Freethought & Rationalism Archive

~M~ · 01-14-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Why, yes.

Thanks!

Edit: Oops, seems like one of the links disappeared.

Hi Juergen,

This below link may help you understand Confirmation Theory and you will note, i'm sure, that there is nothing about this real world or potentially real world scenario. Oxymoron wants you to believe that this type of reasoning that I used earlier, "like most philosophers" has something to do with us falsly believing that we are 'pwning' science. Yet it is just inductive reasoning; it smacks dab in philosophy's lap.

http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/people-de...nfirmation.pdf

Doug Shaver · 01-14-2008, 07:08 PM

Kris,

You're welcome. And thank you.

KrisK10 · 01-14-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkforchrist

Hi Kris,

The phrase, "heavenly vision", in Acts 26:19 may be a reference to a later appearance of Jesus to Paul and Ananias in Acts 9:10ff.

PunkforChrist,

The heavenly "vision" in Acts 26:19 is a reference to Paul's initiatory (conversion) vision isn't it? And it's interesting that the word used here for vision (optasiai) is the same that Paul uses in 2 Cor 12:1 to refer to visions after his initiatory vision. This is another indication that Craig is wrong that there is a distinction between appearances and visions. I think Ludemann's got it right, the source of the appearance traditions are grounded in hallucinations (although I don't think that's the origin of the resurrection belief, only the origin of some of the appearance traditions).

Kris

Steven Carr · 01-14-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

He claims that there must have been an empty tomb, but the basis of this claim is that 75% of authorities agree that there was an empty tomb - but he doesn't tell you who these authorities are, or what the basis for their opinion is.

If 75% of biologists believed in Darwinian evolution, then evolution would be a hugely controversial theory.

If 75% of cosmologists agreed with Big Bang theory, then Big Bang theory would be hugely controversial.

Steven Carr · 01-14-2008, 10:38 PM

Paul claimed to have gone to Heaven.

If somebody claims that somebody has risen from the dead, and the alleged witness also claims to have gone to Heaven, how should we evaluate his testimony?

Craig says historians like Ehrman should evaluate such testimony on historical grounds.

But if somebody claims to have gone to Heaven, you need a psychiatrist to evaluate the credibility of such a person, not an historian.

Steven Carr · 01-14-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisK10

William Craig says, “Lüdemann's claim that the resurrection appearances of Jesus were visionary events...fail[s] to render intelligible the New Testament distinction between an appearance and a vision of Jesus…. The New Testament consistently differentiates between a vision of Christ and a resurrection appearance of Christ. Paul was familiar with "visions and revelations of the Lord" (I Cor. 12.1). Yet Paul, like the rest of the New Testament, did not equate such visions of Christ with resurrection appearances. The appearances were to a limited circle of witnesses at the birth of the Christian movement and soon ceased…” (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...s/visions.html).

Where does the New Testament use vocabulary like 'resurrection appearances'?

Where does Paul differentiate between a vision and a resurrection appearance, explaining the difference to his readers?

punkforchrist · 01-14-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisK10

The heavenly "vision" in Acts 26:19 is a reference to Paul's initiatory (conversion) vision isn't it?

At first glance, I think it's difficult to tell. Let's take a closer look.

In Acts 26:9, notice that Paul quotes (or closely paraphrases) the words of Jesus as they are in the appearances to both Paul and Ananias. The "heavenly vision" in verse 19 is preceded by verses 14-18,

Quote:

We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

15"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'

" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

When we compare these verses to the original appearances in Acts 9:4-16,

Quote:

4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"
"Yes, Lord," he answered.

11The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."

13"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."

15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

we discover that Paul is in fact combining the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus with the vision of Jesus to Ananias in Acts 9:10ff.

Steven Carr · 01-14-2008, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkforchrist

we discover that Paul is in fact combining the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus with the vision of Jesus to Ananias in Acts 9:10ff.

I get it!

When Craig says that the NT consistently differentiates between visions and resurrection appearances, he means that the NT combines the two of them together.

It all begins to fall into place....

Oxymoron · 01-15-2008, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Tell me more about this so called 'real world' as opposed to a 'fictional world'.

The '|' is a conditional, because Bayes' Rule is one for conditional probabilities. What comes after the '|' is the condition, and p(X|Y) represents the probability that assuming that Y is true, X is true. If Y is a hypothesis, the assumption that Y is true makes the model potentially fictional. If Y is actual observed data, the model is grounded in observation of the world.

Now, you were going to educate us by showing that it doesn't matter that p(R) is O(0).

Oxymoron · 01-15-2008, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

From the father of modern Bayesianism:

Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (or via: amazon.co.uk) by E. T. Jaynes

Hi,

Is this your source? if so, please include a page number.

Chapter/Lecture 4 introduces Bayes.
Chapter/Lecture 7 follows nicely from that.

Also, this (and especially section 3). Frankly, if you don't understand conditionality or the relationship between priors and posteriors, invoking Bayes is a bit of a joke.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-14-2008, 07:08 PM	#42
Doug Shaver Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: San Bernardino, Calif. Posts: 5,435	Kris, You're welcome. And thank you.

01-14-2008, 10:38 PM	#45
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Paul claimed to have gone to Heaven. If somebody claims that somebody has risen from the dead, and the alleged witness also claims to have gone to Heaven, how should we evaluate his testimony? Craig says historians like Ehrman should evaluate such testimony on historical grounds. But if somebody claims to have gone to Heaven, you need a psychiatrist to evaluate the credibility of such a person, not an historian.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.