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

[TruthSeek3r]

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.

This is clearly false. Obviously all Christians who value testimonial evidence can see the inconsistent double standard of your epistemology.

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.

You obviously don't know Craig Keener, you haven't been in his shoes, you are just insulting him from a position of ignorance. When you attack the person and not the arguments that's known as ad hominem attack

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.

Once again, your blanket statement here is also false. Many Christians have converted to Christianity because they had supernatural encounters with God. The apostle Paul (Acts 9) is probably the clearest example. If that's not direct hard evidence from God Himself, I don't know what is.

Furthermore, not all Christians need hard evidence to believe in modern miracles either. Lots of Christians believe in modern miracles based on biblical and testimonial arguments. No hard evidence is required.

Christians do not need hard evidence to believe the Bible.

Christians do not need hard evidence to believe in modern miracles.

No, as a Christian I do not need hard evidence to believe the bible.

Likewise, many Chrisitians do not need hard evidence to believe in modern miracles.

Christians who are gullible enough to believe hearsay stories do.

Using your own definitions, if you believe the Bible without hard evidence your are gullible as well

 

[swordsman1]

This is clearly false. Obviously all Christians who value testimonial evidence can see the inconsistent double standard of your epistemology.

Where is the hypocrisy in my argument from a Christian's perspective who believes the Bible is God's word?

You obviously don't know Craig Keener, you haven't been in his shoes, you are just insulting him from a position of ignorance. When you attack the person and not the arguments that's known as ad hominem attack

How am I attacking him if all I am doing is stating his position?

Once again, your blanket statement here is also false. Many Christians have converted to Christianity because they had supernatural encounters with God. The apostle Paul (Acts 9) is probably the clearest example. If that's not direct hard evidence from God Himself, I don't know what is.

Irrelevant. That is not refuting my claim that Christians don't need hard evidence to believe the Bible.

Furthermore, not all Christians need hard evidence to believe in modern miracles either. Lots of Christians believe in modern miracles based on biblical and testimonial arguments. No hard evidence is required.

Tell me about it. I know there are many Christians gullible enough to believe hearsay.

Christians do not need hard evidence to believe in modern miracles.

They do if, like the courts, they do not accept hearsay stories.

Using your own definitions, if you believe the Bible without hard evidence your are gullible as well

To an atheist they might appear gullible. But Christians do not regard themselves as gullible. They believe the scriptures because they inherently know it is God's word.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.



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.



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.



Christians do not need hard evidence to believe the Bible.



All Christians believe the bible is God's word.



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



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

Just as a matter of interest, Frank Morison, who originally doubted the resurrection of Christ, decided to research the history around it in order to prove that the resurrection never happened. Halfway through his research into the historical events surrounding the resurrection, he became convinced that the resurrection indeed happened, He went on to finish his research and published it in his book, "Who Moved The Stone?"

One major fact is that in the light of the rapidly expanding early church, the Jewish authorities could have quite easy discredited the church by presenting the dead body of Jesus. But they couldn't. They paid off the soldiers who guarded the tomb to say that the disciples had stolen the body, which was remarkable seeing that if the soldiers had allowed that to happen, they would have been put to death. This implies that the Jewish authorities knew that something remarkable had happened and could offer no better explanation while not admitting that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead.

Luke was an educated man who did comprehensive research and interviewed many of the eye witnesses who were still alive at the time. His account in his Gospel and the book of Acts, provides actual historical proof that the resurrection happened. Just because it was 2000 years ago doesn't alter the historical facts.

Just thought I would mention it.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Just as a matter of interest, Frank Morison, who originally doubted the resurrection of Christ, decided to research the history around it in order to prove that the resurrection never happened. Halfway through his research into the historical events surrounding the resurrection, he became convinced that the resurrection indeed happened, He went on to finish his research and published it in his book, "Who Moved The Stone?"

One major fact is that in the light of the rapidly expanding early church, the Jewish authorities could have quite easy discredited the church by presenting the dead body of Jesus. But they couldn't. They paid off the soldiers who guarded the tomb to say that the disciples had stolen the body, which was remarkable seeing that if the soldiers had allowed that to happen, they would have been put to death. This implies that the Jewish authorities knew that something remarkable had happened and could offer no better explanation while not admitting that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead.

Luke was an educated man who did comprehensive research and interviewed many of the eye witnesses who were still alive at the time. His account in his Gospel and the book of Acts, provides actual historical proof that the resurrection happened. Just because it was 2000 years ago doesn't alter the historical facts.

Just thought I would mention it.

Great points. This is historical / testimonial evidence for the miracle of the resurrection. But @swordsman1 dismisses all historical & testimonial evidence for miracles. He only believes in what can be verified with indisputable, hard, scientific evidence. Therefore, he rejects all miracle claims, even from credible well-intentioned fellow Christians from all around the world.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Where is the hypocrisy in my argument from a Christian's perspective who believes the Bible is God's word?

It's very simple:

• You reject all the historical & testimonial evidence for miracles due to the absence of indisputable, hard, scientific evidence, yet you believe in all the miracle claims in the Bible without indisputable, hard, scientific evidence.
• When someone trusts in a testimony without indisputable, hard, scientific evidence, you call them gullible (even if the testimony comes from a credible fellow Christian), yet when you believe the testimonial accounts recorded in the Bible without indisputable, hard, scientific evidence, somehow you are not gullible. Double standard at its finest.

How am I attacking him if all I am doing is stating his position?

In post #237 you said:

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.​

You are accusing Craig Keener of being "gullible", as if he had no basis whatsoever, no personal experiences, no contact with credible witnesses, no access to medical records, no years of experience thoroughly investigating the topic, etc. Of course you are denigrating Keener from the comfortable armchair of ignorance.

You also accused him of being a "miracle craving charismatic". Are you his personal psychologist now? Did you have a psychoanalysis session with Keener? Can you read minds? How do you know that he has a "craving" for miracles? And even if he did, so what? This is a clear ad hominem attack against Keener, even if you keep denying it ad infinitum.

Irrelevant. That is not refuting my claim that Christians don't need hard evidence to believe the Bible.

Yes, it does. It clearly refutes your blanket statement. You are committing a fallacy of generalization, which can be proven wrong by providing counterexamples. And counterexamples exist. There are many counterexamples of Christians who became so through a dramatic, life-changing encounter with God. The Apostle Paul (Acts 9) is one. And just one counterexample is enough to expose a false generalization.

Tell me about it. I know there are many Christians gullible enough to believe hearsay.

You believe the miracle claims in the Bible, without any supportive hard evidence. Using your own definitions, you believe in hearsay, and therefore, you are gullible as well. (I'm just using your definitions.)

They do if, like the courts, they do not accept hearsay stories.

Courts do not accept the miracle claims in the Bible. Do you?

To an atheist they might appear gullible. But Christians do not regard themselves as gullible. They believe the scriptures because they inherently know it is God's word.

Same for Christians who have had first-hand experiences with miracles:

To a cessationist they might appear gullible. But Christians who have witnessed miracles do not regard themselves as gullible. They believe in modern miracles because they inherently know that God works miracles today.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

@swordsman1, your skepticism has inspired me to post this thread: Should we trust the testimonies of fellow Christians?

 

[swordsman1]

It's very simple:

• You reject all the historical & testimonial evidence for miracles due to the absence of indisputable, hard, scientific evidence, yet you believe in all the miracle claims in the Bible without indisputable, hard, scientific evidence.
• When someone trusts in a testimony without indisputable, hard, scientific evidence, you call them gullible (even if the testimony comes from a credible fellow Christian), yet when you believe the testimonial accounts recorded in the Bible without indisputable, hard, scientific evidence, somehow you are not gullible. Double standard at its finest.

All Christians accept the miracle claims in the bible without hard evidence. So there is no hypocrisy there.

In post #237 you said:

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.
You are accusing Craig Keener of being "gullible", as if he had no basis whatsoever, no personal experiences, no contact with credible witnesses, no access to medical records, no years of experience thoroughly investigating the topic, etc. Of course you are denigrating Keener from the comfortable armchair of ignorance.

You also accused him of being a "miracle craving charismatic". Are you his personal psychologist now? Did you have a psychoanalysis session with Keener? Can you read minds? How do you know that he has a "craving" for miracles? And even if he did, so what? This is a clear ad hominem attack against Keener, even if you keep denying it ad infinitum.

That is only stating facts. He is gullible because he believes fantastical hearsay stories without any substantiating evidence. The same as people who believe UFO abduction stories are gullible.

The fact he is so eager to compile endless stories of miracles proves he is a "miracle craving charismatic".

Yes, it does. It clearly refutes your blanket statement. You are committing a fallacy of generalization, which can be proven wrong by providing counterexamples. And counterexamples exist. There are many counterexamples of Christians who became so through a dramatic, life-changing encounter with God. The Apostle Paul (Acts 9) is one. And just one counterexample is enough to expose a false generalization.

No it doesn't. How does Paul's conversion refute my claim that Christians don't need hard evidence to believe the Bible?

You believe the miracle claims in the Bible, without any supportive hard evidence. Using your own definitions, you believe in hearsay, and therefore, you are gullible as well. (I'm just using your definitions.)

Yes I believe the miracle claims in the Bible are absolutely true because it is God's infallible word, as all Christians do. Hearsay is "information that you have heard but do not know to be true" (dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hearsay). As we know scripture is true it cannot be hearsay.

Courts do not accept the miracle claims in the Bible. Do you?

Who says they don't? The courts recognise the authority of the bible because they ask you to put your hand on one when giving evidence.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Great points. This is historical / testimonial evidence for the miracle of the resurrection. But @swordsman1 dismisses all historical & testimonial evidence for miracles. He only believes in what can be verified with indisputable, hard, scientific evidence. Therefore, he rejects all miracle claims, even from credible well-intentioned fellow Christians from all around the world.

From my discussions with [USER-376452@swordsman1[/USER], he doesn't deny that miracles do take place. The position he takes is the many miracles claimed by Charismatics without substantive verification cannot be proved beyond mere hearsay. I can say that my present toothache has now been healed because the pain associated with it has disappeared, but fail to mention that I am taking two paracetamol and two ibuprofen every six hours until my dentist appointment when the tooth will be taken out.

As I said before, the only way to prove beyond doubt that a person has been miraculously healed of cancer is to show before and after Xrays, but if in between the Xrays, the patient has undertaken a course of radiation or chemotherapy that could have shrunk the tumour to nothing, do the Xrays prove divine healing? Aye! There's the rub!

Also, if one isn't the patient, gaining confidential medical records is as impossible as getting a priest to reveal information from the confessional. Even if medical records show that a miracle has definitely taken place, a secular doctor might offer all kinds of theories why it wasn't a miracle, muddying the waters.

I think if a person trusts in the Lord for healing, and it appears that the healing has taken place, and their doctor has confirmed it, but can't offer any explanation for it and tells the person that they no longer need the medication (it is important that the person who prescribed the medication should be the one to advising stopping it), then the person can accept divine healing by faith, and doesn't have to prove it to anyone. But they can't then go around telling people that because they were healed in that way, that everyone else should expect the same.

I always take my medical issues to the Lord, and as a result has provided me with an excellent doctor who gives me the right medication, or refers me to the appropriate specialist. So why would the Lord do a miracle of healing if the doctor can sort the condition out just as well? I have arthritis in my thumb joints and the Xrays show that there is no cartilage between the bones in the joints, yet I have no pain and the joints are fully functional. I see that as a miracle in itself, but no cartilage has magically appeared between the joints.

So, the jury is still out concerning modern claims of healing. We always need to bring our requests to the Lord and He promises His peace that passes all understanding keeping our hearts and mind in Christ; and if He decides to either heal or not heal a person for reasons of His own, who are we to ask why?

 

[swordsman1]

@swordsman1, your skepticism has inspired me to post this thread: Should we trust the testimonies of fellow Christians?

Judging from the responses so far it looks to be a very enlightening thread.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

All Christians accept the miracle claims in the bible without hard evidence. So there is no hypocrisy there.

The hypocrisy is in your inconsistent standard of evidence. You wear a skeptical physicalist verificationist atheist hat when it comes to anything outside the Bible, and you wear a gullible hat when it comes to the Bible. Therein lies the hypocrisy and inconsistency.

_______________________

Verificationism - Wikipedia:

Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine which maintains that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, theology, ethics and aesthetics. Such statements may be meaningful in influencing emotions or behavior, but not in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content.[1] Verificationism was a central thesis of logical positivism, a movement in analytic philosophy that emerged in the 1920s by the efforts of a group of philosophers who sought to unify philosophy and science under a common naturalistic theory of knowledge.​

He is gullible because he believes fantastical hearsay stories without any substantiating evidence. The same as people who believe UFO abduction stories are gullible.

You believe in fantastical hearsay stories in the Bible without any substantiating evidence. Therefore, using your own terminology, you are gullible.

No it doesn't. How does Paul's conversion refute my claim that Christians don't need hard evidence to believe the Bible?

It shows that some individuals do in fact need more extraordinary levels of evidence in order to believe. Paul received extraordinary levels of evidence in Acts 9. Doubting Thomas received extraordinary levels of evidence in John 20:24-29. Even in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 Paul said:

4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.​

If you want contemporary examples of individuals receiving extraordinary levels of evidence in order to believe, check out these:

#Jesus Appears to ATHEIST - this is what happened

Regular Guy SHOCKED by Demonic Possession - 50 Witnesses to SUPERNATURAL Events #Jesus Saves

How I encountered Jesus in my bedroom - from religion to relationship

HERE'S WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN AN ATHEIST GETS SURROUNDED WITH 80 PRAYING RUSSIANS!

New Age to Christianity // My Supernatural Experience with God

Yes I believe the miracle claims in the Bible are absolutely true because it is God's infallible word, as all Christians do. Hearsay is "information that you have heard but do not know to be true" (dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hearsay). As we know scripture is true it cannot be hearsay.

How do you know scripture is true?

Who says they don't? The courts recognise the authority of the bible because they ask you to put your hand on one when giving evidence.

Then you should recognize the authority of the Quran as well:

OATH TO WITNESS
Procedure for swearing on Holy Quran (Oath proceedings) is not applicable to criminal proceedings under Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 901, Abdul Sattar.
Special oath whether binding: Offer to abide by the oath of opposite party and its acceptance by the other party is in the nature of an agreement and the question whether the party who offered can resile from it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. PLD 1997 S.C. 823, Mahmood Ali Butt v. I.G. Police Punjab etc.
Evidence recorded on solemn affirmation and not on oath, High Court held, after amendment of sec. 6 of Oaths Act, 1873 by Federal Laws Revision and Declaration Ordinance, 1981 it was compulsory for Muslim witnesses to depose on oath. Order for resummoning prosecution witnesses to depose on oath held proper. PLD 1996 Lah 391, Zafar Ali etc.
Form of oath to witness as prescribed by High Court is: "I swear by Allah Almighty that the evidence that I shall give before the Court in this case matter shall be the truth; the whole truth and nothing but the truth; that I shall conceal nothing from the Court, and that if I say anything which is untrue or conceal anything the wrath of Allah may fall on me."
However, if prescribed oath is not administered, the irregularity is curable u/s. 13 of the Oath Act, 1992 SCMR 408, Sajjad Ahmed etc.

Source: OATH TO WITNESS | Prosecutor General​

 

[swordsman1]

The hypocrisy is in your inconsistent standard of evidence. You wear a skeptical physicalist verificationist atheist hat when it comes to anything outside the Bible, and you wear a gullible hat when it comes to the Bible. Therein lies the hypocrisy and inconsistency.

_______________________

Verificationism - Wikipedia:

Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine which maintains that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, theology, ethics and aesthetics. Such statements may be meaningful in influencing emotions or behavior, but not in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content.[1] Verificationism was a central thesis of logical positivism, a movement in analytic philosophy that emerged in the 1920s by the efforts of a group of philosophers who sought to unify philosophy and science under a common naturalistic theory of knowledge.

There is no hypocrisy. I believe scripture because it is truth. I don't believe hearsay because it is prone to error.

You believe in fantastical hearsay stories in the Bible without any substantiating evidence. Therefore, using your own terminology, you are gullible.

The bible is not hearsay, it is absolute truth. Hearsay is "information that you have heard but do not know to be true" (dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hearsay). As we know scripture is true it cannot be hearsay. Anyone who believe truth cannot be said to be gullible.

It shows that some individuals do in fact need more extraordinary levels of evidence in order to believe. Paul received extraordinary levels of evidence in Acts 9.

But Paul's conversion experience is not even remotely similar to my claim. You are comparing apples to baseballs. My claim is that Christians don't need hard scientific evidence in order to believe the Bible. Paul wasn't a Christian. There was no scientific proof in his experience. And it didn't make him believe the Bible it made him believe in Christ. You haven't refuted my claim at all.

How do you know scripture is true?

By the inner witness of the Holy Spirit which all Christians experience.

Then you should recognize the authority of the Quran as well:

OATH TO WITNESS
Procedure for swearing on Holy Quran (Oath proceedings) is not applicable to criminal proceedings under Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 901, Abdul Sattar.
Special oath whether binding: Offer to abide by the oath of opposite party and its acceptance by the other party is in the nature of an agreement and the question whether the party who offered can resile from it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. PLD 1997 S.C. 823, Mahmood Ali Butt v. I.G. Police Punjab etc.
Evidence recorded on solemn affirmation and not on oath, High Court held, after amendment of sec. 6 of Oaths Act, 1873 by Federal Laws Revision and Declaration Ordinance, 1981 it was compulsory for Muslim witnesses to depose on oath. Order for resummoning prosecution witnesses to depose on oath held proper. PLD 1996 Lah 391, Zafar Ali etc.
Form of oath to witness as prescribed by High Court is: "I swear by Allah Almighty that the evidence that I shall give before the Court in this case matter shall be the truth; the whole truth and nothing but the truth; that I shall conceal nothing from the Court, and that if I say anything which is untrue or conceal anything the wrath of Allah may fall on me."
However, if prescribed oath is not administered, the irregularity is curable u/s. 13 of the Oath Act, 1992 SCMR 408, Sajjad Ahmed etc.

Source: OATH TO WITNESS | Prosecutor General

Why should I? Just because the courts recognize the Koran doesn't mean I must do also. My reason for recognising the authority of scripture is not because the courts do.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

There is no hypocrisy. I believe scripture because it is truth. I don't believe hearsay because it is prone to error.

How do you know scripture is true?

The bible is not hearsay, it is absolute truth. Hearsay is "information that you have heard but do not know to be true" (hearsay). As we know scripture is true it cannot be hearsay. Anyone who believe truth cannot be said to be gullible.

How do you know scripture is true?

But Paul's conversion experience is not even remotely similar to my claim. You are comparing apples to baseballs. My claim is that Christians don't need hard scientific evidence in order to believe the Bible. Paul wasn't a Christian. There was no scientific proof in his experience. And it didn't make him believe the Bible it made him believe in Christ. You haven't refuted my claim at all.

Fair enough. But Paul didn't need hard scientific evidence to believe in miracles either (the scientific method didn't even exist at that time), so why should I?

Where does the Bible say that you need to use the scientific method in order to believe that miracles are possible?

By the inner witness of the Holy Spirit which all Christians experience.

How do you know that all Christians experience the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? Can you read other Christians' minds?

Why should I? Just because the courts recognize the Koran doesn't mean I must do also. My reason for recognising the authority of scripture is not because the courts do.

What is your reason for recognising the authority of scripture?

 

[swordsman1]

How do you know scripture is true?

By the inner witness of the Holy Spirit which all Christians experience.

Fair enough. But Paul didn't need hard scientific evidence to believe in miracles either (the scientific method didn't even exist at that time), so why should I?

If you wish to reject hard scientific evidence that is your prerogative.

Where does the Bible say that you need to use the scientific method in order to believe that miracles are possible?

I never said it did.

How do you know that all Christians experience the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? Can you read other Christians' minds?

Because it is one of the things all Christians agree on. We disagree on many issues, but there is never any dispute over whether the Bible is God's word.

What is your reason for recognising the authority of scripture?

Because it is God's word.

You are determined to try and catch me out on the hearsay issue aren't you. Keep trying if you wish, but I'm sure you are boring the pants off anyone still following this thread.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

If you wish to reject hard scientific evidence that is your prerogative.

What hard scientific evidence regarding miracles would I be rejecting?

What hard scientific evidence regarding miracles should I pay attention to?

Can you share a Biblical example of how hard scientific evidence should be used to evaluate miracles?

I never said it did.

But you never said it didn't either. But anyways, if the scientific method didn't exist in Biblical times, and if Jesus, the Apostles and the early church didn't need the scientific method in order to believe that miracles are possible, then why should we? Why should we adopt an epistemology about miracles that is nowhere to be found in the Bible, that Jesus never taught, that the Apostles never taught?

Another very important question: what does the Bible teach about miracles? What should our beliefs and expectations regarding miracles be according to the Bible?

Because it is one of the things all Christians agree on. We disagree on many issues, but there is never any dispute over whether the Bible is God's word.

This doesn't answer my question. I asked:

How do you know that all Christians experience the inner witness of the Holy Spirit?​

Christians may agree that the Bible is God's word for many reasons, e.g. tradition, upbringing, faith, culture, etc.

So you still need to show that the reason why they believe is that all Christians experience the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. In other words, you are making a super strong claim, you are claiming to KNOW that all Christians have had a supernatural inner experience with the Holy Spirit that instantly reveals to them that some specific set of books are divinely inspired. (And what about the deuterocanonical books by the way? What about the Book of Mormon? Have you heard of the "burning in the bosom" that Mormons experience?)

So how do you know that? How do you know that each and every Christian has had a supernatural inner experience revealing to them the true canon? How do you rule out other possible explanations, such as tradition, upbringing, religious education, faith, cultural bias, etc.?

 

[swordsman1]

What hard scientific evidence regarding miracles would I be rejecting?

The hard scientific evidence that Paul didn't need. (You said, "But Paul didn't need hard scientific evidence to believe in miracles either (the scientific method didn't even exist at that time), so why should I?")

But you never said it didn't either. But anyways, if the scientific method didn't exist in Biblical times, and if Jesus, the Apostles and the early church didn't need the scientific method in order to believe that miracles are possible, then why should we? Why should we adopt an epistemology about miracles that is nowhere to be found in the Bible, that Jesus never taught, that the Apostles never taught?

As I just said, if you don't want to accept scientific proofs because such techniques were not around in Jesus's time then feel free to reject such evidence. But I, the courts, and the vast majority of right thinking humans welcome scientific methods.

This doesn't answer my question. I asked:

How do you know that all Christians experience the inner witness of the Holy Spirit?
Christians may agree that the Bible is God's word for many reasons, e.g. tradition, upbringing, faith, culture, etc.

So you still need to show that the reason why they believe is that all Christians experience the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. In other words, you are making a super strong claim, you are claiming to KNOW that all Christians have had a supernatural inner experience with the Holy Spirit that instantly reveals to them that some specific set of books are divinely inspired. (And what about the deuterocanonical books by the way? What about the Book of Mormon? Have you heard of the "burning in the bosom" that Mormons experience?)

So how do you know that? How do you know that each and every Christian has had a supernatural inner experience revealing to them the true canon? How do you rule out other possible explanations, such as tradition, upbringing, religious education, faith, cultural bias, etc.?

What other explanation is there for all Christian inherently knowing that the Bible is God's word? Something supernatural is obviously going on. Unless you want to attribute it to the Flying Spaghetti Monster then it must be the Holy Spirit.

I could also quote 1 Cor 2:12-14

What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.​

...but you don't believe the Bible is God's word do you? Despite the fact that you often quote scripture yourself as an authority to try and prove your point. And you accuse ME of hypocrisy?

 

[TruthSeek3r]

@swordsman1 - I'll be busy for a couple of weeks, so my rebuttal to post #255 will have to wait (I have some interesting points in mind - I'm really curious to know what your next response will be once I get a chance to sit down and put the rebuttal together).

But in the meantime, I'm super curious about your position on the following issue: Which type of Cessationism is true?. Feel free to reply on that thread instead.

 

[John Mullally]

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

• apostles
• prophets
• teachers

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

I am not going to tackle all the OP's questions; just the ones I stripped from his opening post.

The conditions required for the office of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastors, and Teachers to stop operating are stated in Ephesians 4:13 and those conditions have not been met. Look around you, the Church has not remotely come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

Ephesians 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.​

 

[Guojing]

I am not going to tackle all the OP's questions; just the ones I stripped from his opening post.

Per Ephesians 4:11-15, the office of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastors, and Teachers are still

Ephesians 4:11And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

What are your views regarding why the list given in Ephesians 4 seems different from the list given in 1 Corinthians 12?

If you are using Ephesians 4 as the "official list", does that mean you believe those missing ones that were originally from 1 Corinthians 12 have ceased?

 

[John Mullally]

What are your views regarding why the list given in Ephesians 4 seems different from the list given in 1 Corinthians 12?

If you are using Ephesians 4 as the "official list", does that mean you believe those missing ones that were originally from 1 Corinthians 12 have ceased?

I am only addressing the offices listed in Ephesians 4. I apologize for my clumsy efforts in originally posting Post 257. I inadvertently clicked "Post Reply" after I copied and pasted Ephesians 4 from Bible hub. The post should make more sense now.

 

[Guojing]

I am only addressing the offices listed in Ephesians 4. I apologize for my clumsy efforts in originally posting Post 257. I inadvertently clicked "Post Reply" after I copied and pasted Ephesians 4 from Bible hub. The post should make more sense now.

Thanks, but my question still remains. What do you think are the main reasons why the Ephesians 4 list is significantly shorter than the one found in 1 Corinthians 12?