Okay, I watched your video. I don't mean this in any sort of ugly way. It's just a matter of fact statement. It was nothing profound or special.
You concluded that Jesus was born in 6 BCE, but without any proof.
You concluded that Luke's "about thirty years of age" actually meant that Jesus was 34 years old, again without any proof.
You demonstrated that you have no working knowledge of the Greek language. Word placement has no bearing on the Greek meaning in a sentence. The language is inflected. ἀρχόμενος (beginning) and ὤν (to be) are both nominative, singular, masculine present participles, modified by the adverb ὡσεί (about) (adverbs modify verbs, like "beginning" and "to be"). The word structure determines the association. Although it would be strange to see, you could literally put an adjective at the end of the sentence with the noun it modifies at the beginning of the sentence, and the declension would determine which noun the adjective modifies. A literal translation of the sentence in question would be, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old." Furthermore, a substantive is a noun replacement. It wouldn't be translated "is" or "are."
Seleucid year 304 is 8/7 BCE, not 6 BCE, and you didn't provide any evidence that Jesus was born so early. It's just speculation.
You would need to provide source material to establish that the year of Alexander and/or the year of Alexandria (whichever the Anno Alexandri is referencing) refers to the Seleucid year. I would also point out that this opinion of people a thousand years after the fact is not in agreement with the people one or two centuries after the fact, who almost unanimously placed Christ's birth around the 28th year of Augustus, or 3/2 BCE, depending on the specific calendar each was using. This piece of information you've given does not accurately reflect the majority belief of early Christians.
You concluded a shorter ministry, but without any proof. The argument from silence is not an argument. As they say, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
You concluded that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, which is impossible for a number of reasons. For all your piecing together of coincidental scriptures of synchronized dates, it might interest you to recognize that if Jesus died on a Wednesday, then there were merchants conducting business in the temple complex on the Sabbath. That had been strictly prohibited since the time of Nehemiah.
I honestly didn't see anything in the video that was new or mind-blowing. Even your point that most miss the fact that Jesus had already been baptized in the past tense in John's gospel wasn't new to me. I noticed that years ago.
The video was, in my honest opinion, rudimentary and base. Had I never had any of these discussions with you prior to seeing it, I wouldn't have been impressed. It came across to me as the work of an amateur who's done a little bit of internet research. It does not strike me as the work of a serious academic.
I apologize if this criticism stings your pride. Call it tough love. You have a lot of work to do. But at least know that someone took the time to watch it. You weren't dismissed or ignored. I watched it. I just disagree with your findings. You offer too little proof, and make too many speculations.
