The Passion and Resurrection happened in 30 AD

I'm aware 33 AD is a more common date to cite, so I'm going to explain all the reasons I favor 30 AD. I won't bring Daniel's 70 weeks into it, in order for the Prophetic significance of that to be impressive we must prove independently that it points to the same date, so I'll do address that in a separate study.

The biggest chronological mistake made when dealing with the Crucifixion is when people incorrectly state that John refers to three or four Passovers occurring during Jesus's ministry. (The discrepancy between three and four is a Feast being refereed to that isn't identified.) John 2 (It's second story), John 6 and 12 all refer to Passover clearly, the last being the Passover season of the Crucifixion. John 5 refers to a Jewish feast but doesn't identify which, many then assume this is Passover. Since the Passover is largely the thematic heart of John's narrative I believe he would have identified it if it was Passover. I believe the one in John 5 is possibly Purim or Pentecost.

So John has three at most. The problem is the basic narrative of the Synoptics do not seem to allow more then a Year and a few months for Jesus' Ministry. The thing people overlook is that John's Gospel is the most Mystical of the Gospels, and because of that it's not always purely Chronological, sometimes events are described next to each other for symbolic reasons, not because they actually happened side by side.

John 2 describes two stories. The first is the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding banquet. That story clearly seems to be at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, since it's presentedas his first public miracle. The second story involves The Temple. I believe they're told side by side because together they make John 2 a Beth chapter. Beth is the second letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and it also means house. So John 2 deals with both The House as in the Family and The House as in the House of God. Both also refer to a three day period of time.

What is so often and to me annoyingly overlooked is that John 2 gives clearly a more detailed account of the Cleansing of The Temple. Which the Synoptics clearly place in the same week as the Crucifixion. Some would suggest it happened twice, but in the Synoptics it's clearly the last straw that drives the ScribesPharisees Pharisees and the Priesthood to want Jesus dead, if he'd done the same thing 2 or 3 years before that wouldn't make much sense. It's also interesting that the Synoptic account alludes to what only John records Jesus saying here, (About destroying this Temple and rebuilding it in 3 days) in the form of false witnesses misrepresenting it, but my point here is it's presented as something He said recently.

So in truth John gives a Ministry of only just over a year (many Atheists criticize the Gospels by saying the Synoptics clearly depict a ministry of only about a year and that John's three year model is then a contradiction. I've provided the means to refute that,) or maybe even less.  And since John 2 is recording the Passover season of the Crucifixion, that is very useful since John 2 dates itself.

"Forty and six years has this temple been in building". The renovations of the Temple Herod started wasn't finished till the 60s, so this is referring to them speaking 46 years after Herod's renovations began. 20/19 BC is when Herod first announced the project, but as a careful study of Josephus shows it really began in late 18 or early 17 B.C. So 46 years latter on Passover brings us to 30 A.D.  Ussher dated John 2's Temple incident to the same year, but repeated the error I explained above.

Even John 6 might actually have the same Passover season in mind, since the preparation for Passover in a sense begins an entire 30 days before in Rabbinic custom, around Purim, and in John 6 they're not in Jerusalem yet  But that could go either way for my current theory to work.  John 6 is either the 30 or 29 AD Passover.

--Lactanius, "On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died", .2, tells us that only "25 years" lapsed, "until the beginning of the reign of Nero". Nero became Emperor in 55 A.D.

What else can give further support to 30 AD? In the Talmud Yoma 39b it says

Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

40 years before The Temple's destruction takes us to 30 AD The reference to Johanan ben Zakkai confirms this is the second destruction, not the first.  Why link the beginning of this period to the Crucifixion?  Because the Veil was torn when Jesus died.

On the Roman calendar calendaryears were always named after the Consuls at the year's start. The solider who pierced the side of Christ came to be named Longinus in extra Biblical tradition. It is often explained as only a pun on the Greek word for spear John used, Logche (long'-khay). But Longinus was a real Roman name, as a family name of the Cassius who killed Caesar, so that Longinus's feast day in Catholic tradition becomes the 15th of March is interesting. The Longinus who was Consul for 30 AD was a great Nephew of the killer of Caesar, however a direct descendent Suffect Consul later in the year. Perhaps the name became linked to the Crucifixion because it was linked to the year it happened.

This is mostly something I already wrote on my retired Prophecy Blog in 2014, I'm more open to having mind changed on this now then I was back then, so feel free to leave counterarguments in the comments.

Reformism is Good Actually

Now Reformism can mean different things to different people in different contexts.

Bad Mouse made a recent video critiquing Electoralism and I agree with most of it. I also refuse to be bullied into voting for the lesser of two evils, but he then ties that into his overall anti-Reformism.  You can be an Anti-Reformist who engages in Electoralism, getting allises into the state to help the Revolution from within is a valid strategy.  And you can be a Reformist who rejects Electoralism, but even I don’t reject Electoralism entirely, I am willing to vote for someone who isn’t even a fellow Communist, but they have to be advocating for actual meaningful Reforms like the Basic Income or Universal Healthcare, not the mere bandages the Democrats run on.

When Karl Marx famously said about certain Socialist in France "ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste" ("what is certain is that [if they are Marxists], [then] I myself am not a Marxist"). He was talking about the radical Anti-Reformists, Jules Guesde and Paul Lafargue. And their opposition to reformists tactics is exactly what he was objecting to, not any of their policy goals (I very much like and recommend LaFargue’s The Right To Be Lazy).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4.] Bernard H. Moss, The Origins of the French Labour Movement, 1830-1914, 1976, p.107.

Now I’m not the kind of Leftist who thinks Marx was infallible and thus his opinion is all I need.  There are in fact some things that I feel History has not vindicated Marx on, however his assessment of the nature of French Anti-Reformists was very vindicated.

During the Dreyfus Affair the Anti-Reformists said that Socialists shouldn't get involved in such internal conflicts of the Bourgeois with the one exception of Jean Allemane, besides him the Socialists actively flocking to oppose the birth of modern Anti-Semitism were the Anti-Reformists like Jean Jaures and the Possibilitists lead by Paul Brousse and Benoit Malon.  Honestly it sounds a lot like today where a certain type of Marxist-Leninist sees it as a distraction to get involved with anything that even remotely seems like a “Culture War '' issue or “Identity Politics”.

Wikipedia is very frustrating, the Wiki Pages for some of these Reformist figures I just mentioned have clearly been partially edited by people who just accept at face value that notion that Reformism is itself Non-Marxist even though on other pages Wikipedia itself quotes what Marx said in favor of Reformism.

Modern Anti-Reformist like Bad Mouse love to cite the history of the SPD as a vindication, that their support of entry into WWI and every betrayal of the working class they committed after the German Revolution is the result of them once being well intentioned Marxists who were corrupted by involvement with the State.  And the funny thing is these Marxists wind up without realizing it agreeing with the very Kropotkin Anarchist attitude that is the very reason I largely stopped calling myself an anarchist, their very cartoonish “Power corrupts absolutely” worldview.

First of all Germany wasn’t the only country with an established Socialist Party when WWI started.  In Italy and Britain and the United States it was the Pro-War Socialists who were the minority forced out of the established Party to start new ones, and those new parties they started became early Fascism or something analogous.  And no, those Socialist Parties were not any less engaged in Electoralism and Reformism then the SPD was.  The Labor Party had Pro-War elements but no one claims they were ever Marxists.

In France the split the war caused was closer to being 50/50 but it was mostly the surviving Anti-Reformists (with Allemane not being an exception this time) who supported the War and became firmly Nationalists, Guesde, Hubert Lagardelle, Gustave Hervé and they too like other Pro-War Leftists are tied to the origins of French Fascism.  Meanwhile the leading French Reformist Jean Jares virulently opposed the War and was Martyred for it, he’s the Rosa Luxemburg of France. 

Even Anarchists, the people more Anti-Electoralism than any Marxists back then had a split over the War with even Kropotkin himself supporting it.  Lately a lot of MLs on Twitter have been trying to build an “Anarchism to Fascism pipeline” thesis based on how many Italian Anarchist became Fascists, however it was only Pro-War Anarchists who became Fascists and plenty of Pro-War Marxists and even a Leninist became Fascists in Italy.

The problem with painting the SPD’s history as Bad Mouse likes to is that the SPD was founded by Ferdinand Lassale not Marxists, the German Socialists who never even claimed to believe that the State should ever be abolished or wither away.  Marxists wound up being in the Party but its leadership was always more Lassalean even if they sometimes paid lip service to Marxist ideas.  So they can’t be identified with any internal disagreement between Marxists.

The Reformist Marxists were Kautsky and Bernstein, they were different from each other  in a lot of well documented ways, but Kautsky was always a Reformist the claim of Leninists that he betrayed his early ideals while reacting to the Russian Revolution is a lie, he in the 1890s sided with the French Reformists I talked about above.  Tristam Pratorius has some Medium articles defending Kautsky and Bernstein, they seem to be more a Bersnteinist while I like Kautsky more but still her articles are good.

One important observation they make is that when Marx and Engles talked about “Bourgeois Democracy” they were being literal not euphemistic, Britain, Germany and even much of the United States still had property requirements on the very right to Vote.  It never meant that Communists are supposed to reject anything that a Liberal would recognize as Democratic.  Now I do believe we need more Direct Democracy and less Representative Democracy, but even a Representative Democracy as corrupt as ours still can be used.

Let’s take this historical analysis even further back.  The Marxist view of history is often oversimplified as making The French Revolution of 1789 the key turning point from Feudalism to Capitalism.  And that helps cause some Marxists to think of Reform as futile, if it took a fully blown violent Revolution for Capitalism to overthrow Feudalism then certainly it will have to be the same for the replacement of Capitalism.

The problem is France was closer to being the Last nation to become Capitalist than the first.  Marx was born and raised in Prussia then lived in Britain from 1848 till he died.  So the Capitalism he knew was Capitalism as it functioned in countries that became that way by Reform not Revolution.  

But even France had also been subject to a lot of Capitalist Reforms before 1789 without which the Bourgeois Revolution could not have happened.  Anne Robert Jacques Turgot was doing Reaganomics already in the 1770s.

As I explained in a prior post about Basic Income and The New Deal, when the so-called Working Class Party is opposing something obviously helpful to the Working Class on the grounds of “it’s a Capitalist Appeasement” or whatever it alienates the Working Class from that party.

Agape and Eros and other words for Love

I have a prior post on this Blog deconstructing the notion that the various Greek words for Love are mutually exclusive types of Love, and I've touched on the subject in some others.  I stand by essentially everything I said there but I've also refined my understanding a bit.

Eros is absent from The New Testament, that fact is the main cause of this commotion, the idea that Eros is the only Greek word for Love that is inherently Sexual is the invention of Augustinian Puritanical Christians who want to separate Sex form all the positive Love talk in The New Testament, especially when it says God IS Love and that Jesus commanded us to Love one another or when it mentions Love Feasts as a sacrament.  Because if they did they might have to accept that The Church was meant to be a giant Polycule.

Problem is the Septuagint Greek Translation of The Song of Songs aka The Song of Solomon also only uses Agape and never Eros, the most obviously "Erotic" book uses Agape not Eros.  Elsewhere the Septuagint uses Agape and Eros interchangeably to translate the Hebrew Ahav.  You also can't define Agape as the pure kind of Love that can't be corrupted by Sin when the Septuagint also uses a form of Agape when it says Amnon "loved" Tamar when he raped her in 2 Samuel 13:1.

People who have bought into this concept can't even agree on how to define Agape, in ContraPoints' new excellent video on Twilight (which I'll mention again later) Agape is defined as "Spiritual Love", the King James Bible in many passages translates it as "Charity".  Now the concept of Charity is very Biblical but every appearance of that word in the KJV is a mistranslation of Agape.

The issue with Agape is the overwhelming vast majority of Ancient usage of the word is by Christians and Greek Speaking Jews.  It does exist in Greek independent of that influence, a form of it does appear in Homer.  But using it as a standard part of every day vocabulary as much or more then Philia and Eros seems to have been the exclusive practice of Abrahamic Monotheists.

There is usually said to be Five Greek words for Love, but only three concern me here.  Eros, Philia and Agape.  There are distinctions between them that would cause a careful writer to prefer one over the other in a given context, but those differences are more connotative then definitional.

Because I'm a Weeb I'm once again going to use some Japanese words to help clarify how I feel these three Greeks should be thought of.

Agape = Ai

Eros = Koi

Philia = Suki

In the 24th episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion the character Kowaru uses the word Suki to describe how he feels about Shinji.  In the first ever officially licensed English Localization of NGE which was the ADV films VHS Subtitled release Suki was translated Like "I like you".  Later ADV releases however would upgrade this to "I love you".  And so when the Netflix versions of Eva went up a few years ago well a lot of things were disliked for good reasons but the most intense discourse was about it translating Suki as Like, with most not even knowing that was what ADV did the first time.  The idea that this decision inherently straight washed the scene is silly because what makes Kowaru and Shinji's relationship very obviously Gay are the Vibes not any of the specific words they use.  The English word Love is not always Romantic/Sexual and English usage of Like very much can be, I know this because I'm an older Millennial with a lot of childhood memories of watching The Wonder Years.

All that context is why I identify Philia with Suki, even Philia is not inherently asexual as shown by there being a sexual goddess named Philotes, in fact it survived in how many modern terms use Philia to describe a Sexual attraction.  However it is the only of the three that can be used with a complete absence of Passion.  In John 11 Philia is used twice when it is only Jesus feelings for Lazarus being described while Agape is used of Lazarus and his Sisters.  That's why when it comes to the "Beloved Disciple" verses in later chapters I view it as Mar (Magdalene and "Of Bethany" are the same Mary in my view)y when Agape is used but Lazarus the one time Philia is used.

Ai is a word for Love that is clearly associated with Romantic Love and Sexual Love and Love that is neither of those.  Koi however is the most connotatively sexual of the Japanese words for Love in a way that makes it more likely to be used in the title of a Hentai.  

Eros isn't absent from the New Testament because what it does refer to is inherently sinful, it's just not the best word for what these authors are focusing on.  It has to do with the association of Eros with not just Passion but intense uncontrollable Passion. Agape absolutely does include what a modern English Speaker usually mean by Romantic or Erotic Love.

In ContraPoints's Twilight video she introduces the discussion of Eros by repeating the common error that the Greek words for Love refer to different things.  However her elaboration on Eros shows that she understands it connotatively to be even more specific then just Romantic/Sexual, it's about Passion, Desire, Longing, Craving, a bunch of obscure words I've already forgotten.  The problem is when you equate that proper understanding of Eros with the notion that the other Greek Words for love have nothing to do with Sex or Romance it causes one to have a very demeaning view of Romantic relationships that lack this unbridled Passion and thus her characterizing most Committed Long Term Relationship where the Passion has died out as not even truly being Romantic anymore.  I think it cam be very Romantic to just wholesomely enjoy another person's company.

And that's my only criticism of the video, overall it's fantastic.  

Well I'm also annoyed by her reference to Stoicism, once again the average YouTube Philosopher's understanding of Stoicism is entirely filtered through Late or Roman Stoicism which had incorporated aspects of Pythagorean Sexual morality.  Zeno Stoics were the Communist Free Love Hippies of the Hellenistic World.  Zeno tried to redefine Eros in a way that made it no longer about uncontrollable Passion but still absolutely Sexual.  It is still my hypothesis that there is a connection between Zeno's Eros and New Testament Agape.