. (The phrasing here suggesting that Josephus supported the much later idea that Jesus "came" in 70, when he didn't, is potentially misleading.) Second, the Talmud does make a reference to an unexplained 40 years of lack of Temple miracle, but this may either be a round number or correspond to the beginning of Jesus's ministry, since it is a testimony seized by Christians out of Jewish records that Jews do not draw any conclusion from. Third, I grant that I have not seen before Eusebius's reference to a "full 40" years, but his distance from the events and his reliance on unknown intermediate sources suggests that his idea that the 40 was "full" or exact is added onto the original, as he cannot be taken as solely authoritative.
TLDR: This OP misstates a few points such as the scholarly weight given to its theory, but I grant that it compiles more evidence and that the study of the beginning of Herod's construction, the Talmudic 40 years, and the context of Eusebius's 40 years should all continue to be pursued. However, the primary assumptions that drive the preference for 30 are misguided. Though Newton showed that 30 and 33 are above all other dates astronomically, relying on 30 depends on objectively judged misreading of both Josephus on the last year of Herod's life and Luke on his use of exact versus rough chronology.
A number of evidences of church history, most notably the chronology of Paul's life, support the 33 date with some elasticity, of exactly the same kind used with the methodology of OP; I do not press them because of their elasticity. The points to be pressed are the very specific beginning of John's ministry in 28-29 (dated by Luke with six synchronisms), the chronology of Josephus on Herod (on which he is undisputed), the lunar eclipse of 33 (which has been disputed but also proven to be visible in Jerusalem), and the fit of the chronology to the sabbatical cycle. OP neglects all these aspects.
Specifically, in the Herod link, I show that Zuckermann found several points establishing the sabbatical cycle as beginning in fall 457 BC such that 27-34 AD would be the 70th sabbatical (Wacholder puts the sabbatical years as 28 and 35 instead, using minority readings of all Zuckermann's data). For John and Jesus to begin their ministry in or before 27 as OP states would put them in the 69th sabbatical contrary to the prophecy of Daniel. (I only discovered this reality less than a year ago, since I had taken Anderson's demonstration of prophetic-year sabbaticals as the more accurate reading of Daniel; I still do, but I've realized that the actual observed sabbaticals offer a secondary fulfillment.) But if John begins ministry in 28, in the end of the first year of the 70th sabbatical, and Jesus completes it in 33, in the middle of the sixth year, the prophecy is neatly fulfilled.
There are probably other aspects of the question that remain unresolved. As to the future, I certainly appreciate that as we've retraced the 2,000-year anniversaries of the events of Jesus's life the church has been anxiously drawing comparisons. Even though the thoroughly-discredited Whisenant put Jesus's return in 1988 because it was seven years before the anniversary of the period of his birth, the well-vindicated Lindsey, and I too, looked for eschatology in the 80s for the same reason, and have continued to do so since. I presently believe that the millennial reign need not be an exact 1,000 years; it might be, but it might end at the year 7000 AM after being slightly short, because it is expressly a round number, and the years of Jesus's first sojourn might easily be subtracted. (If you want to play date-setting with this idea, I have 7000 AM as 3007-3008 AD, with Jesus's gestation at .75 years and life at 35.5 years, putting his return no later than fall-winter 2044 AD, and the "tribulation" no later than 2037 AD; but I do not personally advocate for that limit and instead look for his coming every day. Either he comes by that date, or he gives enough light by that date to sustain us afterward, same as any other date.)
However, for OP purposes, it is clear that fear relating to the supposed anniversary of 2030 will peak before that relating to 2033, and so it's very helpful for the forerunner theory to stand or fall prior to the truth of the conflict being revealed. OP has already made several dodgy prophecies with levels of probability so as not to be called a date-setter, and regularly inserts Muslim interpretations as well, most notably the idea that both Israel and America will be conquered by Muslims, probably in the next year or two. An apparent alt was doing the same, with the same tone, before the OP account arrived. OP is cagey enough to hold his posts to one subject at a time (I'm not), so perhaps we should wait to judge where he is going with applying the life of Jesus to the present, but sooner or later it's either going to connect to the alleged destruction of America or to be inverted by Jesus's grace. I used to think, over many years of my reworking eschatologies, that America would be destroyed; then I realized that the devil need not conquer every country to fulfill his rule over the worst, and that at no time does he conquer the righteous despite his applying governmental and forceful power over them. So I hold out hope that America will escape the worst, in Jesus's name. This can only be done by each of us dedicating ourselves to him, and under him to the Constitution in his year 1787, and holding America in our hearts just as we escaped the ravages of the "46th" administration. If that is done then we can escape the horseman of Conquest and instead transition America into a protectorate of Jesus's Kingdom of Heaven before he arrives.
You didn't absorb any context there. I put that date out simply to show that there's an upper limit to the seventh-millennium theory and it will probably expire in our lifetimes. What I said was, we'll know what to do by then in any case.
We've been over this.
First issue is, it's not important at all to establish the date, merely the era, unless you're trying to date-set in the present as OP implies, but date-setting is ultimately not a Christian activity: ever-readiness is.
WP Chronology of Jesus knows nothing about these "2/3" of scholars who prefer 30; it gives 33 unqualified precedence in all coverage.
It's not generally accepted that Herod died in March, 4 BC; what's generally accepted is that he was sick unto death as of the eclipse of 13 Mar 4 BC. I grant that Reiss, Filmer, Gertoux, Steinmann, and Young have argued that Herod died before Passover of 11 Apr 4 BC, but most recognize there are too many events to compress into that schedule, including Whiston, Anderson, Schurer, Zuckermann, Thiele, Hoehner, Lanser IIRC, and basically everyone else who has commented on it. As Whiston's excursus shows, a simple reading of Josephus knowing the Bible and with ordinary assumptions demonstrates it absurd to imagine all these events happened within a month's time (I have enumerated those events myself but don't have the link right now, so will need to refer you to searching for the excursus on Herod's death).
There is no evidence that "at least a few months must have passed between Jesus' birth and Herod's death". Rather, Jesus is born, the Magi arrive, Jesus flees to Egypt, and there Joseph is told that Herod is dead. I have put this period at three weeks. An argument could be made that Jesus was presented in the temple on his 40th day and that some who think about it put the flight to Egypt after this point, but unfortunately to this theory I long ago realized that Luke 2:39 says after the presentation Jesus went to Nazareth, not Egypt, and there is no flight from Nazareth. The idea that the flight should be inserted into Luke 2:39 is textually incongruous, but inserting it between 2:21 and 2:22, a natural gap, is an inference to the best explanation. The enemy has done some hard work to convince people Jesus's sojourn in Egypt was long, maybe several years, but there is no reason for it to have been more than a night, aside from the time taken in travel.
The Gospel does not state that "Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30"; no, Luke 3:23 says Jesus was "about" 30 or literally "as if" 30. In the Herod link I show that this idea comes from Filmer's illogical insistence that "about" means "exactly", while I give evidence that Luke is very deliberate with using "about" to mean "about". The ultimate arrival at a 30 crucifixion relies on compressing several points back in time (Jesus's birth relative to Herod's death, Herod's death relative to the eclipse, Jesus's ministry relative to his 30th year), and in each case the later period has better evidence but the earlier period is taken so as to get the whole 3-year gap made up. However, this theory also ignores the beginning of John's ministry in Tiberius's 15th year (28-29), the same standard way everything else in the era was dated. Those arguing for crucifixion in 30 make a special pleading to find an event in Tiberius's life 2 years earlier, in 12 instead of 14, when he had partial authority, and then apply that theoretical epoch to this one instance while refusing to use it for any other historical date attributed to the reign of Tiberius. Therefore the neglected error as to data being unused is greater than the errors made to justify the data being used.
If John began ministering in 28-29, it is impossible for Jesus to begin ministering before spring of 29 (John 2:20). So either the 46 years of the Temple must fit that later date, or the 15 years of Tiberius must fit an earlier date. But changing the reign of Tiberius is arcane and unsupported, while flexibility in the beginning of the Temple is easily supported.
It is well-known that the beginning of construction on the Herodian temple rework is not a firm date, partly because of reconciling the math of Josephus, and partly because of confusion between beginning work on the site and beginning the laying of the stones that came somewhat later. This allows a range of 20-17 BC for the calculation date, yielding 26-30 AD for the beginning of Jesus's ministry (depending on whether inclusive or exclusive counting is used). Since this is a more disputed point, I will keep it in mind next time I review the phases of the beginning of Herodian construction.
The idea of 40 years, which is a round number, is typological and not historical, but even if it were taken as historical it could easily refer to Jesus starting ministry in 30 AD. It is clear that Jonah began with a message of 40 days of repentance, but since Nineveh required 3 days to travel through the whole city this corresponds better typologically to Jesus ministering for the first 3 years of the period 30-70. (The phrasing here suggesting that Josephus supported the much later idea that Jesus "came" in 70, when he didn't, is potentially misleading.) Second, the Talmud does make a reference to an unexplained 40 years of lack of Temple miracle, but this may either be a round number or correspond to the beginning of Jesus's ministry, since it is a testimony seized by Christians out of Jewish records that Jews do not draw any conclusion from. Third, I grant that I have not seen before Eusebius's reference to a "full 40" years, but his distance from the events and his reliance on unknown intermediate sources suggests that his idea that the 40 was "full" or exact is added onto the original, as he cannot be taken as solely authoritative.
TLDR: This OP misstates a few points such as the scholarly weight given to its theory, but I grant that it compiles more evidence and that the study of the beginning of Herod's construction, the Talmudic 40 years, and the context of Eusebius's 40 years should all continue to be pursued. However, the primary assumptions that drive the preference for 30 are misguided. Though Newton showed that 30 and 33 are above all other dates astronomically, relying on 30 depends on objectively judged misreading of both Josephus on the last year of Herod's life and Luke on his use of exact versus rough chronology.
A number of evidences of church history, most notably the chronology of Paul's life, support the 33 date with some elasticity, of exactly the same kind used with the methodology of OP; I do not press them because of their elasticity. The points to be pressed are the very specific beginning of John's ministry in 28-29 (dated by Luke with six synchronisms), the chronology of Josephus on Herod (on which he is undisputed), the lunar eclipse of 33 (which has been disputed but also proven to be visible in Jerusalem), and the fit of the chronology to the sabbatical cycle. OP neglects all these aspects.
Specifically, in the Herod link, I show that Zuckermann found several points establishing the sabbatical cycle as beginning in fall 457 BC such that 27-34 AD would be the 70th sabbatical (Wacholder puts the sabbatical years as 28 and 35 instead, using minority readings of all Zuckermann's data). For John and Jesus to begin their ministry in or before 27 as OP states would put them in the 69th sabbatical contrary to the prophecy of Daniel. (I only discovered this reality less than a year ago, since I had taken Anderson's demonstration of prophetic-year sabbaticals as the more accurate reading of Daniel; I still do, but I've realized that the actual observed sabbaticals offer a secondary fulfillment.) But if John begins ministry in 28, in the end of the first year of the 70th sabbatical, and Jesus completes it in 33, in the middle of the sixth year, the prophecy is neatly fulfilled.
There are probably other aspects of the question that remain unresolved. As to the future, I certainly appreciate that as we've retraced the 2,000-year anniversaries of the events of Jesus's life the church has been anxiously drawing comparisons. Even though the thoroughly-discredited Whisenant put Jesus's return in 1988 because it was seven years before the anniversary of the period of his birth, the well-vindicated Lindsey, and I too, looked for eschatology in the 80s for the same reason, and have continued to do so since. I presently believe that the millennial reign need not be an exact 1,000 years; it might be, but it might end at the year 7000 AM after being slightly short, because it is expressly a round number, and the years of Jesus's first sojourn might easily be subtracted. (If you want to play date-setting with this idea, I have 7000 AM as 3007-3008 AD, with Jesus's gestation at .75 years and life at 35.5 years, putting his return no later than fall-winter 2044 AD, and the "tribulation" no later than 2037 AD; but I do not personally advocate for that limit and instead look for his coming every day. Either he comes by that date, or he gives enough light by that date to sustain us afterward, same as any other date.)
However, for OP purposes, it is clear that fear relating to the supposed anniversary of 2030 will peak before that relating to 2033, and so it's very helpful for the forerunner theory to stand or fall prior to the truth of the conflict being revealed. OP has already made several dodgy prophecies with levels of probability so as not to be called a date-setter, and regularly inserts Muslim interpretations as well, most notably the idea that both Israel and America will be conquered by Muslims, probably in the next year or two. An apparent alt was doing the same, with the same tone, before the OP account arrived. OP is cagey enough to hold his posts to one subject at a time (I'm not), so perhaps we should wait to judge where he is going with applying the life of Jesus to the present, but sooner or later it's either going to connect to the alleged destruction of America or to be inverted by Jesus's grace. I used to think, over many years of my reworking eschatologies, that America would be destroyed; then I realized that the devil need not conquer every country to fulfill his rule over the worst, and that at no time does he conquer the righteous despite his applying governmental and forceful power over them. So I hold out hope that America will escape the worst, in Jesus's name. This can only be done by each of us dedicating ourselves to him, and under him to the Constitution in his year 1787, and holding America in our hearts just as we escaped the ravages of the "46th" administration. If that is done then we can escape the horseman of Conquest and instead transition America into a protectorate of Jesus's Kingdom of Heaven before he arrives.
You didn't absorb any context there. I put that date out simply to show that there's an upper limit to the seventh-millennium theory and it will probably expire in our lifetimes. What I said was, we'll know what to do by then in any case.
Did you want to continue to discuss the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection at the proper post, where you didn't answer my explanation?