Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again, these are dependant upon one another. In essence, this whole is a circular argument and thus one proposition in toto. We don't know that the road construction represents 'repairs' rather than a new road, for instance. We know a road was built 31 AD about, and Jesus was crucified sometime around that decade and reportedly there were earthquakes during this event. There is a difference between an inference and a supposition, and connecting these events is the latter, not the former. If the road fill was crumbled masonry or so, or we have some form of geologic evidence of an earthquake in 30 AD, that would be a different kettle of fish.
doesn't the following figure imply that John the Baptist was executed during Jesus' second year of ministry, between his second and third Passovers, assuming only 3?

25-life-of-jesus-showing-coverage-by-matthew-mark-luke-john.png


if so, a 28/29/30 Passover chronology could time the beheading to the jubilee year of 28/29...

which would be a very significant and even "Pilate Sejanus thing to do"?

PS: Was Herod quoting "shah Xerxes to Esther" to Salome, implying Jews were slaves of his realm?
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
and more evidence to consider

this isn't circular reasoning

I'm not saying one thing is true because of something else because of the first thing

this is standard law enforcement Abduction, trying to fit the facts all at once into a single narrative

it's an explanation, not a proof

I haven't proved anything, just offered a "compelling" if unsubstantiated interpretation of facts, connecting them together into a single storyline

more evidence would be far more preferable of course
Deductive reasoning is drawing necessarily valid conclusions from data. Fixed conclusions from specific instances, such as Evidence-Based Medicine.
Inductive reasoning is drawing conclusions from data that may be valid, but might not be. Usually in the form of generalising conditions or rules from specific instances, such as in standard Scientific Method.

Abductive Reasoning is an attempt to fence in Induction by applying probability, by trying to exclude deductively what is impossible or highly improbable, leaving the inductive conclusions that cannot be so regarded. It also more strongly supports the simpler, rather than more complicated, interpretations. Those conclusions remain instances of Inductive reasoning though.

Now is this what you are doing here? No, you are introducing supposition, such as connecting unconnected things, to shore up a specific interpretation, that 'fits the facts'. This is not abductive reasoning, but plain Inductive type, and those suppositions are required to be able to make the conclusion at all - and the only reason to make them, is to be able to have that conclusion. Such an interpretation is not a valid logical sequence, as the consequence is dependant on thereon, so commits an informal fallacy or would be formally considered weak inductive inference. It is not parsimony, if you have to assume propositions to support a minimal interpretation of facts, as those are all independant propositions leading to the conclusion drawn.

I am not saying you are wrong, but this is a clear example of circular reasoning, and if this is how Law Enforcement works, then they must incarcerate a lot of people solely because they were sure that was their guy.

doesn't the following figure imply that John the Baptist was executed during Jesus' second year of ministry, between his second and third Passovers, assuming only 3?

25-life-of-jesus-showing-coverage-by-matthew-mark-luke-john.png


if so, a 28/29/30 Passover chronology could time the beheading to the jubilee year of 28/29...

which would be a very significant and even "Pilate Sejanus thing to do"?

We don't know when John the Baptist died, nor to when Jesus was crucified. We have broad ranges for both based on fixed dates we do have, such as Pilate's governorship or Antipas' war with the Nabateans. This is certainly a possible interpretation, but I don't think it the strongest one.

Pilate has no relation to the beheading of John the Baptist. This was done by a client king to his own presumed subject, in his territory of Perea, who had been active outside Pilate's province. Not being a Roman citizen, Pilate likely had nothing to do with the affair at all.

PS: Was Herod quoting "shah Xerxes to Esther" to Salome, implying Jews were slaves of his realm?
I am unsure to what you are referring.
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Deductive reasoning is drawing necessarily valid conclusions from data. Fixed conclusions from specific instances, such as Evidence-Based Medicine.
Inductive reasoning is drawing conclusions from data that may be valid, but might not be. Usually in the form of generalising conditions or rules from specific instances, such as in standard Scientific Method.

Abductive Reasoning is an attempt to fence in Induction by applying probability, by trying to exclude deductively what is impossible or highly improbable, leaving the inductive conclusions that cannot be so regarded. It also more strongly supports the simpler, rather than more complicated, interpretations. Those conclusions remain instances of Inductive reasoning though.

Now is this what you are doing here? No, you are introducing supposition, such as connecting unconnected things, to shore up a specific interpretation, that 'fits the facts'. This is not abductive reasoning, but plain Inductive type, and those suppositions are required to be able to make the conclusion at all - and the only reason to make them, is to be able to have that conclusion. Such an interpretation is not a valid logical sequence, as the consequence is dependant on thereon, so commits an informal fallacy or would be formally considered weak inductive inference. It is not parsimony, if you have to assume propositions to support a minimal interpretation of facts, as those are all independant propositions leading to the conclusion drawn.

I am not saying you are wrong, but this is a clear example of circular reasoning, and if this is how Law Enforcement works, then they must incarcerate a lot of people solely because they were sure that was their guy.



We don't know when John the Baptist died, nor to when Jesus was crucified. We have broad ranges for both based on fixed dates we do have, such as Pilate's governorship or Antipas' war with the Nabateans. This is certainly a possible interpretation, but I don't think it the strongest one.

Pilate has no relation to the beheading of John the Baptist. This was done by a client king to his own presumed subject, in his territory of Perea, who had been active outside Pilate's province. Not being a Roman citizen, Pilate likely had nothing to do with the affair at all.


I am unsure to what you are referring.
J Warner Wallace describes Abductive reasoning just that way

it's inference, explanation not proving

Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
J Warner Wallace describes Abductive reasoning just that way

it's inference, explanation not proving

Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia
There is a difference between an inference and supposition. You can infer dates and the ilk, but only after supposing a connection between events we have no real data connecting. Pilate was a governor, so likely had many roads and so built, so there is no reason to suppose any action during his time must be connected to the only thing we remember him for. Especially as trying to hang both the earthquake and crucifixion date upon the firm date of the road-building in question. Adding suppositions to create a faux-parsimonous narrative is not abductive reasoning. The point of abductive reasoning was to limit Inductive reasoning a bit, to what seems more probable. You can create a narrative that best fits the facts, but you can't presuppose connections between those facts beforehand.

We shall have to agree to disagree, I am afraid.
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is a difference between an inference and supposition. You can infer dates and the ilk, but only after supposing a connection between events we have no real data connecting. Pilate was a governor, so likely had many roads and so built, so there is no reason to suppose any action during his time must be connected to the only thing we remember him for. Especially as trying to hang both the earthquake and crucifixion date upon the firm date of the road-building in question. Adding suppositions to create a faux-parsimonous narrative is not abductive reasoning. The point of abductive reasoning was to limit Inductive reasoning a bit, to what seems more probable. You can create a narrative that best fits the facts, but you can't presuppose connections between those facts beforehand.

We shall have to agree to disagree, I am afraid.
well we can't presuppose no connections either, yes?

good suppositions are merely consistent with facts, whereas inferences are reasonably implied, yes?

I thought police investigators and law enforcement generally use both in constructing plausible narratives, though obviously favoring probable implications over possible (if plausible) hypotheticals?

just a conjecture
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
well we can't presuppose no connections either, yes?

good suppositions are merely consistent with facts, whereas inferences are reasonably implied, yes?

I thought police investigators and law enforcement generally use both in constructing plausible narratives, though obviously favoring probable implications over possible (if plausible) hypotheticals?

just a conjecture
I don't know what police and law investigators do. I am merely speaking from the perspective of Inductive reasoning that such supposition does not make the inference stronger therefore.
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sabbatical cycle ?
37/36
30/29
23/22 => 22/21BC Jubilee year [ Herod the Great starts renovating the Temple ? ]
16/15
9/8
2/1BC
6/7AD [ census of Quirinius ? ]
13/14
20/21
27/28 => 28/29AD Jubilee year
34/35
41/42
48/49
55/56
62/63
69/70
76/77 => 77/78AD Jubilee year

---

According to Wikipedia:

Jerome quotes the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews: "'Now the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James, for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen from the dead.' And a little further on the Lord says, 'bring a table and bread.' And immediately it is added, 'He took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead."' And so he ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is, until the seventh year of Nero."

If Nero's 2nd year = 55/56AD, then his 7th year = 60/61... Most scholars date the martyrdom of James the Just to spring 62AD. Perhaps Jerome implies that James was in prison from 61/62AD???

Plausibly, Jerome is speaking in round numbers, much as James' "brother" Jesus was acknowledged to be "30 years old" at the start of his ministry. However, accepting "30 years":

61/62 - 30 = 31/32 AD = Acts 12 (Peter chooses James to succeed him as Bishop of Jerusalem?)

Although some say James the Just was always Bishop of Jerusalem, "the heart of the Church" perhaps one could say, whereas Peter was always the roving "head of the Church" on behalf of Christ?

Moreover, Daniel 9 says that the Messiah will be cut off in the middle of a seven year cycle. 27/28AD + 3.5 years = 30/31AD or so. And it would make sense that Jesus was born in a Sabbatical year 2/1BC (i.e. either Dec 2BC or perhaps January 1BC).

All of this would support a ~30AD date of the Crucifixion, consistent with the 4 April 30AD lunar eclipse date.
In A.D. 41 Agrippa used his relationship with Caligula to help prevent the installation of a statue of the emperor in the Temple in Jerusalem. When Caligula was assassinated [24 Jan 41 AD], Claudius made Agrippa ruler over considerable territory in Judea.

We are not told why he persecuted the church in Jerusalem, although it may be that Agrippa was in some respects interested in his Jewish roots. This piety was demonstrated upon his return to Judea. He donated a golden chain, given to him by Caligula when he was freed from his imprisonment, to the Temple. In addition, he undertook the sponsorship of a large number of Nazarite vows in the temple (Antiq., 12.6.1, Schürer 2:155). During a Sabbath year [41/42 AD ???], Agrippa read from the book of Deuteronomy and was moved to tears when he read the words of Deut 17:15, forbidding the appointment of a stranger over the “brothers” (i.e., a non-Israelite over Israel.) The crowd which witnesses this responded “Thou art our brother!” (See m.Sota 7.8)

Acts 12 – Herod Agrippa I

Persecuting Christians seems consistent with Agrippa posturing himself as an ultra-orthodox purist, and it is (?) plausible that he would try to justify his kingship early on in his reign, in his first year, during the Sabbath year of (?) 41/42 AD
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Saint Paul says he stayed three years in Arabia

Plausibly, he spent three years hiding out in the wilderness, much like Moses, hiding from the authorities (Ananias & Caiaphas) who considered him a criminal

There was a major changing of the guard in 36-37 AD, with Pilate being sacked by Tiberius who was replaced by Caligula; and with Caiaphas being replaced as High Priest by his brothers in law Jonathan & Theophilus (who may have been sympathetic to Paul & Luke)

So, perhaps Paul dared return to Judea again in 36-37 AD, dating his Damascus experience to 33-34 AD ? More consistent with a 30 AD Crucifixion ??

Moreover, the eBook Captivating History: Tiberius says that after he sacked Sejanus in 31 AD, he again retreated to Capri island and left the state in the hands of the Senate...which might not be compatible with the words, "no friend of Caesar" ???
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Moreover, the eBook Captivating History: Tiberius says that after he sacked Sejanus in 31 AD, he again retreated to Capri island and left the state in the hands of the Senate...which might not be compatible with the words, "no friend of Caesar" ???
In what way? Tiberius still ruled via the Praetorian Prefect, just replacing Sejanus with Macro.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In what way? Tiberius still ruled via the Praetorian Prefect, just replacing Sejanus with Macro.
I suppose a 34 AD Damascus event for Paul could still be consistent with a 33 AD Crucifixion event

If our Sabbatical calendar construction is correct, Passover 28 AD was a Sabbath year, and Passover 29 AD was a Jubilee year, perhaps providing protection for the preaching of John & Jesus? The authorities were reluctant to be outright unreasonable during a Sabbath-Jubilee ? But come 30 AD they arrested everyone ?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bob Crowley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 27, 2015
2,999
1,858
69
Logan City
✟747,016.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The answer is the fall of Sejanus. When he was executed, we see Tiberius purging those associated with him and reversing his policies. Clearly his anti-Jewish policies would fall in this category and the best thing for a Sejanus-appointee would be to keep his head down. This is perhaps where the Jewish leadership's barb to Pilate of him being "no friend of Caesar" hits home. It is a tangible threat to report him, in a position where he is vulnerable to be recalled, if not exiled or killed, if he was Sejanus' creature. No wonder the astute Pilate would go out of his way to mollify the Jewish leadership in this case. The more brash Pilate of when Sejanus was still alive to protect him, would have just let Jesus go if he considered Him innocent, as causing consternation and suppressing resulting unrest was not uncommon earlier in his governorship. Tiberius continued purging Sejanus' appointees for the duration of his reign, although it petered out after about 34 AD.

I've got no comment to make about the dating of the crucifixion. Others with more learning than I are better placed to specify a probable date.

My comment is "What's new in politics?".
 
Upvote 0