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
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.

Exactly, unless you have some sort of very peculiar self-consistent epistemology that solves the apparent contradiction somehow. I'm very interested in knowing more about it if that's the case.

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?

If a court of law would probably never accept 1st century claims of miracles to be true either, then why should I?

Note: in case you are planning to cite Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia as a rebuttal, remember to read the critical assessment section:

There are two examples of writers in recent years who have made critical assessments of Greenleaf's work, and of legal apologists who model their arguments on his book. Howard Richard Packham is a retired foreign language instructor and former part-time estate planning attorney who holds to an atheist worldview. He has written an internet article criticising the technical arguments set forth by Greenleaf and others. [2] Packham holds that what Greenleaf submits as eyewitness testimony is technically hearsay and therefore does not comprise direct evidence to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus. He also holds that the criteria for the "ancient documents rule" is not met by the gospel documents and that the force of Greenleaf's argument is thereby undermined.

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.

How do you know if two testimonies are equally reliable? How do you measure reliability? Do you follow some principled approach to make that mathematical assessment?

But anyways, if that's how your epistemology works, go for it.

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.​

I already explained that I asked you to provide justification for an extraordinary claim you were forcing me to accept. But anyhow, believe whatever you want ...

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

Ok. I will answer your question based on the definitions you have provided.

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

My answer:

You are basically asking me the following:

Given a testimony X that is
  • hearsay (i.e. we don't have the witness in person and can't interrogate them)
  • unsubstantiated (i.e. we don't have access to doctors certificates, X-rays, videos, etc.)
  • from an unknown witness (by this I take it that you mean we don't have enough information about the individual, i.e., there are valuable pieces of information about the individual we would like to know but unfortunately don't ??)
  • from a biased witness (i.e. the witness comes from a background that might have possibly influenced them to claim what they claimed ??)
would I seriously think X is on a par with the testimony of scripture?

To answer this, let's apply the same rules to the testimony of scripture, for example, Acts chapter 2 (the story about the miracle of Xenoglossy).
  • Do we have the witnesses in person so that we can interrogate them? No. Therefore, Acts 2 is hearsay.
  • Do we have access to doctors certificates, X-rays, videos, audios or any other form of hard evidence? No. Therefore, Acts 2 is unsubstantiated.
  • Do we know enough about the individuals who were present in Acts 2? Do we really know enough about the apostles and disciples who were allegedly present at Pentecost? What about the 3000 individuals who allegedly converted on that day? I guess you could say that we know a bit more about Peter, especially from the Catholic tradition, but do we really know that much? Can we corroborate that information somehow? Given that the story of Acts 2 is hearsay and unsubstantiated, claiming that we know enough about the actual witnesses would be far-fetched in my opinion, so I would say that Acts 2's witnesses are unknown.
  • Are the witnesses biased? I would think so. Jesus was charismatic himself, leading a supernatural life, and the disciples allegedly spent 3+ years alongside him. Therefore, they were clearly biased to expect supernatural stuff to happen from time to time, and hence, it shouldn't be that surprising to hear miracle claims from them. Conclusion: Acts 2's witnesses were definitely biased.
In conclusion, I applied your own definitions point by point and I am unable to see much difference between X and Acts 2. In fact, in the case of X you have the benefits of potentially being able to contact the witnesses to interview/interrogate them, and to learn more about them (via Instagram, etc.)

If you don't agree with this point-by-point analysis, please show where I supposedly made a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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?

Personally, I take an "Open But Cautious" position on this range of topics. It seems to me that while we may still have gifts from the Lord, we need to scrutinize and discern what we think we may have from what many of us can all too easily and simply feel and intuit we have, especially without good corroborating evidence.

I also tend to think that the Apostles were intended for the 1st century and not really beyond that.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
If a court of law would probably never accept 1st century claims of miracles to be true either, then why should I?

I agree they probably wouldn't. So just to confirm, you don't therefore accept the 1st century claims of miracles recorded in scripture?


Ok. I will answer your question based on the definitions you have provided.

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

My answer:

You are basically asking me the following:

Given a testimony X that is
  • hearsay (i.e. we don't have the witness in person and can't interrogate them)
  • unsubstantiated (i.e. we don't have access to doctors certificates, X-rays, videos, etc.)
  • from an unknown witness (by this I take it that you mean we don't have enough information about the individual, i.e., there are valuable pieces of information about the individual we would like to know but unfortunately don't ??)
  • from a biased witness (i.e. the witness comes from a background that might have possibly influenced them to claim what they claimed ??)
would I seriously think X is on a par with the testimony of scripture?

To answer this, let's apply the same rules to the testimony of scripture, for example, Acts chapter 2 (the story about the miracle of Xenoglossy).
  • Do we have the witnesses in person so that we can interrogate them? No. Therefore, Acts 2 is hearsay.
  • Do we have access to doctors certificates, X-rays, videos, audios or any other form of hard evidence? No. Therefore, Acts 2 is unsubstantiated.
  • Do we know enough about the individuals who were present in Acts 2? Do we really know enough about the apostles and disciples who were allegedly present at Pentecost? What about the 3000 individuals who allegedly converted on that day? I guess you could say that we know a bit more about Peter, especially from the Catholic tradition, but do we really know that much? Can we corroborate that information somehow? Given that the story of Acts 2 is hearsay and unsubstantiated, claiming that we know enough about the actual witnesses would be far-fetched in my opinion, so I would say that Acts 2's witnesses are unknown.
  • Are the witnesses biased? I would think so. Jesus was charismatic himself, leading a supernatural life, and the disciples allegedly spent 3+ years alongside him. Therefore, they were clearly biased to expect supernatural stuff to happen from time to time, and hence, it shouldn't be that surprising to hear miracle claims from them. Conclusion: Acts 2's witnesses were definitely biased.
In conclusion, I applied your own definitions point by point and I am unable to see much difference between X and Acts 2. In fact, in the case of X you have the benefits of potentially being able to contact the witnesses to interview/interrogate them, and to learn more about them (via Instagram, etc.)

If you don't agree with this point-by-point analysis, please show where I supposedly made a mistake.

Right so to confirm....you believe the testimony of events in scripture is no more credible than unreliable hearsay? No more credible than today's hearsay stories of miracles. And no more credible than the hearsay stories of UFO abductions?
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I agree they probably wouldn't. So just to confirm, you don't therefore accept the 1st century claims of miracles recorded in scripture?

Right so to confirm....you believe the testimony of events in scripture is no more credible than unreliable hearsay? No more credible than today's hearsay stories of miracles. And no more credible than the hearsay stories of UFO abductions?

It depends on the rules of credibility you use. If you only consider statements to be credible if you have in-person access to the witnesses so you can interrogate them, if you know enough about the witnesses, if the witnesses are unbiased and if the statements are thoroughly substantiated with hard evidence, if you ask me to apply those rules to any supernatural story in the Bible, then I don't see how you can come out believing anything at all. That's exactly why atheists do not believe in anything supernatural.

Personally, I think you can still make an abductive case (see Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia) for 1st century miracles by looking at the evidence of miracles in subsequent centuries, and concluding that if people in modern times are having similar experiences to those reported in Acts or the gospels, this makes 1st century miracle claims more believable and vice versa. The same idea is eloquently stated in the preface of the book Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-volumes-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-ebook/dp/B007KOI2PY/):

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.

Regarding UFOs, I think they provide another separate, independent line of (testimonial) evidence in favor of Christianity, given the fact that tons of individuals who had experiences with these alien beings end up realizing that they are demonic and that they leave in the name of Jesus.

See for example this very recent interview:

Are There Real Alien Abductions? Featuring Joseph Jordan -- Spirit Answers Podcast EP 13
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Personally, I think you can still make an abductive case (see Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia) for 1st century miracles by looking at the evidence of miracles in subsequent centuries, and concluding that if people in modern times are having similar experiences to those reported in Acts or the gospels, this makes 1st century miracle claims more believable and vice versa. The same idea is eloquently stated in the preface of the book Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-volumes-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-ebook/dp/B007KOI2PY/):

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.

So you think the miracles recorded in scripture are "plausible but not positively verified". You can't say for certain they all occurred in real life as described?

I thought you said you don't accept the 1st century claims of miracles, because no court of law would accept them. Have you now retracted that remark?

Regarding UFOs, I think they provide another separate, independent line of (testimonial) evidence in favor of Christianity, given the fact that tons of individuals who had experiences with these alien beings end up realizing that they are demonic and that they leave in the name of Jesus.

But do you believe UFO abductions occurred as the witnesses described in the numerous accounts I gave earlier in this thread? eg UFO's hovering over someone's car, levitating the person into the craft, being placed on an operating table and surrounded by aliens with bug-like heads, who performed experiments on them, giving them injections, inserting probes into their mouth, etc

If you believe the hearsay accounts of miracles then surely you must.
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So you think the miracles recorded in scripture are "plausible but not positively verified". You can't say for certain they all occurred in real life as described?

With the level of certainty that you demanded: (1) not hearsay, (2) substantiated with hard evidence, (3) with known and (4) unbiased witnesses, I don't think so.

I thought you said you don't accept the 1st century claims of miracles, because no court of law would accept them. Have you now retracted that remark?

I never claimed so, I simply asked you a rhetorical question in post #121, mimicking the style of your own question.

But do you believe UFO abductions occurred as the witnesses described in the numerous accounts I gave earlier in this thread? eg UFO's hovering over someone's car, levitating the person into the craft, being placed on an operating table and surrounded by aliens with bug-like heads, who performed experiments on them, giving them injections, inserting probes into their mouth, etc

If you believe the hearsay accounts of miracles then surely you must.

To which I answered in post #46 with a follow-up question, which you completely dismissed in subsequent posts. I'll copy & paste my answer again:

The thing with eyewitness testimonies is that you want to make sure that:
  • The eyewitness are sincere (i.e. that they truly believe what they say)
  • There is no major reasons to suspect of the eyewitness' ability to remember the events as they truly happened (to minimize the risk of misremembering things)
  • If there are multiple eyewitnesses, ideally each one should fulfill the two above requirements, and also their testimonies should be consistent with each other.
If you can guarantee the things above, then I think we would have good reasons to believe that a person or group of people are reporting experiences that they genuinely believe happened to them (you would then need to disentangle the actual experiences, which might have been a mundane phenomenon, or perhaps an actual supernatural phenomenon, from the individual's unintended subjective interpretation of their own experiences).

In terms of assessing credibility, having a video interview where you can look someone in the face and analyze their body language and facial expressions can be very handy in that regard, but by no means it is the only way you could attempt to do so. For example, there is no way you could try to do that with eyewitness testimonies that were recorded prior to the invention of video cameras, so of course in those cases you would have to resort to other ways to judge their credibility, for example, with point 3 (multiple testimonies that are consistent with each other).

Back to the The Manhattan Abduction (Linda Cortile Napolitano) case, to what extent would you say that we can verify the 3 points I listed above?

By the way, you still haven't answered a couple of questions:
  1. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are not hearsay?
  2. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are substantiated?
Looking forward to your answers.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are not hearsay?
  • Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are substantiated?

I can answer that for him.

If God doesn't exist, it's no longer important if they are hearsay or not.
If God exists it remains the only possible way for a communication to be established, unless you can nominate a better way.

Humans usually cannot do two things, 1) to tell a future and 2) to break the known physics laws governing this universe. It is however convenient for a God to employ prophecies and miracles to 1) identify Himself (under the constrain that faith is crucial to humans), 2) to confirm His messages and 3) to authenticate His chosen eyewitnesses among His chosen people Israel.

By the way, it is said (by Chinese history books) that Confucius has 3000 apprentice. In your opinion what distinguishes that piece of info from a hearsay?
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
By the way, it is said (by Chinese history books) that Confucius has 3000 apprentice. In your opinion what distinguishes that piece of info from a hearsay?

I'm using @swordsman1's own definition of hearsay (see post #117):

"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."

The story that Confucius had 3000 apprentice doesn't come directly from the witnesses in person, whom I could interrogate, but via a third party. Therefore, by @swordsman1's definition, it is hearsay.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm using @swordsman1's own definition of hearsay (see post #117):

"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."

The story that Confucius had 3000 apprentice doesn't come directly from the witnesses in person, whom I could interrogate, but via a third party. Therefore, by @swordsman1's definition, it is hearsay.

I simply think that you misunderstood his definition and how a truth shall convey as a whole. All CNN news can come from reporters/journalists who are not first hand eyewitnesses (though they can be eyewitnesses in some cases). CNN/reports/journalists' responsibility is to examine whether the sources are from eyewitnesses, that's where the credibility of CNN with its reporters/journalists coming from.

Similarly, no single historian can witness everything he wrote first handedly. over 90% materials written by historians such as Josephus are not supposed to be from his direct experience. The basic responsibility of any historians is to examine the credibility of his materials to be sure that "they are most likely to the best knowledge from first handed eyewitnesses". Hearsay on the other hand are without any credibility check. Quran is such a document that it is a hearsay from an "angel" as no humans can possibly examine the credibility of an angel as the first handed eyewitness. At best, humans can examine the credibility of Mohammed but who are the authenticated people to do this examination? It's none, unlike that Israel is chose explicitly to do the job.

That said, the credibility check of ancient prophets are by an agency named "Israel" as the chosen people. They did the credibility check on any claims and any declaration of prophets. The examination is actually too strict that even Jesus failed the credibility check of the Pharisees and the Great Sanhedrin. By the "bind and loose" declaration, the authentication is shifted from the Jews to Christians led by Apostles and later on forming God's Church on earth, as a replacement of the Jewish authorities such as the Great Sanhedrin.
 
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
I simply think that you misunderstood his definition and how a truth shall convey as a whole. All CNN news can come from reporters/journalists who are not first hand eyewitnesses (though they can be eyewitnesses in some cases). CNN/reports/journalists' responsibility is to examine whether the sources are from eyewitnesses, that's where the credibility of CNN with its reporters/journalists coming from.

Would you consider Lee Strobel to be a valid example of that? He is the author of the book The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Miracles-Journalist-Investigates-Supernatural/dp/0310259185). Below the preface:

New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel trains his investigative sights on the hot-button question: is it really credible to believe God intervenes supernaturally in people's lives today?

This provocative book starts with an unlikely interview in which America's foremost skeptic builds a seemingly persuasive case against the miraculous. But then Strobel travels the country to quiz scholars to see whether they can offer solid answers to atheist objections. Along the way, he encounters astounding accounts of healings and other phenomena that simply cannot be explained away by naturalistic causes. The book features the results of exclusive new scientific polling that shows miracle accounts are much more common than people think.

What's more, Strobel delves into the most controversial question of all: what about miracles that don't happen? If God can intervene in the world, why doesn't he do it more often to relieve suffering? Many American Christians are embarrassed by the supernatural, not wanting to look odd or extreme to their neighbors. Yet, The Case for Miracles shows not only that the miraculous is possible, but that God still does intervene in our world in awe-inspiring ways. Here’s a unique book that examines all sides of this issue and comes away with a passionate defense for God's divine action in lives today.​

What about Craig S. Keener, author of 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.
 
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
With the level of certainty that you demanded: (1) not hearsay, (2) substantiated with hard evidence, (3) with known and (4) unbiased witnesses, I don't think so.

No, I'm not asking you to apply my demands. But rather your own demands. I am asking for clarification of what you believe.

You said you think the miracles recorded in scripture are "plausible but not positively verified". That means you are not certain they actually occurred in real life as described, right?


I never claimed so, I simply asked you a rhetorical question in post #121, mimicking the style of your own question.

Here is what you said again....

If a court of law would probably never accept 1st century claims of miracles to be true either, then why should I?

The presumed answer to your rhetorical question is 'No, as a court of law would not accept 1st century miracles, then neither do I.'

Do you now wish to retract your remark?

To which I answered in post #46 with a follow-up question, which you completely dismissed in subsequent posts. I'll copy & paste my answer again:

You said you would only believe a report of a UFO abduction if there were multiple witnesses who saw it happen. Do the reports of alien abductions where they leave in Jesus name, which you said you believe, also have multiple eye-witnesses? If so please post links to the eye-witness reports here.

That also means you must reject the vast majority of miracle testimonies today as they too do not have multiple eye-witnesses testimonies who saw the miracle occurring.

Of the miracles that do have multiple eye-witnesses, can you post links to a few, each with their eye-witnesses statements?

By the way, you still haven't answered a couple of questions:
  1. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are not hearsay?
  2. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are substantiated?
Looking forward to your answers.

I will answer all your questions in due course. But let's tackle one issue at a time, otherwise our posts will become too unwieldly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

spiritfilledjm

Well-known Member
Supporter
Apr 15, 2007
1,844
1,642
37
Indianapolis, Indiana
✟225,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
None. I do not believe that the perfect was the Bible, though it is perfect, I do not believe it to be THE perfect. Therefore, I do not believe that the gifts have ceased. Also, to quote Dr. Sheldon Cooper, an honorary graduate of Starfleet Academy, "I'm not crazy, my Mother had me tested." Just my 2 copper coins.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Would you consider Lee Strobel to be a valid example of that? He is the author of the book The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Miracles-Journalist-Investigates-Supernatural/dp/0310259185). Below the preface:

New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel trains his investigative sights on the hot-button question: is it really credible to believe God intervenes supernaturally in people's lives today?

This provocative book starts with an unlikely interview in which America's foremost skeptic builds a seemingly persuasive case against the miraculous. But then Strobel travels the country to quiz scholars to see whether they can offer solid answers to atheist objections. Along the way, he encounters astounding accounts of healings and other phenomena that simply cannot be explained away by naturalistic causes. The book features the results of exclusive new scientific polling that shows miracle accounts are much more common than people think.

What's more, Strobel delves into the most controversial question of all: what about miracles that don't happen? If God can intervene in the world, why doesn't he do it more often to relieve suffering? Many American Christians are embarrassed by the supernatural, not wanting to look odd or extreme to their neighbors. Yet, The Case for Miracles shows not only that the miraculous is possible, but that God still does intervene in our world in awe-inspiring ways. Here’s a unique book that examines all sides of this issue and comes away with a passionate defense for God's divine action in lives today.​

What about Craig S. Keener, author of 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 think that you are applying a fallacy here. Miracles can be false by no means says that miracles cannot be true. Your argument here is "because hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles" (quite an exaggerated notion, no?), such that the miracles written in the Bible cannot be true. How credible this fallacy can be?

The line of reasoning is, if God is true the way He employs to communicate is through the miracles. If God is true then the miracles recorded down by His chosen witnesses are true. If the miracles are true, the only way for humans to propagate this truth is by means of writing them down in the Bible. You can't provide a better way for such a truth to convey. The way still remains the only way such a truth can convey, disregarding the fact that humans have the capability to fabricate a falsehood in the same way. Not only so, the only way remains for any human to get to this piece of truth is by means of faith. Again, you can't possibly provide a better way for any human to get to such a truth.

So by faith, you either buy into a fallacy that "because many can lie or have false perception, such that a truth can't exist this way", or accept that "if God is true, His truth can only propagate this way".

This actually makes sense out of the saying that "humans are saved by faith and faith alone" - a requirement set forth by a God long before we speculate anything in this very thread of discussion.

Our further speculation is, God is a truth out of the million false gods can be fabricated by humans under the influence of God's enemy Satan in such a spiritual war, especially when you have to employ a fallacy in your argument (no offense, just to make a point). Similarly, we can have one prophet out of the million false prophets existed. We have a true gospel out of the million false gospel existed (well, to apply the same exaggeration). All is not unusual in a spiritual war between God and the most intelligent angelic beings, especially when we speculate that how fallacies are kept being applied by the most intelligent humans (someone must be much more intelligent than the smartest humans to cast the influence).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,726
✟389,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 we find the following gifts:
  • utterance of wisdom
  • utterance of knowledge
  • faith
  • the ability to distinguish between spirits
Then, in verses 27-31 of the same chapter we find another list of gifts:
  • teachers
  • helping
  • administrating
Romans 12:3-8 also contains a list of spiritual gifts:
  • service
  • teaching
  • exhortation
  • contribution / generosity
  • leadership
  • acts of mercy
Ephesians 4:11-12 lists the following:
  • evangelists
  • shepherds
  • teachers
Question: Which of the gifts listed above are still available to the body of Christ and which ones have ceased?
The ones left on your lists are active
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Resuming my debate with @swordsman1 after a long break ...

No, I'm not asking you to apply my demands. But rather your own demands. I am asking for clarification of what you believe.

You said you think the miracles recorded in scripture are "plausible but not positively verified". That means you are not certain they actually occurred in real life as described, right?

That's right. You can at best make a probabilistic case for miracles. Take for example the most important miracle in Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. William Lane Craig is well known for his "inference to the best explanation" defense of Jesus' resurrection. You can read an in-depth presentation of his argument in the transcript of Craig's debate with Ehrman here: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith.

This probabilistic argument has been challenged by papers such as ASSESSING THE RESURRECTION HYPOTHESIS: PROBLEMS WITH CRAIG’S INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION (https://philarchive.org/archive/COLATR-6). The abstract says:

Abstract. The hypothesis that God supernaturally raised Jesus from the dead is argued by William Lane Craig to be the best explanation for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus because it satisfies seven criteria of adequacy better than rival naturalistic hypotheses. We identify problems with Craig’s criteria-based approach and show, most significantly, that the Resurrection hypothesis fails to fulfill any but the first of his criteria—especially explanatory scope and plausibility.

In short: the resurrection of Jesus is probably/plausibly true, but it is far from being a scientifically established fact. The same applies to other, less attested Biblical miracles.

Here is what you said again....

If a court of law would probably never accept 1st century claims of miracles to be true either, then why should I?

The presumed answer to your rhetorical question is 'No, as a court of law would not accept 1st century miracles, then neither do I.'

Do you now wish to retract your remark?

No, because there is no remark to retract. Again, it is not a claim, it is a question. A very thought provoking one, indeed. And it is not a yes/no question, it is a why question. If you, in fact, think that I should accept 1st century miracles even though a court of law wouldn't, then I would really like to know why. That would be of great help to better understand your epistemology.

You said you would only believe a report of a UFO abduction if there were multiple witnesses who saw it happen. Do the reports of alien abductions where they leave in Jesus name, which you said you believe, also have multiple eye-witnesses? If so please post links to the eye-witness reports here.

That also means you must reject the vast majority of miracle testimonies today as they too do not have multiple eye-witnesses testimonies who saw the miracle occurring.

Of the miracles that do have multiple eye-witnesses, can you post links to a few, each with their eye-witnesses statements?

That's not exactly what I said. Let me quote myself again:

The thing with eyewitness testimonies is that you want to make sure that:
  • The eyewitness are sincere (i.e. that they truly believe what they say)
  • There is no major reasons to suspect of the eyewitness' ability to remember the events as they truly happened (to minimize the risk of misremembering things)
  • If there are multiple eyewitnesses, ideally each one should fulfill the two above requirements, and also their testimonies should be consistent with each other.
If you can guarantee the things above, then I think we would have good reasons to believe that a person or group of people are reporting experiences that they genuinely believe happened to them (you would then need to disentangle the actual experiences, which might have been a mundane phenomenon, or perhaps an actual supernatural phenomenon, from the individual's unintended subjective interpretation of their own experiences).

If you read carefully, you will notice that I never said that there have to be multiple eyewitnesses. I only said that if there are multiple eyewitnesses, then you would like those testimonies to be individually credible and consistent with each other. And if you have that, then of course that makes the testimonial evidence even more stronger. However, it doesn't follow from what I said that the only cases that can be credible are those with multiple witnesses. On the contrary, there could be a single eyewitness, and the testimony would still be credible if the witness is highly credible. Moreover, multiple independent single witnesses can make each others' stories more believable even if they didn't witness the same instance at the same time. If thousands or even millions of independent individuals report very similar experiences, even if in each case there is a single witness at a time, they are still collectively reporting the same "phenomenon" or "pattern of experience". As an example, think of a power outage that affects a rural area, where each house is at least several hundreds of meters away from its closest neighbors. Let's say only one person lives in each house. Each person is a single witness, and they have no idea about what happened to the other houses. If they all make a phone call to the local electricity supplier to report the power outage, each individual report is a single eyewitness testimony. However, the overall pattern becomes clear, and the electricity supplier can very confidently infer that a general power outage has happened, as opposed to other less probable hypotheses, such as "this is nothing but a well coordinated prank", "everyone is independently hallucinating a power outage", etc.

Having said that, I understand (and share) the interest in reports supported by multiple eyewitnesses. Below you can find a few examples that you might find of interest:

  • A case with 4 simultaneous eyewitnesses:
A demon spoke through Rachel and we cast it out in Jesus' name! | Our family's unexpected story!
  • A couple (two eyewitnesses) sharing their combined testimony of miraculous healings, deliverances and more
Talkin' Healing, Deliverance, and Street Evangelism with EYA Report (From May 7th 2021)!
  • A missionary couple sharing their testimony of xenoglossy:
Gift of Tongues Testimony
  • A report of miraculous healing with multiple witnesses
Muslim man gets healed by Jesus at a mall, and testifies!
  • Another case with multiple witnesses
"This Cannot be Explained by Science. This is a Miracle from God!" - Doctors Confirm Amazing Healing

By the way, these are must-watchs:

Cases of Healed Blindness and Raised from the Dead
https://youtu.be/EPt8x4453lo

Lee Strobel: The Case for Miracles
https://youtu.be/y3VSIWHZtOI

I will answer all your questions in due course. But let's tackle one issue at a time, otherwise our posts will become too unwieldly.

Sure. I hope to have addressed your concerns adequately and thoroughly, so that we can move on to my questions:
  1. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are not hearsay?
  2. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are substantiated?
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Saint Steven
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

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Are you also including in that list David Wilkerson (David Wilkerson - Wikipedia)?

Watch his sermon:

David Wilkerson - You Need The Baptism Of The Holy Spirit

Also check out Walking in the Spirit! by David Wilkerson December 30, 1991

Quote:

Many Christians today are convinced they are walking in the Spirit simply because they pray in tongues. They reason, "How could I pray in tongues and not be walking in the Spirit?" But praying in tongues is not necessarily praying in the Spirit. Many who desire to pray in the Spirit immediately launch out in tongues - and yet their minds are totally elsewhere!

The Bible says if you're speaking in tongues, your understanding is not fruitful. If we speak with tongues, let us also pray with our understanding. Praying in the Spirit can include praying in tongues - but it is so much more then that!
See also Gary Wilkerson, son of David Wilkerson, about the spiritual gifts: Understanding Spiritual Gifts | worldchallenge.org

  • It’s important to distinguish spiritual gifts as different than skills, talents and personality traits.
  • Spiritual gifts are a manifestation of the Spirit of God in and through Christians that enables us to exceed our finite human limitations in order to serve and build up others in the body of Christ.
  • There are things that all Christians are called to do, like intercession and evangelism, but some have an extraordinary capacity and effectiveness in those areas.
  • We can desire and pray for specific spiritual gifts, but the Spirit gives to each individual as God wills.
  • As a follower of Christ, you are not limited to having only one spiritual gift.
  • The particular spiritual gift or gifts that you have does not determine any kind of higher status or value in the Kingdom of God.

David Wilkerson later towards the end of his life turned out to teach a license to sin.

Check out this article here:

DAVID WILKERSON Is No Longer A Holiness Preacher
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
That's right. You can at best make a probabilistic case for miracles. Take for example the most important miracle in Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. William Lane Craig is well known for his "inference to the best explanation" defense of Jesus' resurrection. You can read an in-depth presentation of his argument in the transcript of Craig's debate with Ehrman here: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith.

This probabilistic argument has been challenged by papers such as ASSESSING THE RESURRECTION HYPOTHESIS: PROBLEMS WITH CRAIG’S INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION (https://philarchive.org/archive/COLATR-6). The abstract says:

Abstract. The hypothesis that God supernaturally raised Jesus from the dead is argued by William Lane Craig to be the best explanation for the empty tomb and postmortem appearances of Jesus because it satisfies seven criteria of adequacy better than rival naturalistic hypotheses. We identify problems with Craig’s criteria-based approach and show, most significantly, that the Resurrection hypothesis fails to fulfill any but the first of his criteria—especially explanatory scope and plausibility.
In short: the resurrection of Jesus is probably/plausibly true, but it is far from being a scientifically established fact. The same applies to other, less attested Biblical miracles.

So you are not completely convinced that Christ rose from the dead. Only that it PROBABLY occurred. Seeing as the whole of Christianity is predicated on the fact of the resurrection, that means there is some doubt in your mind that Christianity is true, and it may just be all a scam.

Romans 10:9 says "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Do you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead?

No, because there is no remark to retract. Again, it is not a claim, it is a question. A very thought provoking one, indeed. And it is not a yes/no question, it is a why question. If you, in fact, think that I should accept 1st century miracles even though a court of law wouldn't, then I would really like to know why. That would be of great help to better understand your epistemology.

You posed a rhetorical question (you said so yourself), that means you are not expecting the question to be answered but rather the answer is implicit in the question. You said it was a deliberate mimic of my own rhetorical question, "If hearsay is so unreliable that the courts will not accept it, then why should I?". The obvious implied answer to that is - No, seeing as courts do not accept hearsay, then neither should I. Likewise, the obvious implied answer to your rhetorical question, "If a court of law would never accept 1st century claims of miracles to be true either, then why should I?" is - No, you should not accept them.

That's not exactly what I said. Let me quote myself again:

The thing with eyewitness testimonies is that you want to make sure that:
  • The eyewitness are sincere (i.e. that they truly believe what they say)
  • There is no major reasons to suspect of the eyewitness' ability to remember the events as they truly happened (to minimize the risk of misremembering things)
  • If there are multiple eyewitnesses, ideally each one should fulfill the two above requirements, and also their testimonies should be consistent with each other.
If you can guarantee the things above, then I think we would have good reasons to believe that a person or group of people are reporting experiences that they genuinely believe happened to them (you would then need to disentangle the actual experiences, which might have been a mundane phenomenon, or perhaps an actual supernatural phenomenon, from the individual's unintended subjective interpretation of their own experiences).
If you read carefully, you will notice that I never said that there have to be multiple eyewitnesses. I only said that if there are multiple eyewitnesses, then you would like those testimonies to be individually credible and consistent with each other. And if you have that, then of course that makes the testimonial evidence even more stronger. However, it doesn't follow from what I said that the only cases that can be credible are those with multiple witnesses. On the contrary, there could be a single eyewitness, and the testimony would still be credible if the witness is highly credible. Moreover, multiple independent single witnesses can make each others' stories more believable even if they didn't witness the same instance at the same time. If thousands or even millions of independent individuals report very similar experiences, even if in each case there is a single witness at a time, they are still collectively reporting the same "phenomenon" or "pattern of experience". As an example, think of a power outage that affects a rural area, where each house is at least several hundreds of meters away from its closest neighbors. Let's say only one person lives in each house. Each person is a single witness, and they have no idea about what happened to the other houses. If they all make a phone call to the local electricity supplier to report the power outage, each individual report is a single eyewitness testimony. However, the overall pattern becomes clear, and the electricity supplier can very confidently infer that a general power outage has happened, as opposed to other less probable hypotheses, such as "this is nothing but a well coordinated prank", "everyone is independently hallucinating a power outage", etc.

So you are happy to accept that a UFO abduction actually took place in real life solely on the basis of a single person claiming he was taken aboard a UFO, was operated on by the aliens, etc, provided (a) he sincerely thought it happened and (b) you have no reason to suspect his memory is deficient. That would apply to the vast majority of alien abductions claims of which there are dozens. So you believe that aliens are visiting this planet in UFO's, abducting people and performing experiments on them inside their spacecraft.

Having said that, I understand (and share) the interest in reports supported by multiple eyewitnesses. Below you can find a few examples that you might find of interest:

  • A case with 4 simultaneous eyewitnesses:
A demon spoke through Rachel and we cast it out in Jesus' name! | Our family's unexpected story!

  • A couple (two eyewitnesses) sharing their combined testimony of miraculous healings, deliverances and more
Talkin' Healing, Deliverance, and Street Evangelism with EYA Report (From May 7th 2021)!

  • A missionary couple sharing their testimony of xenoglossy:
Gift of Tongues Testimony

  • A report of miraculous healing with multiple witnesses
Muslim man gets healed by Jesus at a mall, and testifies!

  • Another case with multiple witnesses
"This Cannot be Explained by Science. This is a Miracle from God!" - Doctors Confirm Amazing Healing


By the way, these are must-watchs:

Cases of Healed Blindness and Raised from the Dead

Lee Strobel: The Case for Miracles

Nothing but hearsay! If hearsay is so unreliable that the courts will not accept it, then why should I?

Instead of people telling a story, how about some hard undisputable evidence?
 
Upvote 0

TruthSeek3r

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2020
1,593
509
Capital
✟128,643.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So you are not completely convinced that Christ rose from the dead. Only that it PROBABLY occurred. Seeing as the whole of Christianity is predicated on the fact of the resurrection, that means there is some doubt in your mind that Christianity is true, and it may just be all a scam.

Romans 10:9 says "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Do you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead?

Sounds like you are completely convinced that Christianity is true. That's great. Would you then kindly answer if:
  1. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are not hearsay?
  2. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are substantiated?
You posed a rhetorical question (you said so yourself), that means you are not expecting the question to be answered but rather the answer is implicit in the question. You said it was a deliberate mimic of my own rhetorical question, "If hearsay is so unreliable that the courts will not accept it, then why should I?". The obvious implied answer to that is - No, seeing as courts do not accept hearsay, then neither should I. Likewise, the obvious implied answer to your rhetorical question, "If a court of law would never accept 1st century claims of miracles to be true either, then why should I?" is - No, you should not accept them.

Forget about the word rhetorical (it is only causing problems) and replace it with gotcha. Then repeat the request:

If you, in fact, think that I should accept 1st century miracles even though a court of law wouldn't, then I would really like to know why. That would be of great help to better understand your epistemology.​

So you are happy to accept that a UFO abduction actually took place in real life solely on the basis of a single person claiming he was taken aboard a UFO, was operated on by the aliens, etc, provided (a) he sincerely thought it happened and (b) you have no reason to suspect his memory is deficient. That would apply to the vast majority of alien abductions claims of which there are dozens. So you believe that aliens are visiting this planet in UFO's, abducting people and performing experiments on them inside their spacecraft.

To be more accurate, I would be happy to accept that it is very likely that people are experiencing a genuine phenomenon (whatever the real nature of the underlying actual phenomenon might be) which they are sincerely perceiving and reporting as aliens abducting them (in an attempt by them to verbalize their experience, which inevitably introduces an interpretation of said experience which might not be 100% accurate). In other words, it is very likely that something genuine is happening to people, but the real nature of that something needs to be investigated further, taking into consideration all the other evidence we have.

But again, can you point to a specific, concrete instance where you believe that (a) the witness sincerely thought it happened and (b) there is no reason to suspect his/her memory is deficient? I'll be happy to go through one such case if you want.

Nothing but hearsay! If hearsay is so unreliable that the courts will not accept it, then why should I?

These are multiple firsthand witnesses, there is no third party testifying on their behalf. However, if you are skeptical because they are not physically present in front of you so you can interrogate them, then try contacting the first two YouTubers (check out their channels: link1, link2). Post in the comment sections of their videos, send emails to them, arrange a zoom meeting with them so that you can interrogate them, talk to them via Instagram, etc.

You could even create a podcast in which you interview witnesses of modern miracles, like the guy in this channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/SpiritAnswersPodcast/videos

You could even start by interviewing the people on this thread: Discussion - All of the Spiritual Gifts are for today

Looking forward to your podcast!!

Instead of people telling a story, how about some hard undisputable evidence?

Same question back to you: instead of manuscripts telling a story, how about some hard undisputable evidence of 1st century miracles?

That said, check out the answers to this question.

Also, an interesting article here: A Remarkable Case of a Peer-Reviewed Modern Miracle | Sean McDowell
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Sounds like you are completely convinced that Christianity is true. That's great. Would you then kindly answer if:
  1. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are not hearsay?
  2. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are substantiated?

I made no comment about myself. I was referring to you and your own beliefs. Can we conclude then that you are not convinced that Christ rose from the dead, and that Christianity may be a scam, and you do not "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, ... "?

Forget about the word rhetorical (it is only causing problems) and replace it with gotcha. Then repeat the request:

If you, in fact, think that I should accept 1st century miracles even though a court of law wouldn't, then I would really like to know why. That would be of great help to better understand your epistemology.

How can it be a gotcha question when the answer was obvious? It was a rhetorical question mimicking mine (just as you said it was), implying that because today's courts wouldn't accept the biblical evidence for 1st century miracles, then neither would you. But that's ok, you've already stated you are not convinced that Christ rose from the dead along with the other miracles recorded in scripture, so it doesn't come as a surprise. It would also explain all the atheist questions you asked earlier.

What is a surprise though, is that although you are not convinced that the miracles recorded in scripture are true, you are nonetheless willing to accept that today's stories of miracles as being true on the basis of hearsay evidence alone!

To be more accurate, I would be happy to accept that it is very likely that people are experiencing a genuine phenomenon (whatever the real nature of the underlying actual phenomenon might be) which they are sincerely perceiving and reporting as aliens abducting them (in an attempt by them to verbalize their experience, which inevitably introduces an interpretation of said experience which might not be 100% accurate). In other words, it is very likely that something genuine is happening to people, but the real nature of that something needs to be investigated further, taking into consideration all the other evidence we have.

But again, can you point to a specific, concrete instance where you believe that (a) the witness sincerely thought it happened and (b) there is no reason to suspect his/her memory is deficient? I'll be happy to go through one such case if you want.

Right. So you are saying that, despite their claims, these accounts of alien abductions did not actually happen in real life. There are no actual aliens flying around in UFO's performing experiments on people. They were all merely deluded in some way into thinking that happened.

So why do you not accept the same about the fantastical stories made today in charismatic circles? There is no difference. They are both hearsay accounts of incredible events that supposed occurred in real life. Although people may sometimes believe they really happened, people can be mistaken, people can exaggerate, people can lie. You cannot dismiss one fantastical hearsay account, and then accept a similar fantastical hearsay account only in a different context.

These are multiple firsthand witnesses, there is no third party testifying on their behalf. However, if you are skeptical because they are not physically present in front of you so you can interrogate them, then try contacting the first two YouTubers (check out their channels: link1, link2). Post in the comment sections of their videos, send emails to them, arrange a zoom meeting with them so that you can interrogate them, talk to them via Instagram, etc.

It is still hearsay. Any unsubstantiated oral account is hearsay. In order to believe it happened I have to take the word of a stranger on the internet. Only a gullible fool would do such a thing imo. If I contacted them to ask further questions all I would get is more hearsay. Where is the video of the miracle actually occurring before the camera, or the independently verified report in a scientific journal?

Same question back to you: instead of manuscripts telling a story, how about some hard undisputable evidence of 1st century miracles?

That said, check out the answers to this question.

The bible is not just some "manuscript telling a story". It is the infallible word of God, the ultimate source of truth, and far more reliable than any scientific evidence.
 
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
The bible is not just some "manuscript telling a story". It is the infallible word of God, the ultimate source of truth, and far more reliable than any scientific evidence.

How do you know that? Let's address this point first and then we can discuss the other points.

Related to this, here are the other two questions you have kept on dodging for months:
  1. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are not hearsay?
  2. Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are substantiated?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0