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

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What convinces cessationists, and every other Christian, that miracles occurred in the 1st century is the fact they are recorded in scripture, the highest standard of truth.

Oh, c'mon ... here we go again :doh: ... how do you know scripture is the highest standard of truth?


Frankly, the quality of theological commentary was appalling in the Dark Ages and earlier compared to the academic standards of the last hundred years. The quality and availability of bible manuscripts were poor and often incomplete. They didn't have the entire 66 books neatly printed in one volume accurately translated by a team of Hebrew and Greek scholars from the earliest, and thus most reliable, manuscripts. Even the good-for-its-day KJV was translated from 13th century Greek manuscripts (which scribes had hand copied over and over again, often adding their own little 'clarifications'). Mistranslation was common, often being a translation of a translation (eg from the Latin Vulgate). Knowledge of Koine Greek with all its foibles was weak. Greek lexicons were unheard of. You basically had to be self taught in every aspect of Koine Greek as well as being theologically astute, and the number of people properly qualified and equipped for such a task was miniscule. Before the Reformation there was also heavy Catholic bias in favour of tongues and other miracles as they were the necessary qualification for the canonization of their saints. As a result early commentaries were usually vague, confused and unreliable.

Wait a minute? And you are calling that "the perfect" (well ok, "the completeness")? Are you really saying that the church, for many centuries, lacking access to high quality scriptures, which weren't even commonplace to begin with because the industrial production of Bibles only came to be a thing with the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440, already had the perfect, the completeness, with no need for spiritual gifts whatsoever? With scriptures in such a precarious and poor condition? C'mon ... your whole "completeness of the canon" argument falls apart when people didn't even have access to Bibles, and the few Bibles that were around at the time were in such a poor quality as you describe. Are you really going to call that "the perfect", "the completeness", people seeing "face to face"? This doesn't make sense at all. And it didn't make sense at all for almost 16 centuries until John Calvin appeared on the scene, who was mad at Catholics because they had miracles and he didn't.

Eh? Calvin's argument must be rejected because he doesn't use Argumentum ad populum????

You didn't understand the point. You were appealing to consensus of scholars in previous posts. By the same logic, I can appeal to the consensus of pre-Calvin scholars who for almost 1600 years of church history didn't believe in John Calvin's cessationist argument, because cessationist arguments of that sort didn't even exist.

Speaking of Carl Sagan, did you know he also formulated the famous and widely accepted Sagan Standard, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Which basically means if you make a fantastical claim (eg a miracle taking place), you'd better have strong evidence to prove it happened (ie. not hearsay).

Sure. Please, show the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim that first century Xenoglossy was a thing.

Although this question has nothing to do with cessationism, I've already given you the answer that settles the matter for Christians, namely that 2 Tim 3:16 says ALL scripture is inspired (including 2 Tim 3:16 itself as that too is scripture).

Again. How do you know that ALL scripture includes Acts? How do you know it doesn't include the Book of Mormon? How do you know it doesn't include the deuterocanonical books?

Accusing Christians of circular reasoning and demanding further scientific proof is arguing as an atheist attacking Christianity.

Which is exactly what you are doing with all the testimonial evidence I've presented to you for the continuation of spiritual gifts, the miraculous and the supernatural in general (which you seem to have an extreme aversion to).

For all practical purposes you are pretty much an atheist with respect to continuationism.

Relevant read: Double standard - Wikipedia

I could give you a deeper reason but a philosophical analysis of MY PERSONAL BELIEF that Scripture is inspired is also NOT related to the subject of cessationism. And so you will be not be getting any further answers from me on that question, at least not on this thread. So you are wasting everyone's time by continuing to thrash this pointless off-topic horse. Start another topic on proof for the inspiration of Scripture and I may well contribute.

Feel free to expand on how you meet the burden of proof for your first century extraordinary claims on this thread: What should I pay attention to if I want to know whether a given piece of text is divinely inspired?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Oh, c'mon ... here we go again :doh: ... how do you know scripture is the highest standard of truth?

Yep you're still thrashing that tired old horse....

We know scripture is the highest standard of truth because Jesus says it is. (John 17:17). Was Jesus lying?

Wait a minute? And you are calling that "the perfect" (well ok, "the completeness")? Are you really saying that the church, for many centuries, lacking access to high quality scriptures, which weren't even commonplace to begin with because the industrial production of Bibles only came to be a thing with the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440, already had the perfect, the completeness, with no need for spiritual gifts whatsoever? With scriptures in such a precarious and poor condition? C'mon ... your whole "completeness of the canon" argument falls apart when people didn't even have access to Bibles, and the few Bibles that were around at the time were in such a poor quality as you describe. Are you really going to call that "the perfect", "the completeness", people seeing "face to face"? This doesn't make sense at all. And it didn't make sense at all for almost 16 centuries until John Calvin appeared on the scene, who was mad at Catholics because they had miracles and he didn't.

Yes, once the church had the completed New Testament, it no longer needed miracles to authenticate itself, nor required prophecy to guide it in the faith. That doesn't mean each individual Christian had to have their own copy. One copy per church, or even one copy per region would suffice. Faithful ministers of God's word could then read it and teach their congregations from it.

You didn't understand the point. You were appealing to consensus of scholars in previous posts. By the same logic, I can appeal to the consensus of pre-Calvin scholars who for almost 1600 years of church history didn't believe in John Calvin's cessationist argument, because cessationist arguments of that sort didn't even exist.

Yes Calvin's argument was different from the RC church's teachings. That doesn't mean it must be wrong. Calvin's argument was well-reasoned and backed by scripture, which is why it was quickly adopted.

Sure. Please, show the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim that first century Xenoglossy was a thing.

I'm glad you accept that charismatic hearsay fails the Sagan Standard.

Sure extraordinary evidence exists to prove first century Xenoglossy. It is recorded in infallible scripture, the highest and most extraordinary evidence there is.


Again. How do you know that ALL scripture includes Acts? How do you know it doesn't include the Book of Mormon? How do you know it doesn't include the deuterocanonical books?

Because the book of Acts is inspired scripture. It appears in the 66 books of the completed canon. The book of Mormon doesn't.

Which is exactly what you are doing with all the testimonial evidence I've presented to you for the continuation of spiritual gifts, the miraculous and the supernatural in general (which you seem to have an extreme aversion to).

For all practical purposes you are pretty much an atheist with respect to continuationism.

Relevant read: Double standard - Wikipedia

No, the dubious unverified stories of charismatic hearsay are a world apart from the quality of God-inspired infallible scripture.

Feel free to expand on how you meet the burden of proof for your first century extraordinary claims on this thread: What should I pay attention to if I want to know whether a given piece of text is divinely inspired?

Good. Now you've started your own thread asking for proof that scripture is inspired, perhaps you can now stop wasting everyone's time here with that off-topic question.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We know scripture is the highest standard of truth because Jesus says it is. (John 17:17). Was Jesus lying?
How do you know Jesus was not lying?

Yes, once the church had the completed New Testament, it no longer needed miracles to authenticate itself, nor required prophecy to guide it in the faith. That doesn't mean each individual Christian had to have their own copy. One copy per church, or even one copy per region would suffice. Faithful ministers of God's word could then read it and teach their congregations from it.

Then why was the Reformation "needed" in the first place? People were already fine, they already had everything they needed spiritually, scriptures were already crystal clear, they were already seeing "face to face", no need for new revelations, no need for new "Reformed" people to interpret things differently, right? ...

Sure extraordinary evidence exists to prove first century Xenoglossy. It is recorded in infallible scripture, the highest and most extraordinary evidence there is.

So ... you really hope to convince Carl Sagan with that argument, right? Like seriously ... ?

How would you prove to Carl Sagan that scripture is "the highest and most extraordinary evidence there is"?

Because the book of Acts is inspired scripture. It appears in the 66 books of the completed canon. The book of Mormon doesn't.
How do you know the book of Acts is inspired scripture?
How do you know its inclusion among the 66 books that are believed to form the completed canon was the right decision and not a mistake?
How do you know the exclusion of the Book of Mormon is not a mistake?
By the way, you didn't say anything about the deuterocanonical books.

No, the dubious unverified stories of charismatic hearsay are a world apart from the quality of God-inspired infallible scripture.
Care to justify your claims?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟37,027.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
So my point is, you should not use Hebrews 13:8 to claim that the spiritual gifts continue today.

Just because Jesus is the same at all times, it does not mean the same spiritual gifts must operate at all times. There is no connection between the 2 points.
Yes. I got your point and I disagree. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Paul's teachings by the Holy Spirit,
all apostolic doctrine, and the Spirit in me are One. Why would Jesus pray this?

John 17:
20
I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through
their word;

21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may
be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as
We are one:

23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world
may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.


The Spirit In Me has a message for you. He knows Paul well.
He knows us just as well. We are One. Paul wrote:

2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you,
always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work.

I Am still able! I am not limited by any theological teaching or doctrine that would oppose the
knowledge of God. All denominations, doctrines and dogma that would oppose the work that
the body of Christ has been tasked with My Help will come to desolation, and soon.
Do you not know that the testimony of the Son of God is the spirit of prophecy?

Matthew 12:
25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

31 Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.

Now I am well aware that there are those who try to put limits on the authority of Holy Spirit.
That includes limiting the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, even to this one instant, giving the
Word of God a very narrow berth. And yet in this very narrative, Jesus goes on to say:

36 But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account
of it in the day of judgment.

37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

In so doing, the Lord is giving His Word as wide a berth as possible. Every idle word!
Here is the significance of that statement, that many do not seem to have learned.
When you are in your group meeting, you are supposed to be under the Anointing, and
speak
only under the Anointing. Jesus is not talking about the barber shop here.
"If any man speak, let him speak as an oracle of God". 1 Peter 4:11. See also 1 Corinthians 14
If Christians are speaking prophetically to one another, it is by the Holy Spirit.
If Christians are speaking falsehood to one another, while supposedly speaking under
the Anointing of the Holy Spirit, then the prophetic Word of Christ in Matthew 12:25-37
stands today, as an eternal Word of testimony, and will be a basis for judgment (idle words)
individually, as well as factions within the kingdom that would oppose Truth that will be brought
to desolation. Matthew 12:25
This is why Paul said:

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which
are approved
may be made manifest among you.
This holds true for this forum. And the judgment Jesus has already spoken is ready
to be made swiftly against those who hold such doctrines.

Matthew 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God,
surely the kingdom of God has come upon (against) you.

He has made clear that the kingdom of heaven will prevail.
2 Corinthians 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
How do you know Jesus was not lying?
How do you know the book of Acts is inspired scripture?
How do you know its inclusion among the 66 books that are believed to conform the completed canon was the right decision and not a mistake?
How do you know the exclusion of the Book of Mormon is not a mistake?
By the way, you didn't say anything about the deuterocanonical books.

Those are all questions asked by atheists when criticising Christianity. Ask them on the atheists board if you don't know the answers. They are not related to this topic. This board is for Christians only, who already believe such things... INCLUDING CONTINUISTS.

Then why was the Reformation "needed" in the first place? People were already fine, they already had everything they needed spiritually, scriptures were already crystal clear, they were already seeing "face to face", no need for new revelations, no need for new "Reformed" people to interpret things differently, right? ...

What has the need for the Reformation got to do with this topic?

So ... you really hope to convince Carl Sagan with that argument, right? Like seriously ... ?

How would you prove to Carl Sagan that scripture is "the highest and most extraordinary evidence there is"?

I don't have to convince Carl Sagan. My statement is aimed at Christians, here on a Christians only board. In fact the inspiration and infallibility of scripture is something all Christians already believe. There is only one person here who is apparently unconvinced.

Care to justify your claims?

Why would I need to justify the inspiration and infallibility of scripture when all Christians here, cessationist and continuist alike, already believes it?
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Those are all questions asked by atheists when criticising Christianity. Ask them on the atheists board if you don't know the answers. They are not related to this topic. This board is for Christians only, who already believe such things... INCLUDING CONTINUISTS.

Why are you so afraid to answer these questions? Because you will have to admit that you rely on testimonial evidence as well?

What has the need for the Reformation got to do with this topic?

It has to do with the fact that you claimed that "completeness" and "the perfect" came with the completion of the canon of scripture, and that Christians were already able to see crystal clear, "face to face", through the Bible. If everything was perfect and complete, if Christians had perfect knowledge, if they already had all the revelation they would ever need, if they already had crystal clear understanding and were already able to see "face to face", then what is the point of the Reformation? Why would you waste time reforming something that was already perfect and complete?

I don't have to convince Carl Sagan. My statement is aimed at Christians, here on a Christians only board. In fact the inspiration and infallibility of scripture is something all Christians already believe. There is only one person here who is apparently unconvinced.

Back to appealing to the crowd again?

Why would I need to justify the inspiration and infallibility of scripture when all Christians here, cessationist and continuist alike, already believes it?

Because appealing to crowds is a fallacious argument perhaps?
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Why are you so afraid to answer these questions? Because you will have to admit that you rely on testimonial evidence as well?

Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of infallible scripture?

It has to do with the fact that you claimed that "completeness" and "the perfect" came with the completion of the canon of scripture, and that Christians were already able to see crystal clear, "face to face", through the Bible. If everything was perfect and complete, if Christians had perfect knowledge, if they already had all the revelation they would ever need, if they already had crystal clear understanding and were already able to see "face to face", then what is the point of the Reformation?

Show me where I said everything was perfect.
Show me where I said Christians had perfect knowledge.
Show me where I said Christians had crystal clear understanding.

It seems you love putting words into my mouth.

Why would you waste time reforming something that was already perfect and complete?

I said it was scripture that was perfect and complete. It wasn't scripture that was reformed, it was the church!

Back to appealing to the crowd again?

No.
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of infallible scripture?

How do you know scripture is infallible?

Feel free to answer on either of these threads:
I will address the other points at another time, as time permits.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes. I got your point and I disagree. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Paul's teachings by the Holy Spirit,
all apostolic doctrine, and the Spirit in me are One. Why would Jesus pray this?

John 17:
20
I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through
their word;

21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may
be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as
We are one:

23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world
may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.


The Spirit In Me has a message for you. He knows Paul well.
He knows us just as well. We are One. Paul wrote:

2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you,
always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work.

I Am still able! I am not limited by any theological teaching or doctrine that would oppose the
knowledge of God. All denominations, doctrines and dogma that would oppose the work that
the body of Christ has been tasked with My Help will come to desolation, and soon.
Do you not know that the testimony of the Son of God is the spirit of prophecy?

Matthew 12:
25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

31 Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.

Now I am well aware that there are those who try to put limits on the authority of Holy Spirit.
That includes limiting the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, even to this one instant, giving the
Word of God a very narrow berth. And yet in this very narrative, Jesus goes on to say:

36 But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account
of it in the day of judgment.

37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

In so doing, the Lord is giving His Word as wide a berth as possible. Every idle word!
Here is the significance of that statement, that many do not seem to have learned.
When you are in your group meeting, you are supposed to be under the Anointing, and
speak
only under the Anointing. Jesus is not talking about the barber shop here.
"If any man speak, let him speak as an oracle of God". 1 Peter 4:11. See also 1 Corinthians 14
If Christians are speaking prophetically to one another, it is by the Holy Spirit.
If Christians are speaking falsehood to one another, while supposedly speaking under
the Anointing of the Holy Spirit, then the prophetic Word of Christ in Matthew 12:25-37
stands today, as an eternal Word of testimony, and will be a basis for judgment (idle words)
individually, as well as factions within the kingdom that would oppose Truth that will be brought
to desolation. Matthew 12:25
This is why Paul said:

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which
are approved
may be made manifest among you.
This holds true for this forum. And the judgment Jesus has already spoken is ready
to be made swiftly against those who hold such doctrines.

Matthew 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God,
surely the kingdom of God has come upon (against) you.

He has made clear that the kingdom of heaven will prevail.
2 Corinthians 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

Well at least you are no longer using Hebrews 13:8. That is a start.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
That doesn't answer the question. How do you know scripture is infallible?

Your question is a deflection. What you are doing is a classic example of the strawman fallacy (just as your previous atheist deflection was) - side stepping an argument and replacing it with another one you are more comfortable with.

Straw man - Wikipedia

Instead of creating another off-topic atheist deflection, how about you answer my original question instead. Here it is again (without the word 'infallible' this time to help you focus)....

Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of scripture?
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your question is a deflection. What you are doing is a classic example of the strawman fallacy (just as your previous atheist deflection was) - side stepping an argument and replacing it with another one you are more comfortable with.

Straw man - Wikipedia
How was my question a straw man? How am I misrepresenting your position? YOU literally said (quoting your exact words):

"Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of infallible scripture?"

Your whole question is based on the assumption that scripture is infallible. That's a positive claim you made, so you have the burden of proof for it. I just asked you to provide the justification. How is that a straw man?

Instead of creating another off-topic atheist deflection, how about you answer my original question instead. Here it is again (without the word 'infallible' this time to help you focus)....

Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of scripture?

This is NOT your original question. This is a completely different question. The fact that you removed the word 'infallible' changes the focus completely. Now you are basically asking me to compare testimonies, and whether I believe testimonies from the 1st century are more or less reliable than thousands and possibly millions of testimonies from modern times.

First of all, you are accusing modern day testimonies of being biased. 1) How do you know that's the case? and 2) How do you know that 1st century testimonies were not biased?

Secondly, the answer to your question depends on your epistemology regarding the value of eyewitness testimonies in general, and eyewitness testimonies of miracles in particular.

Atheists, agnostics, naturalists and skeptics in general, for example, would say that, in the absence of substantive evidence, miracle claims and testimonies are utterly unreliable, regardless of whether they come from the first century or any other century for that matter. See for example:
In contrast, continuationists would see value in the eyewitness testimonies of Christians throughout all church history, including the first century and modern times. See for example:
See also the book Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-volumes-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-ebook/dp/B007KOI2PY/). The preface says:

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.



I'm guessing you believe that the miracle claims made by the eyewitness testimonies recorded in the manuscripts that were canonized as part of the Bible are very reliable. If so, may I know why?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
How was my question a straw man? How am I misrepresenting your position? YOU literally said (quoting your exact words):

"Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of infallible scripture?"
Your whole question is based on the assumption that scripture is infallible. That's a positive claim you made, so you have the burden of proof for it. I just asked you to provide the justification. How is that a straw man?

Your argument is that because I accept the testimony of scripture I should therefore accept the hearsay testimonies of miracles. That argument can only be made if you believe the reliability of hearsay is on a par with scripture. When I asked if that is what you really believe, you deflected away by honing in on a single word in my question and creating a new unrelated argument, one which you preferred. You created a strawman.

This is NOT your original question. This is a completely different question. The fact that you removed the word 'infallible' changes the focus completely.

My question doesn't hinge on whether the word 'infallible' is there or not, so I asked the same question again without that word so that you cannot make the same deflection.

Now you are basically asking me to compare testimonies, and whether I believe testimonies from the 1st century are more or less reliable than thousands and possibly millions of testimonies from modern times.

No, that is not the question I asked. The question I would like you to answer is...

Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of scripture?

First of all, you are accusing modern day testimonies of being biased. 1) How do you know that's the case?

They quite clearly are biased. They are made by charismatics/pentecostals. A movement characterised by it's obsession with modern-day miracles.

and 2) How do you know that 1st century testimonies were not biased?

I never made that assertion. You are trying to create another strawman again.

I'm guessing you believe that the miracle claims made by the eyewitness testimonies recorded in the manuscripts that were canonized as part of the Bible are very reliable. If so, may I know why?

My question has nothing to do with what I believe, it is about what you believe. Now please answer the question.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your argument is that because I accept the testimony of scripture I should therefore accept the hearsay testimonies of miracles.

When did I make that argument? Can you share the link to the post and the quote where I explicitly said that?

That argument can only be made if you believe the reliability of hearsay is on a par with scripture.

1) Why?
2) Again, when did I make that argument?

When I asked if that is what you really believe, you deflected away by honing in on a single word in my question and creating a new unrelated argument, one which you preferred. You created a strawman.

Again, your question included an unjustified assumption and I brought that up. That's not a strawman. That's simply making sure that your question is justified in the first place. Now that you have retracted the word 'infallible', we can proceed.

My question doesn't hinge on whether the word 'infallible' is there or not, so I asked the same question again without that word so that you cannot make the same deflection.

The word 'infallible' was crucial in your original question. If I were to grant the premise of your question that scripture is infallible, then of course it would be trivially true that nothing would be on a par with it. But that's assuming that scripture is infallible to begin with, which you haven't justified yet.

No, that is not the question I asked. The question I would like you to answer is...

Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of scripture?

1) What do you mean by 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories? Can you point to concrete examples?

2) And what about 1st hand eyewitness testimonies?

3) Do you believe the manuscripts in the New Testament are first-hand sources and not second-hand or third-hand? If so, please justify your answer.

They quite clearly are biased. They are made by charismatics/pentecostals. A movement characterised by it's obsession with modern-day miracles.

Miracle claims are not limited to charismatics/pentecostals "obsessed" with modern-day miracles.

John Piper, a Baptist pastor, attests to miracles as well: Why Do We See So Few Miracles Today?

The second observation I would make is that there are probably more miracles happening today than we realize.

If we could collect all the authentic stories all over the world — from all the missionaries and all the saints in the all the countries of the world, all the cultures of the world — if we could collect all the millions of encounters between Christians and demons and Christians and sickness and all the so-called coincidences of the world, we would be stunned. We would think we were living in a world of miracles, which we are.

The Shantung Revival (Evangelical Revivals Book 151): https://www.amazon.com/Shantung-Revival-Evangelical-Revivals-Book-ebook/dp/B00H6PMELU/

Mary Crawford served with the North China Mission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Her book is a compilation of true miraculous stories, many authenticated by responsible and reliable missionaries, that occurred during the revival in the Shantung region of North China, during the years 1930-1933.

This marvellous work had a profound effect on the Southern Baptists ministry there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
When did I make that argument? Can you share the link to the post and the quote where I explicitly said that?

Your argument is clearly implied in post #106.

You asked "Why are you so afraid to answer these questions?" (referring to your atheist questions about why I believe scripture). You then gave what you presumed to be my reason, "Because you will have to admit that you rely on testimonial evidence as well?". Thus revealing your motive for asking the questions.

So your argument is that because I rely on the testimonial evidence in scripture I have no reason not to accept today's testimonials of miracles.



Because you are equating the reliability of each - the reason I should accept the testimonies of miracles today is because I accept the testimonies in scripture.

Again, your question included an unjustified assumption and I brought that up. That's not a strawman. That's simply making sure that your question is justified to begin with. Now that you retracted the word 'infallible', we can proceed.

It was strawman. Rather than answering my question, or even stating you did not agree with my adjective 'infallible', you instead tried to direct the discussion into a whole new argument about proving the infallibility of scripture.

The word 'infallible' was crucial in your original question. If I were to grant the premise of your question that scripture is infallible, then of course it would be trivially true that nothing would be on a par with it. But that's assuming that scripture is infallible to begin with, which you haven't justified yet.

No it wasn't. That was my own personal description of scripture. The crux of the question is whether you believe hearsay is equivalent to scripture (whether infallible or not) in terms of reliability. That is why I did not hesitate to restate the question with the objectionable word removed. Whether or not you agree with me (and the vast majority of Christian) that scripture is infallible is for you to state in your answer.

1) What do you mean by 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories? Can you point to concrete examples?

By 2nd hand I mean hearsay. The story doesn't come direct from the witness in person, who I could interrogate, but via a third party. eg a book, a website, a forum post, etc.

2) And what about 1st hand eyewitness testimonies?

Not applicable to the question.

3) Do you believe the manuscripts in the New Testament are first-hand sources and not second-hand or third-hand? If so, please justify your answer.

Not applicable to the question.

Miracle claims are not limited to charismatics/pentecostals "obsessed" with modern-day miracles.

The vast majority of today's claims are. And those are the ones I was referring to in the word "biased" in my question.


Now if you wouldn't mind answering my question (with no further deflections)......

Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of scripture?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,910
Australia
Visit site
✟733,159.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?

The gifts were never meant to cease. Those who believe can still do the works that Jesus did.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Mat 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
It is only our lack of faith that prevents it.

Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruthSeek3r
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your argument is clearly implied in post #106.

You asked "Why are you so afraid to answer these questions?" (referring to your atheist questions about why I believe scripture). You then gave what you presumed to be my reason, "Because you will have to admit that you rely on testimonial evidence as well?". Thus revealing your motive for asking the questions.

So your argument is that because I rely on the testimonial evidence in scripture I have no reason not to accept today's testimonials of miracles.

I never said that. Up to that moment you had shown nothing but disdain toward testimonies. Every time I presented a testimonial to you, you just rejected it out of hand without giving it a second thought. Therefore, I thought it would be very funny and inconsistent of you to appeal to testimonial evidence to defend your belief in 1st century miracle claims when everything you had been doing up to that point was throwing testimonials into the trash can.

However, it looks like things have changed a little bit. You now seem to be more open to testimonial evidence, as long as it meets certain "quality standards" which you haven't made clear just yet. We are making progress.

Because you are equating the reliability of each - the reason I should accept the testimonies of miracles today is because I accept the testimonies in scripture.

I never made that claim. I never said that modern claims of miracles are equally, more or less reliable than first century claims of miracles. If I did, please share the post and the specific quote where I stated those "reliability comparisons".

It was strawman. Rather than answering my question, or even stating you did not agree with my adjective 'infallible', you instead tried to direct the discussion into a whole new argument about proving the infallibility of scripture.

It was not a strawman. Read the 'Structure' section of the Wikipedia article (Straw man - Wikipedia):

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
  1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
  2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For example:

  • Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
  • Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
  • Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
  • Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
My question was not a strawman because:
  • I never quoted you out of context.
  • I never presented "a different argument" (a strawman) which I then refuted.
  • I never even claimed to have refuted anything.
  • I didn't even make a claim to begin with.
  • Nothing.
I just asked a simple question: how do you know that scripture is infallible?

I was simply asking you to justify an extraordinary claim that you were forcing me to accept as a premise in your question. But you have retracted the extraordinary claim, so we can now move on.

Happy?

No it wasn't. That was my own personal description of scripture. The crux of the question is whether you believe hearsay is equivalent to scripture (whether infallible or not) in terms of reliability. That is why I did not hesitate to restate the question with the objectionable word removed. Whether or not you agree with me (and the vast majority of Christian) that scripture is infallible is for you to state in your answer.

By 2nd hand I mean hearsay. The story doesn't come direct from the witness in person, who I could interrogate, but via a third party. eg a book, a website, a forum post, etc.

Now if you wouldn't mind answering my question (with no further deflections)......

Do you seriously think that 2nd hand unsubstantiated stories from unknown biased individuals is on a par with the testimony of scripture?

Before I answer your question, there are still some things I need to understand to make sure I won't be responding to a strawman:
  1. You said that "By 2nd hand I mean hearsay. The story doesn't come direct from the witness in person, who I could interrogate, but via a third party. eg a book, a website, a forum post, etc.". According your own definition of hearsay, would you consider a video where you can see the person's face and hear their voice, sharing their personal experiences, to be hearsay? What if the person responds to comments in the comment section, or if they have an account on other social media sites, such as Instagram, where you can send direct messages to them and chat with them? Would you consider that to be hearsay as well?
  2. According to your definition of hearsay, if I can't interrogate the witness in person, their story is by definition hearsay. Given that we can't interrogate anyone from the 1st century, does that mean that all stories in the New Testament, according to your own definition, are hearsay?
  3. What is your definition of substantiated? Can you share examples of things that are substantiated and examples of things that are not substantiated?
  4. Also about your definition of substantiated: are the miracle claims in the New Testament substantiated, and if so, why?
Once you clarify the above points, I think I will be able to answer your question.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
I never said that. Up to that moment you had shown nothing but disdain toward testimonies. Every time I presented a testimonial to you, you just rejected it out of hand without giving it a second thought. Therefore, I thought it would be very funny and inconsistent of you to appeal to testimonial evidence to defend your belief in 1st century miracle claims when everything you had been doing up to that point was throwing testimonials into the trash can.

I know you never made the argument explicitly but it was clearly implied in post #106 when you presumed my reason for not answering your questions was "Because you will have to admit that you rely on testimonial evidence as well?"

According to you I am guilty of being inconsistent. You think that because I rely of the testimonial evidence in scripture I should also rely on the testimonies of miracles. Otherwise I am being inconsistent.


However, it looks like things have changed a little bit. You now seem to be more open to testimonial evidence, as long as it meets certain "quality standards" which you haven't made clear just yet. We are making progress.

No my attitude has not changed. It is still.....if hearsay is so unreliable that the courts will not accept it, then why should I?

I never made that claim. I never said that modern claims of miracles are equally, more or less reliable than first century claims of miracles. If I did, please share the post and the specific quote where I stated those "reliability comparisons".

You think that because I rely of the testimonial evidence in scripture I should also rely on the hearsay testimonies of miracles. I can only do that if they are equally reliable.

It was not a strawman. Read the 'Structure' section of the Wikipedia article (Straw man - Wikipedia):

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
  1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
  2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For example:

  • Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
  • Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
  • Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
  • Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
My question was not a strawman because:
  • I never quoted you out of context.
  • I never presented "a different argument" (a strawman) which I then refuted.
  • I never even claimed to have refuted anything.
  • I didn't even make a claim to begin with.
  • Nothing.
I just asked a simple question: how do you know that scripture is infallible?

I was simply asking you to justify an extraordinary claim that you were forcing me to accept as a premise in your question. But you have retracted the extraordinary claim, so we can now move on.

Happy?

Sorry, yes, I got my fallacy names mixed up. By deflecting the argument, the fallacy you committed was not straw-man it was the red-herring fallacy:

Red Herring

Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.​


According your own definition of hearsay, would you consider a video where you can see the person's face and hear their voice, sharing their personal experiences, to be hearsay?

Yes that is still hearsay. Seeing the words coming from the mouth is no better than seeing the words in a book.

What if the person responds to comments in the comment section, or if they have an account on other social media sites, such as Instagram, where you can send direct messages to them and chat with them? Would you consider that to be hearsay as well?

Possibly not, but it depends on too many factors. How would I know if they are telling the truth? After all, they are not under oath or anything. Would I still get a true answer if it would publicly discredit them? Do they have a history of honesty? What is their background? Are they independent of the charismatic movement? Do they have any vested interests? Are they qualified to answer medical questions? Do they have a history of mental illness? What quality are the answers? Are they being evasive? How swift are the responses? etc, etc.


According to your definition of hearsay, if I can't interrogate the witness in person, their story is by definition hearsay. Given that we can't interrogate anyone from the 1st century, does that mean that all stories in the New Testament, according to your own definition, are hearsay?

Not relevant to my question.

What is your definition of substantiated? Can you share examples of things that are substantiated and examples of things that are not substantiated?

It means having hard irrefutable evidence to corroborate their story. Doctors certificates, X-rays, videos, etc

Also about your definition of substantiated: are the miracle claims in the New Testament substantiated, and if so, why?

Not relevant to my question.
 
Upvote 0