Of the following spiritual gifts, which ones are still available and which ones have ceased?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Nor do I. The only people who sought miracles were the Pharisees. And Jesus told them, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign". IMO the same is true of those today who crave miracles and have an unhealthy obsession for supernatural events.

It is also interesting to me that multitudes followed Jesus for the healing and the free lunches, but most of them walked away when He challenged them about their need to identify with His death, in that they need to be identified with His broken body and His shed blood. They felt that it was a hard word for them and they stopped following Him. That was when Jesus turned to the twelve and asked, "Are you going to walk away as well?" And Peter asked, "Where will we go? You have the words of eternal life."

It is interesting that thousands will flock to a healing crusade run by someone who has a reported ministry of healing. For example, in Auckland some years ago, 2000 people attended a week-long series of meetings featuring Reinhard Bonnke. I attended the big crusade meeting on the Saturday night as part of the ministry team. I heard 30 minutes of a guy getting up and telling what a great guy Reinhard was. Reinhard preached for 20 minutes something that was more of a Sunday School lesson for 12 year olds, and then another guy got up and spent another 30 minutes teaching about divine healing. Then they had the ministry time when people were prayed for, but one could hear the prayer requests before the music was so loud and some pelican was yelling through the microphone. What was missing was any mention of the actual Gospel of Christ and His finished work on the Cross, and any call for repentance.

And yet, in churches where there are no promises of miraculous healing, and the ministry centred around the Gospel of Christ and the call for repentance and holiness, they would be lucky to get many more than a 100 to a service. (for anywhere in New Zealand, getting many more than 100 to a church service would be counted as a revival!). The largest churches, usually Charismatics, are ones that are heavy on the miracles and gifts, but light on the Gospel, repentance and holiness.

When I was a member of a Pentecostal mission church under the leadership of the mature pastor whom I have mentioned previously, it was unusual to have more than around 30 people to a service. Why? Because he stressed the Gospel and holiness of life. Other Pentecostals in the city didn't want his ministry. They went after the promise of miracles, prosperity, and motivational type preaching. When I got married and went to my wife's church, I attended all the "healing" meetings, saw the leg lengthening, the people lined up at the front and the preacher pushing them over like skittles. I ended up being very disillusioned and regretful that I had left the previous church, and I got out of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement altogether. I remember going to a "Christian Advance" meeting with a lady preacher, sitting down the back with my Baptist pastor, (In Dunedin, NZ). During the altar call, we saw the woman actually rocking people backward and forward until they over balanced and fell backward. It was so obvious. The pastor and I were like naughty boys giggling on the back row! Incidentally, that pastor's ministry was the only ministry that my Catholic educated wife would enjoy. She said that he was "down to earth". What he did was preach about Jesus in a way that normal people understood.

The most powerful Holy Ghost service I attended was when my previous "holiness" pastor took it, and the glory of God came down and some of the most hardened sinners got off their seats, on their knees and got right with God. It was the closest to what I read about Jonathan Edwards and Charles Finney's services when as the result of powerful Gospel preaching, people getting right with God. When I witnessed that level of Holy Spirit power, it spoiled me for everything else. People didn't have to be rocked backward and forward so that they fell backward. These people fell on their knees and faces getting right with God, and got up saved. That's real Holy Spirit power!

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Not at all. There is a vast difference between the fantastical stories told by strangers on YouTube, and the absolute truth of God's word.

Several problems here:

• First of all, you didn't even explain what this purported "vast difference" even is. You claim that a "vast difference" exists but haven't provided any substantiation for this claim. What "vast difference" are you talking about? How do you know that a "vast difference" exists? And difference in what sense?
• I presume that by fantastical you mean "very unusual, strange, or unexpected" (as per your clarification in post #211). If that's the case, then the same adjective can perfectly be applied to most miracles in the Bible. Biblical miracles are "very unusual, strange, or unexpected" too. So I fail to see the point of using this adjective.
• Stranger is a relative concept. Everyone is a stranger with respect to someone else. No one is known by everybody. And the fact that someone is a stranger with respect to someone else doesn't invalidate their testimony. That's just fallacious. You are an stranger to me. The members of your church are strangers to me. I don't know anything about your congregation. Does that automatically entail that your entire church is full of deluded or deceived people without genuine testimonies worthy of consideration, just because they are strangers to me? Of course not! That's ridiculous! And it's the same with online testimonies. Your automatic offhanded dismissal of testimonial evidence in video and written form simply denotes intellectual laziness on your part, not a lack of genuineness in the testimonies.
• Lastly, if it turns out that God is actually performing miracles today, and if people are witnessing them and attesting to their reality, then modern genuine cases of miracles would be as of God as the the miracles in the Bible. Everything that is of God is as of God as everything else that is of God. It doesn't make sense to say that a miracle that God performs today is "less of God" than a miracle that God performed in Biblical times. Then your claim that there is a "vast difference" would be utterly false. You need to show first that there are no modern miracles today, which you haven't.

Why present evidence for something if you didn't expect other people to believe it?

I never said that I didn't expect you to believe it. I never said that I did expect you to believe it either. I had no expectations in mind. I was simply curious.

I never posted The Westminster Confession as evidence for my belief that the Bible is God's word, nor was my testimony evidence. No evidence can be provided for the inner witness of the Holy Spirit convincing Christians that the Bible is God's word. You either experience it or you don't. It is not something that can be 'proved'.

Then the same thing could be true of modern miracles. There is no reason to expect God to provide scientific evidence accompanying His miracles. There is no verse or passage in the Bible that promises that God will make sure that all of His miracles will be accompanied by mountains of scientific evidence for skeptics. If you want to be really really really sure that miracles do happen today, then I'm afraid there is nothing I can show you. The Holy Spirit has to convince you. And if the Holy Spirit hasn't convinced you that miracles do occur, that's not my problem, just like it's not your problem if the Holy Spirit hasn't convinced me that the Bible is God's word.

Why should I go to all that effort in order to believe them? If people want me to believe their fantastical claims a far simpler method would be to provide some hard indisputable evidence, such as a video of a miracle occurring right before the camera. But in an age where everyone carries a video camera in their pocket, no such evidence is ever forthcoming. Only an unsubstantiated 'story'.

Then you have unbiblical expectations regarding evidence for miracles. The Bible never promises mountains of indisputable, hard scientific evidence accompanying miracles that you can publish in peer-reviewed medical journals in order to meet the epistemological demands of skeptics, so that all atheists in the world would be able to know that miracles do exist. God certainly didn't provide that evidence in the case of Jesus' resurrection, which is the most important miracle in history. If God didn't provide mountains of scientific evidence 2000 years ago, then why should we expect God to do that today?

Nor do I. The only people who sought miracles were the Pharisees. And Jesus told them, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign". IMO the same is true of those today who crave miracles and have an unhealthy obsession for supernatural events.

The key word here is "unhealthy". I agree, everything that is unhealthy is, of course, unhealthy. That doesn't mean that a healthy version doesn't exist. Acts 4 is a good example of a healthy appreciation for miracles, which is consistent with @Oscarr's remarks:

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Nor do I. The only people who sought miracles were the Pharisees. And Jesus told them, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign". IMO the same is true of those today who crave miracles and have an unhealthy obsession for supernatural events.

It seems to be quite remarkable over the years since we began debating about the gifts of the Spirit, that there has been quite a significant change in my thinking about them and how they should function in our churches. I think it is because I have come to accept the reality that there is no instruction manual on how they should be used and that many are using just guesswork plus trial and error in the way they try.

Of course, I have had to look closely at the Scriptures and have progressively discovered that the way that many Charismatics have taught about and practised the gifts is different to the way Luke and Paul described them. I accept that the gifts, including tongues and prophecy did decline and had largely died out by the fourth century. No doubt about that, although Augustine was reporting divine healing in his parish, in spite of his earlier assertion that the healing gifts had ceased. He changed his view and tried to inform the hierarchy in Rome that he was wrong, but they wouldn't change what he originally said.

I am influenced by John Calvin as to the reasons why they ceased, as well as one or two of the more prominent church fathers. Their reason was that the church fell below the standard of commitment to Christ and holiness that provided the foundation for the gifts to continue. Calvin cited the misuse of tongues as a principal cause for it to die out over time, and successive generations who had not received the gift and didn't believe in it ridiculing those who did speak in tongues, and so the general motivation for continuing in the gift died out. Calvin used the words "self-indulgence" which may have implied that tongues speakers thought themselves ultra spiritual and looked down on those who didn't speak in tongues. Sounds rather familiar, doesn't it?

I really do believe that there was a Pentecostal revival in 1902 and that there were genuine manifestations of the power of the Holy Spirit in transforming lives and revitalising the principles set forth by the Methodist Holiness movement that came before it. It seemed to me more of a series of sovereign moves of the Holy Spirit than people manufacturing it. But of course, like any revival, after a generation or two, people made a theology of it, and taught, "This is the way it should happen", and so the Pentecostal movement as we know it, developed into something that is as different as chalk and cheese to what it was in 1902. The problem is these days is that there are no people alive who can give eye-witness accounts of what really happened, and so the water is well and truly muddied with the "new revelations" and the current prosperity and guaranteed healing doctrines.

From what I have read about the Brownsville revival is that it started with the powerful effects of the preaching of the Gospel where there were mass conversions to Christ as Stephen Hill preached repentance and holiness. But then as things progressed, the emphasis changed to the wacky side. From what I read about the Welsh revival, much the same happened, which resulted in Jesse Penn-Lewis writing her book "War on the Saints" where she expressed deep concern about the manifestations that were happening. I just wonder if when a true revival happens and multitudes get saved, that the devil comes in and causes subtle changes that causes the revival to go in the direction of outward manifestations and away from people's hearts being cut through the preaching of the Gospel? Jonathan Edwards had the same concerns about the Great Awakening, and he wrote a serious study about "Affectations" which echoes the same concerns about outward physical manifestations which can be a distraction from what should be the central issue that caused the revival in the first place.

I know from my observation of the Charismatic Renewal that happened in the 1960s, that it was involved with gaining a new commitment to Christ and a greater desire to worship and serve Him, rather than being in bondage to the old, dried out traditions of the established churches. But as you and I know, the central principle has now been well and truly overshadowed by the emphasis on physical manifestations and empty promises.

So, I am still a continuist at heart, but no longer sure how it actually works out in practice. The only answer I have these days is that God is sovereign and He does what is in His will, plan and purpose for us, and that the difference between heaven and hell for people is whether they are prepared to believe the Gospel of Christ, repent and depend on the Holy Spirit to live a holy life, pleasing to the Lord and providing a sure testimony to the world around them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Several problems here:

• First of all, you didn't even explain what this purported "vast difference" even is. You claim that a "vast difference" exists but haven't provided any substantiation for this claim. What "vast difference" are you talking about? How do you know that a "vast difference" exists? And different in what sense?
• I presume that by fantastical you mean "very unusual, strange, or unexpected" (as per your clarification in post #211). If that's the case, then the same adjective can perfectly be applied to most miracles in the Bible. Biblical miracles are "very unusual, strange, or unexpected" too. So I fail to see the point of using this adjective.
• Stranger is a relative concept. Everyone is a stranger with respect to someone else. No one is known by everybody. And the fact that someone is a stranger with respect to someone else doesn't invalidate their testimony. That's just fallacious. You are an stranger to me. The members of your church are strangers to me. I don't know anything about your congregation. Does that automatically entail that your entire church is full of deluded or deceived people without genuine testimonies worthy of consideration, just because they are strangers to me? Of course not! That's ridiculous! And it's the same with online testimonies. Your automatic offhanded dismissal of testimonial evidence in video and written form simply denotes intellectual laziness on your part, not a lack of genuineness in the testimonies.
• Lastly, if it turns out that God is actually performing miracles today, and if people are witnessing them and attesting to their reality, then modern genuine cases of miracles would be as of God as the the miracles in the Bible. Everything that is of God is as of God as everything else that is of God. It doesn't make sense to say that a miracle that God performs today is "less of God" than a miracle that God performed in Biblical times. Then your claim that there is a "vast difference" would be utterly false. You need to show first that there are no modern miracles today, which you haven't.

I never said that I didn't expect you to believe it. I never said that I did expect you to believe it either. I had no expectations in mind. I was simply curious.



Then the same thing could be true of modern miracles. There is no reason to expect God to provide scientific evidence accompanying His miracles. There is no verse or passage in the Bible that promises that God will make sure that all of His miracles will be accompanied by mountains of scientific evidence for skeptics. If you want to be really really really sure that miracles do happen today, then I'm afraid there is nothing I can show you. The Holy Spirit has to convince you. And if the Holy Spirit hasn't convinced you that miracles do occur, that's not my problem, just like it's not your problem if the Holy Spirit hasn't convinced me that the Bible is God's word.



Then you have unbiblical expectations regarding evidence for miracles. The Bible never promises mountains of indisputable, hard scientific evidence accompanying miracles that you can publish in peer-reviewed medical journals in order to meet the epistemological demands of skeptics, so that all atheists in the world would be able to know that miracles do exist. God certainly didn't provide that evidence in the case of Jesus' resurrection, which is the most important miracle in history. If God didn't provide mountains of scientific evidence 2000 years ago, then why should we expect God to do that today?



The key word here is "unhealthy". I agree, everything that is unhealthy is, of course, unhealthy. That doesn't mean that a healthy version doesn't exist. Acts 4 is a good example of a healthy appreciation for miracles, which is consistent with @Oscarr's remarks:

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

For me, the evidence that a miracle of healing has actually occurred, saying in the healing of terminal, inoperable lung cancer, is a copy of an Xray showing the lung full of cancer, and then after prayer, or a sovereign act of God, another Xray showing a healthy lung with no evidence of cancer.

Or if a totally disabled person, paralysed from the neck down and in a motorised wheelchair is totally healed, the results are there for all to see. By the way, there were some who go to Benny Hinn's crusades, but they always go home the same as before. What does that tell you?

But getting a "word of knowledge" that someone has cancer and is now healed through prayer and subsequent Xray finds no trace of the cancer, is not evidence enough to convince me. I have a friend who had a broken ankle which made one foot slightly shorter than the other. He went up several times for one of the "leg lengthening" healing preachers, and everyone "saw" the leg being lengthened. Yet, after the service he still hobbled back to his car. Of course, I learned about the trick and how it was performed to make it appear that a leg was being lengthened. That showed me that leg lengthening is a total fraud.

I was in one service where the music was very loud, and the preacher shouted for all he was worth. They had the healing line afterward, and, you guessed it, the majority of the healing requests were for headaches!!

There is that famous video clip of Benny Hinn praying for a woman who was "slain in the Spirit" and she then pointed him to her husband who was in a wheelchair as the result of a stroke, but Hinn brushed her off and totally ignored the husband. How come he had enough power to cause a woman to fall over in the Spirit, but nothing to heal her husband of the effects of a stroke. What about Kenny Copeland who prayed for a guy in a wheelchair, who fell over backwards, wheelchair and all and had to be helped up by the ushers. The "power" hit the guy and caused him to fall backwards out of his wheelchair, but there wasn't enough to actually heal him of his condition. It is amazing that people don't see the fraud in all this!

Conversely, and friend from Zimbabwe, witnessed a severely disabled girl being prayed for at a church service in Zimbabwe. Her body was totally all twisted up. Everyone knew the girl and her disabled condition. My friend saw and heard all her bones moving around in her body until she was completely healed. He and all the others were totally convinced that Jesus really does heal today. No one except God could have made that happen to the young girl. But I think that is a once in a lifetime event to witness. It certainly didn't happen to every sick or disabled person every Sunday. Just because the Lord does it once, He doesn't have to continuing doing the same on demand.

I have arthritis in my thumb joints. The Xray shows that there is little or no cartilage in the joints. I get discomfort and pain and take pain killers at night so I can sleep. The only way that I will know that I am healed is that the bump caused by the arthritis is gone and a subsequent Xray shows a total restoration of the cartilage in the joints. A lack of pain means nothing, because that could be just the painkillers. And I still have strength and mobility. But until I see the Xray evidence that healing has definitely taken place, I still have arthritis, no doubt about it.

 

[Guojing]

I have arthritis in my thumb joints. The Xray shows that there is little or no cartilage in the joints. I get discomfort and pain and take pain killers at night so I can sleep. The only way that I will know that I am healed is that the bump caused by the arthritis is gone and a subsequent Xray shows a total restoration of the cartilage in the joints. A lack of pain means nothing, because that could be just the painkillers. And I still have strength and mobility. But until I see the Xray evidence that healing has definitely taken place, I still have arthritis, no doubt about it.

Hopefully you may find this advice by Paul given to us in the Body of Christ today useful in 2 Corinthians 4

16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Paul calls all sicknesses we have in our bodies as "light afflictions", and even though our outward man, which is the body, perishes, it is working for us a "a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;"

As the other thread we have participated in about 1 Corinthians 13:10, this is precisely where we need faith, hope and charity. =)

 

[swordsman1]

First of all, you didn't even explain what this purported "vast difference" even is. You claim that a "vast difference" exists but haven't provided any substantiation for this claim. What "vast difference" are you talking about? How do you know that a "vast difference" exists? And difference in what sense?

One is a dubious unsubstantiated hearsay story. The other is the highest standard of infallible Truth.

I presume that by fantastical you mean "very unusual, strange, or unexpected" (as per your clarification in post #211). If that's the case, then the same adjective can perfectly be applied to most miracles in the Bible. Biblical miracles are "very unusual, strange, or unexpected" too. So I fail to see the point of using this adjective.

Correct. That is the proper definition of a miracle. And that describes the miracles recorded in the Bible. They were true miracles that defied the laws of nature.

Most of today's charismatic 'miracles' however do not even come close to that definition. The 'healings' that are performed today are usually unverifiable illnesses such as back pain or depression which are known to be improved by psychosomatic techniques and the power of suggestion. The people in wheelchairs or suffering from visibly incurable conditions are quietly ushered away. Many of today's miracles are even demonstrably fake such as the common leg-lengthening parlour trick.

The stories that are claimed to be proper miracles, such as the stories of raising the dead for instance, are never substantiated.

Stranger is a relative concept. Everyone is a stranger with respect to someone else. No one is known by everybody. And the fact that someone is a stranger with respect to someone else doesn't invalidate their testimony. That's just fallacious. You are an stranger to me. The members of your church are strangers to me. I don't know anything about your congregation. Does that automatically entail that your entire church is full of deluded or deceived people without genuine testimonies worthy of consideration, just because they are strangers to me? Of course not! That's ridiculous! And it's the same with online testimonies. Your automatic offhanded dismissal of testimonial evidence in video and written form simply denotes intellectual laziness on your part, not a lack of genuineness in the testimonies.

Wrong. Of course being a stranger makes a difference. Suppose two people told you a fantastical story, one was a stranger you had never met and the other was your mother, someone you known and trusted for your entire life. Who are you more likely to believe?

You expect me to change my beliefs, not from a well reasoned argument from scripture, not from a testimony from someone I know and trust, but from a hearsay story from a complete stranger on YouTube? Get out of here.

Your automatic offhanded dismissal of testimonial evidence in video and written form simply denotes intellectual laziness on your part, not a lack of genuineness in the testimonies.

Ah, I see the fallacy of ad hominem is raising it's ugly head once again.

Lastly, if it turns out that God is actually performing miracles today, and if people are witnessing them and attesting to their reality, then modern genuine cases of miracles would be as of God as the the miracles in the Bible. Everything that is of God is as of God as everything else that is of God. It doesn't make sense to say that a miracle that God performs today is "less of God" than a miracle that God performed in Biblical times. Then your claim that there is a "vast difference" would be utterly false. You need to show first that there are no modern miracles today, which you haven't.

No the onus isn't on me isn't on me to show there are no miracles today. That is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You are the one claiming miracles, so you need to substantiate that claim. So far you have failed to do so. Posting hearsay stories from strangers on YouTube doesn't even come close.

www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

If you want to be really really really sure that miracles do happen today, then I'm afraid there is nothing I can show you. The Holy Spirit has to convince you. And if the Holy Spirit hasn't convinced you that miracles do occur, that's not my problem, just like it's not your problem if the Holy Spirit hasn't convinced me that the Bible is God's word.

Nonsense. Of course miracles can be proved. It just takes a video camera or some other method of providing indisputable evidence. No Holy Spirit convincing is required. Some charismatic groups even attempt to provide such evidence, for example the "peer reviewed" account you posted earlier in this thread, which I was easily able to debunk.

Then you have unbiblical expectations regarding evidence for miracles. The Bible never promises mountains of indisputable, hard scientific evidence accompanying miracles that you can publish in peer-reviewed medical journals in order to meet the epistemological demands of skeptics, so that all atheists in the world would be able to know that miracles do exist. God certainly didn't provide that evidence in the case of Jesus' resurrection, which is the most important miracle in history. If God didn't provide mountains of scientific evidence 2000 years ago, then why should we expect God to do that today?

Most of the miracles in the Bible were performed right in front of people's eyes, so there was never any reason to doubt. They were then recorded for all mankind in infallible scripture. That is a long way from what you are expecting me to believe.

The key word here is "unhealthy". I agree, everything that is unhealthy is, of course, unhealthy. That doesn't mean that a healthy version doesn't exist. Acts 4 is a good example of a healthy appreciation for miracles, which is consistent with @Oscarr's remarks:

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

There is no such thing as a "healthy" obsession for miracles. Such an obsession demonstrates an extreme lack of faith IMO. Not satisfied with simply believing God based on his word, such people seek something more tangible to hold on to. They demand miracles to prove his presence. God must perform a magic show in order for them to believe. Just like the Pharisees demanded, only worse. Even the Pharisees observed quality miracles performed right in front of their eyes. Today people are so desperate for miracles that are willing to accept happenings that are not even miracles at all, and all from the hearsay testimonies of strangers.

Of course the disciples performed miraculous signs. But that was at a time when the fledgling church was just getting established in an incredibly hostile world devoid of the convincing power of the New Testament scriptures.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

One is a dubious unsubstantiated hearsay story. The other is the highest standard of infallible Truth.

Correct. The record of Scripture is the final standard and the highest authority of whether something that happens is of God or not.

Correct. That is the proper definition of a miracle. And that describes the miracles recorded in the Bible. They were true miracles that defied the laws of nature.

Most of today's charismatic 'miracles' however do not even come close to that definition. The 'healings' that are performed today are usually unverifiable illnesses such as back pain or depression which are known to be improved by psychosomatic techniques and the power of suggestion. The people in wheelchairs or suffering from visibly incurable conditions are quietly ushered away. Many of today's miracles are even demonstrably fake such as the common leg-lengthening parlour trick.

True. Neil Anderson in his book on depression, called "Finding Hope Again", deals with the treatment of depression in three ways. He says that an accurate diagnosis is vital before starting a treatment. If the depression is situational or developmental, then the first stage of treatment would be a course of professional counselling. If the depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, then medical intervention is required. And if the depression has a spiritual origin (which is more difficult to diagnose, and Dr Anderson suggests that it would be when the counselling and medical means do not work), then spiritual treatment is advised. He outlines the spiritual treatment in his book, "The Bondage Breaker".

The ushering away of those with definite illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, and disabilities such as paralysis is commonplace in Benny Hinn healing crusades. Only those who have "illnesses" that are not visible to the eye are allowed on stage to receive prayer. In the Reinhard Bonnke African crusades people were "auditioned" first, and really serious medical and disability cases were kept away from the public stage, in favour of the "backaches", "depression", and cases that cannot offer substantive proof of healing if it happens.

The stories that are claimed to be proper miracles, such as the stories of raising the dead for instance, are never substantiated.

True. The saddest case was in the Bethel church when a child died, and the congregation chanted "The child shall live" for several days without any result. It was a case where naming and claim spectacularly failed.

Conversely, the raising of Dorcas from the dead by Peter was done in front of many people, and the result was that the whole community turned to Christ. The healing of the lame man by Peter and John at the gate of the Temple was totally verified, because everyone knew about the lame guy because he had been there for years begging. Obviously he and Jesus never made contact because he might have been healed previously. So, when the guy jumped up and started walking, leaping and praising God, everyone knew that he had been truly healed, and as a result people came from all over, and 5000 more converts were added to the church.

Compare those which the "healings" that happen in modern healing meetings. We don't see the type of "healings" that would amaze people and cause every unconverted person in the place to turn to Christ

Wrong. Of course being a stranger makes a difference. Suppose two people told you a fantastical story, one was a stranger you had never met and the other was your mother, someone you known and trusted for your entire life. Who are you more likely to believe?

I think I would require more substantive evidence than even my mother's story. My mother was a UFO enthusiast who said that she saw an actual UFO. My father and brother said it was the planet Venus shining more brightly than usual. So, a mother's story is not always reliable!

You expect me to change my beliefs, not from a well reasoned argument from scripture, not from a testimony from someone I know and trust, but from a hearsay story from a complete stranger on YouTube? Get out of here.

Quite right. We have debated these issues for years, and I know for sure that nothing except a direct eyewitness, medical Xrays, or a testimony from someone you know and trust will convince you that a real healing has taken place. In this we are totally agreed.

Ah, I see the fallacy of ad hominem is raising it's ugly head once again.

"ad hominem"? Resorting to speaking in tongues now? Hahahahahahahahahaha! Seriously, I know it is Latin but I don't know what it means.

No the onus isn't on me isn't on me to show there are no miracles today. That is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You are the one claiming miracles, so you need to substantiate that claim. So far you have failed to do so. Posting hearsay stories from strangers on YouTube doesn't even come close.

True. Interestingly, a good friend of mine was preaching in a village in Fiji. A boy came asking for prayer for a large, infected boil on his leg. My friend prayed for him, and he stood back and watched as the boil immediately and spontaneously came to a head and burst, sending its contents flowing down the boy's leg. It then healed in the normal way over the next few days. It appears to me that the miracle was the bursting of the boil as the result of prayer, and the subsequent healing came about through the natural process. It is as if the Holy Spirit worked to relieve the boy of the intense pain he was suffering because of the unburst boil, and when the boil burst that relieved the pain.

Nonsense. Of course miracles can be proved. It just takes a video camera or some other method of providing indisputable evidence. No Holy Spirit convincing is required. Some charismatic groups even attempt to provide such evidence, for example the "peer reviewed" account you posted earlier in this thread, which I was easily able to debunk.

True. The best review of a healing would come from non-Charismatics, or even unconverted observers who would not have a "conflict of interest".

Most of the miracles in the Bible were performed right in front of people's eyes, so there was never any reason to doubt. They were then recorded for all mankind in infallible scripture. That is a long way from what you are expecting me to believe.

Very true.

There is no such thing as a "healthy" obsession for miracles. Such an obsession demonstrates an extreme lack of faith IMO. Not satisfied with simply believing God based on his word, such people seek something more tangible to hold on to. They demand miracles to prove his presence. God must perform a magic show in order for them to believe. Just like the Pharisees demanded, only worse. Even the Pharisees observed quality miracles performed right in front of their eyes. Today people are so desperate for miracles that are willing to accept happenings that are not even miracles at all, and all from the hearsay testimonies of strangers.

I think that if people were as obsessive about the Gospel of Christ and the need to get people to know what the Cross of Christ is all about, and to get them saved, as they are with miracles, then our churches would a lot better off with new converts.

Of course the disciples performed miraculous signs. But that was at a time when the fledgling church was just getting established in an incredibly hostile world devoid of the convincing power of the New Testament scriptures.

True. In most cases, it were the miracles of healing and deliverance that convinced the pagans that Jesus Christ was really alive and that they should forsake their idols and turn to Him. Whole pagan communities came to Christ as the result of the healing miracles that took place. A most notable miracle happened when Gregory the Wonderworker came to a town and spent the night in the pagan temple. While there he cast the demon out of the statue of the pagan god. When the high priest came to do his thing the next day, he had lost his power because it was the demon in the statue that empowered him to do his ministry. He then begged Gregory to allow the demon back into the statue. Gregory agreed. But it was too late, because the townspeople saw that Jesus Christ had more power than the demon, so they all turned to Christ. For a while Gregory had the role of bishop in the town, and after he left, the high priest, who had himself been converted to Christ, became the next Christian bishop. Of course, in our western scientific view we might doubt the miracle, but the pagans in that town, including their own high priest knew the difference between the work of a demon and the power of Jesus Christ, and it was enough to bring a whole town to Christ.

The reality that is developing in our neo-pagan western society is that the Scriptures have lost its authority for many and is no longer as convincing as it once was. In times past, people would have been convicted of sin by just quoting the Scripture; but nowadays, most neo-pagans with no background in church would say, "So what?" I think that we need something more to convince them that Jesus Christ is alive today and that they are accountable to Him and that there is a judgment to come. If we deny the miracle working power of the Holy Spirit, and they don't view the Scriptures as being more than just some sort of religious book, what is there to convict them of sin, righteousness and judgment to come? In my view - nothing but barren words, and multitudes will end up in hell because the church can do nothing more than quote Scripture verses that none of the neo-pagans will believe. If we are to see conversions to Christ among our neo-pagans we need the demonstration of the Spirit and power that the Apostles had.

I don't think that any Christian worker trying to get the Gospel out in our neo-pagan society will deny that. But I will agree that our generally corrupted Charismatic movement is falling well short of being able to consistently apply that demonstration of the Spirit.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

One is a dubious unsubstantiated hearsay story. The other is the highest standard of infallible Truth.

Again, you haven't substantiated the claim that the Bible is the highest standard of infallible truth. You claim that the Holy Spirit revealed this to you, but you haven't provided any substantiation for this claim either. So you are in no better position than modern witnesses of miracles.

• You claim that the Holy Spirit revealed to you that the Bible is God's word, but you haven't provided any hard evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim. Therefore, your testimony is just hearsay (borrowing your own terminology).
• Many Christians claim that the Holy Spirit has allowed them to witness or experience miracles first-hand, but many times they are unable to provide hard, indisputable supportive evidence. Therefore, their testimonies would be just hearsay (borrowing your own terminology).

In other words, you dismiss testimonies of miracles as hearsay even though your own testimony is nothing but hearsay. Doesn't this sound like hypocrisy?

You want hard indisputable scientific evidence backing up testimonies of miracles? Great, teach us by way of example. Show us hard indisputable scientific evidence backing up your own testimony.

The stories that are claimed to be proper miracles, such as the stories of raising the dead for instance, are never substantiated.

Again, the same thing can be said of the miracles recorded in the Bible. Where is the hard indisputable scientific evidence substantiating the Biblical stories of miracles?

And again, if you respond by saying that "the Holy Spirit revealed it to me", I can respond with the same skepticism and request hard indisputable evidence for your testimony, which you don't have.

So your position is just as weak as the ones you dismiss:

• You believe because of your personal experience with the Holy Spirit, which you can't substantiate.
• Many Christians believe in miracles because of their personal experience with the miraculous, which they can't substantiate (although some cases are substantiated, please refer to Craig Keener's works on miracles).

Wrong. Of course being a stranger makes a difference. Suppose two people told you a fantastical story, one was a stranger you had never met and the other was your mother, someone you known and trusted for your entire life. Who are you more likely to believe?

You expect me to change my beliefs, not from a well reasoned argument from scripture, not from a testimony from someone I know and trust, but from a hearsay story from a complete stranger on YouTube? Get out of here.

Again, the concept of stranger is relative. My mother is a stranger to billions of people. Your mother is a stranger to me. Even Jesus is a stranger to millions. Should we then dismiss Jesus just because he is a stranger to millions? Of course not. You shouldn't use the fact that someone is a stranger to someone else to dismiss their testimony. That's fallacious.

If someone is a stranger to you, that simply means that you are ignorant about that person, a limitation that can more or less easily be overcome by investigating more. Leave the armchair, go out there, meet strangers, interview strangers, go to the mission field, go to Africa, Asia, South America, meet witnesses, interview them, be an investigative journalist. As an example, Craig Keener has interviewed LOTS of witnesses (in addition to his own personal experiences), see:

Ah, I see the fallacy of ad hominem is raising it's ugly head once again.

Then prove me wrong. Go out there and meet and chat with witnesses face to face.

No the onus isn't on me isn't on me to show there are no miracles today. That is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You are the one claiming miracles, so you need to substantiate that claim. So far you have failed to do so. Posting hearsay stories from strangers on YouTube doesn't even come close.

www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

I'm not shifting the burden of proof. My remarks were specifically about YOUR CLAIM that there is a VAST DIFFERENCE between the miracle accounts in the Bible and modern miracle accounts. If modern miracle accounts are of God, and if Biblical accounts of miracles are of God as well, THEN THERE IS NO "VAST DIFFERENCE". Both would be of God. Therefore, by claiming that there is a vast difference you are implicitly claiming that modern miracle accounts are NOT of God. How do you know they are not of God?

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim. You claimed that a "vast difference" exists, so please substantiate this claim.

Nonsense. Of course miracles can be proved. It just takes a video camera or some other method of providing indisputable evidence. No Holy Spirit convincing is required. Some charismatic groups even attempt to provide such evidence, for example the "peer reviewed" account you posted earlier in this thread, which I was easily able to debunk.

You are forgetting something. Nothing happens unless God allows it to happen. If God really wanted to provide indisputable evidence of his miraculous powers to shut up both atheists and cessationists, then there is no need for video cameras. God could very easily snap His fingers and produce a worldwide massive scale of miracles defying all sorts of natural laws to convince even the most stubborn skeptic. Of course, God is not doing that, which means He is not into the business of convincing atheists and cessationists. The Pharisees wanted indisputable signs and wonders from Jesus in front of their eyes, but they didn't receive them. You want indisputable live recordings of extraordinary miracles, but God is not allowing that to happen.

Most of the miracles in the Bible were performed right in front of people's eyes, so there was never any reason to doubt.

Modern eyewitnesses of miracles also affirm to have witnessed miracles in front of their eyes, so there is no reason for them to doubt.

They were then recorded for all mankind in infallible scripture.

• That's testimonial evidence in written form, which you have consistently dismissed as "hearsay".
• You haven't demonstrated yet that scripture is infallible, you simply have claimed that it is so because the Holy Spirit allegedly convinced you of that, but that's just your testimony, i.e., hearsay.

Of course the disciples performed miraculous signs. But that was at a time when the fledgling church was just getting established in an incredibly hostile world devoid of the convincing power of the New Testament scriptures.

Just like stories of miracles can still be heard from missionaries in the mission field, in countries where the church is just getting established.

Do miracles happen today?

Is there medical evidence for miracles? Craig Keener, Michael Shermer & Elijah Stephens

Does God do miracles today?

Miracles in Chile | MISSIONARY STORIES

 

[swordsman1]

Again, you haven't substantiated the claim that the Bible is the highest standard of infallible truth. You claim that the Holy Spirit revealed this to you, but you haven't provided any substantiation for this claim either. So you are in no better position than modern witnesses of miracles.

• You claim that the Holy Spirit revealed to you that the Bible is God's word, but you haven't provided any hard evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim. Therefore, your testimony is just hearsay (borrowing your own terminology).
• Many Christians claim that the Holy Spirit has allowed them to witness or experience miracles first-hand, but many times they are unable to provide hard, indisputable supportive evidence. Therefore, their testimonies would be just hearsay (borrowing your own terminology).

In other words, you dismiss testimonies of miracles as hearsay even though your own testimony is nothing but hearsay. Doesn't this sound like hypocrisy?

You want hard indisputable scientific evidence backing up testimonies of miracles? Great, teach us by way of example. Show us hard indisputable scientific evidence backing up your own testimony.

God's word is the highest standard of truth because of the nature of it's author. Humans are prone to mistakes, to delusions, to deceit, and to lies. Hence their stories cannot be relied upon. But God cannot do any of those things.

Again, the concept of stranger is relative. My mother is a stranger to billions of people. Your mother is a stranger to me. Even Jesus is a stranger to millions. Should we then dismiss Jesus just because he is a stranger to millions? Of course not. You shouldn't use the fact that someone is a stranger to someone else to dismiss their testimony. That's fallacious.

If someone is a stranger to you, that simply means that you are ignorant about that person, a limitation that can more or less easily be overcome by investigating more. Leave the armchair, go out there, meet strangers, interview strangers, go to the mission field, go to Africa, Asia, South America, meet witnesses, interview them, be an investigative journalist. As an example, Craig Keener has interviewed LOTS of witnesses (in addition to his own personal experiences), see:

It stands to reason that the testimony of a stranger carries less weight than those we know and trust. That is not fallacious at all. The testimony of Jesus can absolutely be relied upon because he is God.

Craig Keener may be gullible enough to believe the stories of his interviewees. Not surprising seeing as he is a miracle craving charismatic. But because he believe them doesn't mean that I too must believe the hearsay he regurgitates. Now that is fallacious.

I'm not shifting the burden of proof. My remarks were specifically about YOUR CLAIM that there is a VAST DIFFERENCE between the miracle accounts in the Bible and modern miracle accounts. If modern miracle accounts are of God, and if Biblical accounts of miracles are of God as well, THEN THERE IS NO "VAST DIFFERENCE". Both would be of God. Therefore, by claiming that there is a vast difference you are implicitly claiming that modern miracle accounts are NOT of God. How do you know they are not of God?

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim. You claimed that a "vast difference" exists, so please substantiate this claim.

Wrong. This is what you said, "You need to show first that there are no modern miracles today, which you haven't."

I have no need to prove such a thing. It was YOU who made the claim that miracles are commonplace today. So the burden of proof lies with you to prove it. Not on me to prove otherwise.

The Pharisees wanted indisputable signs and wonders from Jesus in front of their eyes, but they didn't receive them.

Actually Jesus did perform miracles right in front of the eyes of the Pharisees. But still they would not believe in him. The problem with the Pharisees is that wasn't enough and they wanted more and more miracles. They wanted an ongoing magic show, just like the miracle craving charismatics of today. The miracles recorded in scripture are not enough for them, they want a magic show on top.

You want indisputable live recordings of extraordinary miracles, but God is not allowing that to happen.

A more likely reason there is no hard proof for miracles is not because God is deliberately obscuring them, but simply because there was no miracle in the first place. It is mainly wishful thinking, mistakenness, delusion, or lies. A video or other hard evidence would quickly dispel any doubts that a miracle really took place.

Modern eyewitnesses of miracles also affirm to have witnessed miracles in front of their eyes, so there is no reason for them to doubt.

So they say. But they never provide any proof.

Just like stories of miracles can still be heard from missionaries in the mission field, in countries where the church is just getting established.

Do miracles happen today?


Is there medical evidence for miracles? Craig Keener, Michael Shermer & Elijah Stephens


Does God do miracles today?


Miracles in Chile | MISSIONARY STORIES

Again these are just unsubstantiated hearsay 'stories'. Where is the proof?

Miracles aren't needed today to win people to Christ. People by saved by hearing the gospel, not by witnessing a miracle. Millions upon millions have been saved simply by hearing the gospel preached, compared to the tiny handful of people who say they were also influenced by witnessing a supposed miracle. If people want miracles to authenticate the Christian faith, they only have to open a Bible.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

God's word is the highest standard of truth because of the nature of it's author. Humans are prone to mistakes, to delusions, to deceit, and to lies. Hence their stories cannot be relied upon. But God cannot do any of those things.

• I fully agree that God's word must be the highest standard of truth. In fact, I would extend this assertion to all of God's divine interventions: every divine intervention and every form of communication from God provides the highest epistemological value.
• I also fully with agree that humans are imperfect.
• We are on the same page on both points.

HOWEVER, even with all that conceded, you still have to prove that:

• God is the author of the Bible
• God is NOT the author of modern miracles that people are reporting

FURTHERMORE, the Bible was written by humans. Each book in the Bible was written by a person of flesh and blood. So if you believe that the Bible was inspired by God (which you haven't proved yet), then you would have to accept that God used imperfect humans to accomplish his divine purposes. In fact, we could say the same thing about modern miracle reports: although the humans reporting the miracles are imperfect, God is more than capable of using imperfect humans today to testify of modern miracles, just like He was able to use imperfect humans and councils in the past to write and compile a set of books that we now refer to as "the Bible".

So the fact that an imperfect human claims to have witnessed a miracle doesn't preclude that God could be the source behind the miracle and also that He may be inspiring the words of that imperfect human (just like He inspired the people who wrote and compiled the different books that make up the canon).

It stands to reason that the testimony of a stranger carries less weight than those we know and trust. That is not fallacious at all.

But then it's just a matter of investigating more about that "stranger", and the objection would dissipate.

The testimony of Jesus can absolutely be relied upon because he is God.

Any proofs?

Craig Keener may be gullible enough to believe the stories of his interviewees. Not surprising seeing as he is a miracle craving charismatic. But because he believe them doesn't mean that I too must believe the hearsay he regurgitates. Now that is fallacious.

I would love to see a debate on miracles and epistemology between you and Craig Keener

As an example, I highly recommend watching the debate between Matt Dillahunty (Atheist) and Trent Horn (Catholic apologist) on the resurrection of Jesus:

Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate

Here is an analysis of the debate:

Debate Teacher Reacts: Trent Horn vs. Matt Dillahunty

Wrong. This is what you said, "You need to show first that there are no modern miracles today, which you haven't."

I have no need to prove such a thing.

Again, YOU CLAIMED that there is a VAST DIFFERENCE between miracle reports in the Bible vs. miracle reports outside of the Bible. This claim can only be true if the miracle claims in the Bible are true and miracle claims outside of the Bible are false.

• How do you know that the miracle claims in the Bible are true?
• How do you know that all miracle claims outside of the Bible are false?
• How do you know that there is a vast difference between the two?

Actually Jesus did perform miracles right in front of the eyes of the Pharisees. But still they would not believe in him. The problem with the Pharisees is that wasn't enough and they wanted more and more miracles. They wanted an ongoing magic show, just like the miracle craving charismatics of today. The miracles recorded in scripture are not enough for them, they want a magic show on top.

You are confusing legitimate and illegitimate uses of miracles. Acts 4 is an illustrative example of how miracles can be legitimately useful:

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

A more likely reason there is no hard proof for miracles is not because God is deliberately obscuring them, but simply because there was no miracle in the first place.

This argument would apply to the resurrection of Jesus too. There is no hard proof for the resurrection of Jesus. Using your logic, it's more likely that there was no resurrection in the first place.

And God could certainly provide indisputable hard scientific evidence of Jesus' resurrection if He wanted to, yet He hasn't.

Again these are just unsubstantiated hearsay 'stories'. Where is the proof?

Again, see the work of Craig Keener. See for example:

Miracles: Medical Evidence

Or see this enlightening discussion (Michael Shermer, an atheist, is present):

Is there medical evidence for miracles? Craig Keener, Michael Shermer & Elijah Stephens

Or see https://www.sendproof.com/

Miracles aren't needed today to win people to Christ. People by saved by hearing the gospel, not by witnessing a miracle. Millions upon millions have been saved simply by hearing the gospel preached, compared to the tiny handful of people who say they were also influenced by witnessing a supposed miracle. If people want miracles to authenticate the Christian faith, they only have to open a Bible.

Say so to the Acts church

Recommended documentary:

Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"

 

[swordsman1]

• I fully agree that God's word must be the highest standard of truth. In fact, I would extend this assertion to all of God's divine interventions: every divine intervention and every form of communication from God provides the highest epistemological value.
• I also fully with agree that humans are imperfect.
• We are on the same page on both points.

HOWEVER, even with all that conceded, you still have to prove that:

• God is the author of the Bible
• God is NOT the author of modern miracles that people are reporting

I cannot understand how you can say God's word, the Bible, is the highest standard of truth in one breath and then demand proof that God is the author of it in the next. Do you believe that God is the author of the Bible or not?

Before we can establish whether God is the author of modern miracles, we first need to establish that modern miracles are occurring. We have no proof they are.

FURTHERMORE, the Bible was written by humans. Each book in the Bible was written by a person of flesh and blood. So if you believe that the Bible was inspired by God (which you haven't proved yet), then you would have to accept that God used imperfect humans to accomplish his divine purposes. In fact, we could say the same thing about modern miracle reports: although the humans reporting the miracles are imperfect, God is more than capable of using imperfect humans today to testify of modern miracles, just like He was able to use imperfect humans and councils in the past to write and compile a set of books that we now refer to as "the Bible".

So the fact that an imperfect human claims to have witnessed a miracle doesn't preclude that God could be the source behind the miracle and also that He may be inspiring the words of that imperfect human (just like He inspired the people who wrote and compiled the different books that make up the canon).

You seriously think the people who claim miracles are divinely inspired in the same way the Bible authors were inspired? And we therefore shouldn't question their hearsay testimonies?

But then it's just a matter of investigating more about that "stranger", and the objection would dissipate.

So you expect me to personally get to know every person who has claimed a miracle, to know them as well as I know my mother, in order to believe them?

Any proofs?

You now want proof that Jesus is God?

Again, YOU CLAIMED that there is a VAST DIFFERENCE between miracle reports in the Bible vs. miracle reports outside of the Bible. This claim can only be true if the miracle claims in the Bible are true and miracle claims outside of the Bible are false.

• How do you know that the miracle claims in the Bible are true?
• How do you know that all miracle claims outside of the Bible are false?
• How do you know that there is a vast difference between the two?

Wrong. Whether the claims are true or false is irrelevant. What matters is the reliability of the person making the claim. On one hand we have infallible God breathed scripture, on the other we have a fallible human - often biased, often mistaken, often deluded, often lying.

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

Why are you quoting scripture to prove your point if you believe scripture is no more authoritative than a fallible human? You might as well quote the National Enquirer as your proof.

This argument would apply to the resurrection of Jesus too. There is no hard proof for the resurrection of Jesus. Using your logic, it's more likely that there was no resurrection in the first place.

And God could certainly provide indisputable hard scientific evidence of Jesus' resurrection if He wanted to, yet He hasn't.

Yes, there is hard proof of the resurrection. It is recorded in the ultimate source of truth - infallible scripture.

Again, see the work of Craig Keener. See for example:

Miracles: Medical Evidence

Keener claims there is medical proof, but where is it? It's not in this video. And it's not in his book. Simply saying that medical proof exists is useless unless you can actually produce it.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

I cannot understand how you can say God's word, the Bible, is the highest standard of truth in one breath and then demand proof that God is the author of it in the next.

You are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said that the Bible is God's word. When I said that I agree that God's word is of the highest epistemological value, I used the expression God's word to mean anything that God says, any kind of information that God communicates. I never said that some specific Christian canon is an example of that.

In other words, I agree that God, being by definition omnipotent, omniscient and truthful, is able to transmit perfectly reliable information. That's an entirely reasonable premise to hold, philosophically speaking.

However, the assertion that the Bible (which canon by the way? are you including the deuterocanonical books?) is God's word is an entirely different claim. You are claiming that the entire Bible is God's word. Where is the proof for that claim?

Do you believe that God is the author of the Bible or not?

I believe that you can make a historical/testimonial case for the resurrection of Jesus, which would lend credence to the gospel accounts, and to the hypothesis that God supernaturally intervened in the course of human history 2000 years ago. So at the very least I can see some reasonable apologetic arguments for the gospels being inspired, or at the very least accurate enough from a historical standpoint. But this is based on testimonial and historical arguments from apologetics, which you have consistently dismissed offhandedly as hearsay.

Before we can establish whether God is the author of modern miracles, we first need to establish that modern miracles are occurring. We have no proof they are.

And I can say the same thing about the Bible:

Before we can establish whether God is the author of the miracles reported in the Bible (including the resurrection of Jesus), we first need to establish that the miracles that the Bible reports really occurred. We have no proof they did.

You seriously think the people who claim miracles are divinely inspired in the same way the Bible authors were inspired? And we therefore shouldn't question their hearsay testimonies?

It's a possibility we can't rule out a priori. You have to investigate and judge each case on its own merits, Biblical or otherwise.

So you expect me to personally get to know every person who has claimed a miracle, to know them as well as I know my mother, in order to believe them?

Not every person on the planet, of course, that's logistically unfeasible. But if you want to have an informed position, and if you don't like hearsay stories but prefer to have the witness in front of you so you can interrogate them and get to know them more closely, then I see a few options: you either become an investigative journalist and go meet the people who claim to have experienced miracles firsthand, or you start your own podcast and interview people online, or simply read the works of folks who have already spent a lot of time investigating this stuff and done the work of interviewing people face to face.

But it is absurd and intellectually lazy to dismiss mountains of testimonial evidence offhandedly simply because you don't intimately know the individuals as much as you know and trust your mother.

You now want proof that Jesus is God?

That's part of your argument, so you better substantiate your premises.

Wrong. Whether the claims are true or false is irrelevant. What matters is the reliability of the person making the claim. On one hand we have infallible God breathed scripture, on the other we have a fallible human - often biased, often mistaken, often deluded, often lying.

But you have to prove your premises first. How do you know that the Biblical canon is infallible and God breathed? (Are you including the deuterocanonical books in your premise by the way? Do you mean the Protestant canon?)

Yes, there is hard proof of the resurrection. It is recorded in the ultimate source of truth - infallible scripture.

But then you need to prove first that the Bible is infallible and the ultimate source of truth.

Keener claims there is medical proof, but where is it? It's not in this video. And it's not in his book. Simply saying that medical proof exists is useless unless you can actually produce it.

You would need to follow the references in his Bibliography, it has over a hundred pages of references if I recall correctly.

 

[swordsman1]

So at the very least I can see some reasonable apologetical arguments for the gospels being inspired, or at the very least accurate enough from a historical standpoint.

If you are happy to accept that the gospels are an accurate record of miracles then your argument that I am being a hypocrite for believing the testimonies in scripture over the testimonies of fallible men is no longer valid.

It's a possibility we can't rule out a priori. You have to investigate and judge each case on its own merits, Biblical or otherwise.

And which of today's miracle testimonies are divinely inspired and infallible? So we know not to question them.

Not every person on the planet, of course, that's logistically unfeasible. But if you want to have an informed position, and if you don't like hearsay stories but prefer to have the witness in front of you so you can interrogate them and get to know them more closely, then I see a few options: you either become an investigative journalist and go meet the people who claim to have experienced miracles firsthand, or you start your own podcast and interview people online, or simply read the works of folks who have already spent a lot of time investigating this.

But it is absurd and intellectually dishonest to dismiss mountains of testimonial evidence offhandedly simply because you don't know them yet and don't trust them as much as you trust your mother.

So in order to believe just a handful of hearsay testimonies you expect me to give up my career and start a new profession? And what if the interviewee is deluded, or mistaken by what he witnessed, or is lying? Am I still expected to believe them?

I don't think it is me who is being absurd!

What's wrong with the far simpler method - providing some hard evidence?

That's part of your argument, so you better substantiate your premises.

Actually that is not part of my argument at all.

But if you want proof Jesus is God...
John 1:1, John 10:30-33, John 8:58, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8
If he is not God then his death was not sufficient to pay for our sins. We are all doomed.

But you have to prove your premises first. How do you know that the Protestant canon is infallible and God breathed? (Are you including the deuterocanonical books in your premise by the way?)

You just said yourself that you are happy to accept that the gospels are truthful (where the miracles are recorded). So why would I now have to prove it to you?

But then you need to prove first that the Bible is infallible and the ultimate source of truth.

Ditto.

You would need to follow the references in his Bibliography, it has over a hundred pages of references if I recall correctly.

I read his book and examined the footnotes for each miracle. There is not single reference to a medical report or similar evidence I could look up and examine.

The "Bibliography of Secondary Sources" is just an enormous list of books and papers with no references to any miracles they apply to.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

If you are happy to accept that the gospels are an accurate record of miracles then your argument that I am being a hypocrite for believing the testimonies in scripture over the testimonies of fallible men is no longer valid.

This paragraph doesn't even make sense. But in order to make the nonsense clear, I'll have to unpack several things.

The historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus is an argument based on testimonial evidence, and is usually presented as an inference to the best explanation.

What is inference to the best explanation? According to Inference to the best explanation - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Inference to the best explanation is the procedure of choosing the hypothesis or theory that best explains the available data. The factors that make one explanation better than another may include depth, comprehensiveness, simplicity and unifying power. According to Harman (1965), explanatory inference plays a central role in both everyday and scientific thinking. In ordinary life, a person might make the inference that a fuse has blown to explain why several kitchen appliances stopped working all at once. Scientists also seem to engage in inference to the best explanation; for example, astronomers concluded that another planet must exist in order to account for aberrations in the orbit of Uranus. However, despite the suggestiveness of cases like these, the extent to which we do and should rely on inference to the best explanation is highly controversial.​

In other words, it's a probabilistic / abductive argument (see Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia), not a formal proof, so there is a degree of uncertainty involved. If interested, William Lane Craig presents the argument very eloquently here: Jesus’ Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

The point is: this whole argument is based on testimonial evidence. All the premises of the argument are argued using historical reasoning, which relies on testimonial accounts, and the conclusion (that Jesus resurrected) is inferred abductively. Thus, this argument

• does NOT rely on "hard, indisputable, scientific evidence",
• does NOT claim absolute certainty,
• is NOT a formal proof.

None of the above is compatible with YOUR epistemology. You are always asking for hard, indisputable, scientific evidence, you always claim absolute certainty, and you always demand proofs.

The only way the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus can salvage you from hypocrisy is if you modify your epistemology to admit testimonial evidence, but if you do that, then you would have to face the overwhelming amount of testimonial evidence for modern miracles.

So your paragraph doesn't make sense at all.

You have two options really:

• You either keep on offhandedly dismissing testimonial evidence, and if so, the historial argument for the resurrection of Jesus is irrelevant to your position, or
• You start admitting testimonial evidence, and if so, become overwhelmed by the all the testimonial evidence for continuationism

And which of today's miracle testimonies are divinely inspired and infallible? So we know not to question them.

You are asking me the wrong question. I already explained to you that I don't claim to possess absolute certainty. I don't claim infallibility. My epistemology is based on a subjective estimation of the likelihood/probability of different hypotheses.

A more appropriate question to ask me would be: which of today's miracle testimonies do you find more reliable or compelling?

As an answer, I personally find these modern resurrection accounts very impressive: link to testimonies

So in order to believe just a handful of hearsay testimonies you expect me to give up my career and start a new profession?

You can do whatever you want. I don't really care to be honest.

And what if the interviewee is deluded, or mistaken by what he witnessed, or is lying? Am I still expected to believe them?

Hopefully you should figure that out while you assess the credibility of the witness. To your point, I would try to make sure that the interviewee is a credible witness.

According to Credible Witness:

A credible witness is a witness who comes across as competent and worthy of belief. Their testimony is assumed to be more than likely true due to their experience, knowledge, training, and sense of honesty. The judge and jurors will use these factors to determine whether they believe the witness is credible.

An attorney can show jurors a witness is not credible by showing: 1) inconsistent statements, 2) reputation for untruthfulness, 3) defects in perception, 4) prior convictions that show dishonesty or untruthfulness, and 5) bias. An attorney may also enhance a witness’s credibility by showing the witness has always been consistent in their statements.​

I don't think it is me who is being absurd!

After your introductory paragraph, I think otherwise.

What's wrong with the far simpler method - providing some hard evidence?

What's wrong with the far simpler method - providing some hard evidence for the miracle claims in the Bible?

Actually that is not part of my argument at all.

Yes it was, in post #229 you literally said:

It stands to reason that the testimony of a stranger carries less weight than those we know and trust. That is not fallacious at all. The testimony of Jesus can absolutely be relied upon because he is God.

Craig Keener may be gullible enough to believe the stories of his interviewees. Not surprising seeing as he is a miracle craving charismatic. But because he believe them doesn't mean that I too must believe the hearsay he regurgitates. Now that is fallacious.​

You are essentially asserting that you are justified in believing the miracle claims surrounding the person of Jesus in the gospels because Jesus is God. Therefore, your argument, as per your own literal words, relies on the premise that Jesus is God.

But you need to prove the premise first.

But if you want proof Jesus is God...
John 1:1, John 10:30-33, John 8:58, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8
If he is not God then his death was not sufficient to pay for our sins. We are all doomed.

Oh, cool, citing passages. Any proofs that those passages are telling the truth? Any indisputable hard evidence?

You just said yourself that you are happy to accept that the gospels are truthful (where the miracles are recorded). So why would I now have to prove it to you?

Because that's not what you said nor what I asked you to prove. In post #231 you said:

On one hand we have infallible God breathed scripture, on the other we have a fallible human - often biased, often mistaken, often deluded, often lying.​

I never conceded that scripture (i.e. the whole Bible) is infallible and God breathed. I only acknowledged that you can make abductive historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, lending credence to the gospel accounts. I never claimed infallibility. I never claimed absolute certainty. Remember, I don't reason in the absolute, I simply estimate which hypotheses are more likely to be true. Moreover, the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus relies on the presence of credible witnesses who saw Jesus in resurrected form, whereas the second half of your quote above is an attack against the credibility of witnesses in general.

So no, I never conceded your claim.

So ... any proofs?

I read his book and examined the footnotes for each miracle. There is not single reference to a medical report or similar evidence I could look up and examine.

You will probably have to visit the hospitals and request the medical records of the individuals who claimed to have experienced miraculous healings.

 

[swordsman1]

The historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus is an argument based on testimonial evidence, and is usually presented as an inference to the best explanation.

What is inference to the best explanation? According to Inference to the best explanation - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Inference to the best explanation is the procedure of choosing the hypothesis or theory that best explains the available data. The factors that make one explanation better than another may include depth, comprehensiveness, simplicity and unifying power. According to Harman (1965), explanatory inference plays a central role in both everyday and scientific thinking. In ordinary life, a person might make the inference that a fuse has blown to explain why several kitchen appliances stopped working all at once. Scientists also seem to engage in inference to the best explanation; for example, astronomers concluded that another planet must exist in order to account for aberrations in the orbit of Uranus. However, despite the suggestiveness of cases like these, the extent to which we do and should rely on inference to the best explanation is highly controversial.

In other words, it's a probabilistic / abductive argument (see Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia), not a formal proof, so there is a degree of uncertainty involved. If interested, William Lane Craig presents the argument very eloquently here: Jesus’ Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

This whole argument of yours to try to prove I am a hypocrite is a red herring.

If you are an atheist (and I presume you are since you demand proof that the Bible is God's word, that Jesus rose from the dead, that Jesus is God, etc) then I can understand why you think I am being a hypocrite for believing scripture over human testimonies.

However my argument is not addressed to atheists, it is addressed to Christians (who believe the Bible is God's word).

You are asking me the wrong question. I already explained to you that I don't claim to possess absolute certainty. I don't claim infallibility. My epistemology is based on a subjective estimation of the likelihood/probability of different hypotheses.

But you said it is possible that some people who claim miracles today are divinely inspired and therefore I shouldn't question their testimonies. If you want me to do that then I need to know which ones are divinely inspired. If you can't tell me then you can't expect me to respect any testimonies on that basis.

You can do whatever you want. I don't really care to be honest.

No, giving up my career is not want I want to do, it is want YOU want me to do in order to believe hearsay testimonies.

Hopefully you should figure that out while you assess the credibility of the witness. To your point, I would try to make sure that the interviewee is a credible witness.

According to Credible Witness:

A credible witness is a witness who comes across as competent and worthy of belief. Their testimony is assumed to be more than likely true due to their experience, knowledge, training, and sense of honesty. The judge and jurors will use these factors to determine whether they believe the witness is credible.

An attorney can show jurors a witness is not credible by showing: 1) inconsistent statements, 2) reputation for untruthfulness, 3) defects in perception, 4) prior convictions that show dishonesty or untruthfulness, and 5) bias. An attorney may also enhance a witness’s credibility by showing the witness has always been consistent in their statements.

So even if I give up my career and became an investigative journalist to interview a handful of witnesses there is still no guarantee they are telling the truth. You admit I would simply have to "hope" and "try to make sure".

What's wrong with the far simpler method - providing some hard evidence for the miracle claims in the Bible?

That doesn't answer my question. What's wrong with asking today's witnesses to provide some hard evidence?

You will probably have to visit the hospitals and request the medical records of the individuals who claimed to have experienced miraculous healings.

If I go to a hospital and ask to see their confidential patient records they will turn me away. So it's like I said, Keener has not provided a shred of hard evidence to justify his miracles. It is all hearsay.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

However my argument is not addressed to atheists, it is addressed to Christians (who believe the Bible is God's word).

This still doesn't help your position. Not all Christians believe that the same set of scriptures is inspired (e.g. Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox vs. Protestant vs. Mormon), not all Christians adhere to the Sola Scriptura axiom, and not all Christians believe for the same reasons.

Craig Keener is a Christian, and he values the weight of the testimonial evidence throughout history:

Most modern prejudice against biblical miracle reports depends on David Hume's argument that uniform human experience precluded miracles. Yet current research shows that human experience is far from uniform. In fact, hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles. New Testament scholar Craig Keener argues that it is time to rethink Hume's argument in light of the contemporary evidence available to us. This wide-ranging and meticulously researched two-volume study presents the most thorough current defense of the credibility of the miracle reports in the Gospels and Acts. Drawing on claims from a range of global cultures and taking a multidisciplinary approach to the topic, Keener suggests that many miracle accounts throughout history and from contemporary times are best explained as genuine divine acts, lending credence to the biblical miracle reports. (source: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525)​

But you said it is possible that some people who claim miracles today are divinely inspired and therefore I shouldn't question their testimonies. If you want me to do that then I need to know which ones are divinely inspired. If you can't tell me then you can't expect me to respect any testimonies on that basis.

It's possible, but I can't offer you the epistemological certainty you want for any specific example. I can't prove to you that any specific concrete example is necessarily divinely inspired, just like I can't prove to you that the Bible is divinely inspired either. Using your logic, I shouldn't expect you to respect any testimonies in the Bible on that basis either, correct?

But anyways, if you want to hear testimonial accounts I personally find very impressive, check out this.

So even if I give up my career and became an investigative journalist to interview a handful of witnesses there is still no guarantee they are telling the truth. You admit I would simply have to "hope" and "try to make sure".

I never promised absolute certainty. Not even the scientific method promises that. There are no absolute truths in science. So if you are after absolute truths and 100% epistemological certainty, even science will disappoint you.

That doesn't answer my question. What's wrong with asking today's witnesses to provide some hard evidence?

There is nothing wrong with asking. Craig Keener has seen medical records confirming the testimonies of many of his interviewees, so if you are lucky that kind of evidence might be available.

Now your turn: What's wrong with the far simpler method - providing some hard evidence for the miracle claims in the Bible?

If I go to a hospital and ask to see their confidential patient records they will turn me away.

You need to go with the patient. Have the patient ask for their own medical records so you can inspect them.

So it's like I said, Keener has not provided a shred of hard evidence to justify his miracles. It is all hearsay.

Perhaps you haven't seen hard evidence in front of your eyes, but that doesn't mean that Keener has not seen hard evidence in front of his own eyes. In fact, he testifies that he has, from many of his interviewees. Just like millions affirm to have witnessed the hard evidence of miracles in their own lives, firsthand.

If you are skeptical, then I can play the same game: where is the hard evidence for the miracle claims in the Bible?

 

[swordsman1]

This still doesn't help your position. Not all Christians believe that the same set of scriptures is inspired (e.g. Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox vs. Protestant vs. Mormon), not all Christians adhere to the Sola Scriptura axiom, and not all Christians believe for the same reasons.

Craig Keener is a Christian, and he values the weight of the testimonial evidence throughout history:

Most modern prejudice against biblical miracle reports depends on David Hume's argument that uniform human experience precluded miracles. Yet current research shows that human experience is far from uniform. In fact, hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles. New Testament scholar Craig Keener argues that it is time to rethink Hume's argument in light of the contemporary evidence available to us. This wide-ranging and meticulously researched two-volume study presents the most thorough current defense of the credibility of the miracle reports in the Gospels and Acts. Drawing on claims from a range of global cultures and taking a multidisciplinary approach to the topic, Keener suggests that many miracle accounts throughout history and from contemporary times are best explained as genuine divine acts, lending credence to the biblical miracle reports. (source: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525)

All Christians believe that the 27 books in the New Testament is God's word.

If Keener is gullible enough to believe today's unsubstantiated hearsay stories that is his problem, no court of law would. But it's not surprising seeing he is a miracle craving charismatic.

It's possible, but I can't offer you the epistemological certainty you want for any specific example. I can't prove to you that any specific concrete example is necessarily divinely inspired, just like I can't prove to you that the Bible is divinely inspired either. Using your logic, I shouldn't expect you to respect any testimonies in the Bible on that basis either, correct?

If you can't tell me which of today's witnesses are divinely inspired and infallible then you can't expect me to accept hearsay stories on that basis. We can safety reject that argument for believing today's hearsay.

I never promised absolute certainty. Not even the scientific method promises that. There are no absolute truths in science. So if you are after absolute truths and 100% epistemological certainty, even science will disappoint you.

Then we agree hearsay is unreliable. Hard scientific evidence however is a whole lot more reliable than hearsay. That is why the courts will accept it, but not hearsay.

There is nothing wrong with asking. Craig Keener has seen medical records confirming the testimonies of many of his interviewees, so if you are lucky that kind of evidence might be available.

But they never do provide hard evidence. They want you to believe their hearsay. If hard evidence was available you can bet your bottom dollar they would provide it. If there is hard evidence available why keep it hidden? Show it to us so we can believe your stories.

Now your turn: What's wrong with the far simpler method - providing some hard evidence for the miracle claims in the Bible?

Why would I need to provide hard evidence for biblical miracles when the Christians on this forum already believe them?

You need to go with the patient. Have the patient ask for their own medical records so you can inspect them.

No, Keener should provide the evidence in his book. Not expect his readers to track down the patient, then ask them to accompany them to the hospital to see their medical records. All Keener has provided is hearsay.

Perhaps you haven't seen hard evidence in front of your eyes, but that doesn't mean that Keener has not seen hard evidence in front of his own eyes. In fact, he testifies that he has, from many of his interviewees. Just like millions affirm to have witnessed the hard evidence of miracles in their own lives, firsthand.

Keener saying that he has seen the evidence but he is not willing to share it is not proof. We need to examine the evidence ourselves to be convinced by it. If he is saying we just have to take his word for it, then that too is hearsay.

If you are skeptical, then I can play the same game: where is the hard evidence for the miracle claims in the Bible?

Christians do not need hard evidence to believe the Bible.

 

[DamianWarS]

In 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 we find the following gifts:

• utterance of wisdom
• utterance of knowledge
• faith
• gifts of healing
• working of miracles
• prophecy
• the ability to distinguish between spirits
• various kinds of tongues
• interpretation of tongues

Then, in verses 27-31 of the same chapter we find another list of gifts:

• apostles
• prophets
• teachers
• miracles
• gifts of healing
• helping
• administrating
• various kinds of tongues
• interpretation of tongues

Romans 12:3-8 also contains a list of spiritual gifts:

• prophecy
• service
• teaching
• exhortation
• contribution / generosity
• leadership
• acts of mercy

Ephesians 4:11-12 lists the following:

• apostles
• prophets
• evangelists
• shepherds
• teachers

Question: Which of the gifts listed above are still available to the body of Christ and which ones have ceased?

It is according to the Holy Spirit not me. I'm not about to say the HS is no longer allowed to do something so I'd rather keep grounded in a biblical perspective rather than post-biblical conclusions.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

All Christians believe that the 27 books in the New Testament is God's word.

Again, not all Christians believe for the same reasons. You dismiss testimonial evidence. Continuationists don't. So your arguments obviously don't work with continuationists who have a different epistemology than yours.

Here are more examples of popular Christians who value testimonial evidence:

Miracles Always Get Debunked So Don't Believe In God. (#11) response

Mind-Blowing Miracle Reports? w/ Lee Strobel

Miracles Do Happen, and I've Seen Them Firsthand w/ Ralph Martin

If Keener is gullible enough to believe today's unsubstantiated hearsay stories that is his problem, no court of law would. But it's not surprising seeing he is a miracle craving charismatic.

Ad hominem attacks. Interesting you are resorting to these tactics.

If you can't tell me which of today's witnesses are divinely inspired and infallible then you can't expect me to accept hearsay stories on that basis. We can safety reject that argument for believing today's hearsay.

And I can use your own logic against the resurrection of Jesus. If you can't provide indisputable hard evidence for the resurrection of Jesus beyond mere stories and hearsay, we can safely dismiss it.

Unless you have hard evidence, of course. Can you provide hard evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Then we agree hearsay is unreliable. Hard scientific evidence however is a whole lot more reliable than hearsay. That is why the courts will accept it, but not hearsay.

Following your recommendation, would you be so kind as to provide hard scientific evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

But they never do provide hard evidence. They want you to believe their hearsay. If hard evidence was available you can bet your bottom dollar they would provide it. If there is hard evidence available why keep it hidden? Show it to us so we can believe your stories.

Following your recommendation, would you be so kind as to provide hard scientific evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Why would I need to provide hard evidence for biblical miracles when the Christians on this forum already believe them?

Because not all Christians share your epistemology. You only believe in things that are supported by hard scientific evidence. Can you please provide hard scientific evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Christians do not need hard evidence to believe the Bible.

Christians do not need hard evidence to believe in modern miracles

 

[swordsman1]

Again, not all Christians believe for the same reasons. You dismiss testimonial evidence. Continuationists don't. So your arguments obviously don't work with continuationists who have a different epistemology than yours.

Irrelevant. The fact is all Christians believe that the Bible is God's word, even continuists. Therefore they do not think I am being hypocritical in rejecting hearsay. Only an atheist would.

Ad hominem attacks. Interesting you are resorting to these tactics.

How is that ad hominem? It is simply a statement of fact. Somebody who is easily persuaded is a gullible person. Keener is easily persuaded by hearsay, the courts aren't.

And I can use your own logic against the resurrection of Jesus. If you can't provide indisputable hard evidence for the resurrection of Jesus beyond mere stories and hearsay, we can safely dismiss it.

Unless you have hard evidence, of course. Can you provide hard evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

If you are an atheist that would indeed be true. But people here are Christian. They don't need hard evidence to believe the bible.

Following your recommendation, would you be so kind to provide hard scientific evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Christians do not need hard evidence to believe the Bible.

Because not all Christians have your epistemology.

All Christians believe the bible is God's word.

You only believe in things that are supported by hard scientific evidence. Can you please provide hard scientific evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

No, as a Christian I do need hard evidence to believe the bible.

Christians do not need hard evidence to believe in modern miracles

Christians who are not gullible enough to believe hearsay stories do.