Are "spiritual gifts" real?

[Jagella]

In 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 Paul writes of these nine "spiritual gifts" bestowed upon Christians:

• 1. utterance of wisdom
  2. utterance of knowledge
  3. faith
  4. healing
  5. working of miracles
  6. prophecy
  7. discernment of spirits
  8. various kinds of tongues
  9. interpretation of tongues

Question for Debate: Can any Christian here demonstrate that any of these "gifts" are anything more than delusions?

[Difflugia]

One of the most common arguments I've heard from apologists regarding the dearth of miracles is that miracles wouldn't convert unbelievers even if those unbelievers saw miracles. I think there may be some truth to this apologetic because true miracles could be hard to distinguish from trickery or hallucinations. Since we know that people can be tricked by sleight of hand or hallucinations, but we don't know if miracles do occur, then it makes better sense to me to conclude that apparent miracles have naturalistic explanations.

I can think of a series of miracles that would convince me, and I expect you can, too. The apologists will try to convince you that your standard of evidence it too high, but the fact remains that the evidence we have now is of terrible quality. Apologists must know that on some level, because their main argument isn't actually why the evidence is good, it's why skeptics should lower the bar. It's the reason why apologists are constantly asking if their interpretation of evidence is impossible. If the evidence showed that miracles probably happened, they'd say so.

Apologetics in a nutshell: when it's all you have, it has to be good enough.

[Jagella]

The apologists will try to convince you that your standard of evidence it too high...

I've heard apologists like Craig Evans complain that mythicists have raised the bar too high for evidence for a historical Jesus. Another way to look at it is that the evidence is too low.

...but the fact remains that the evidence we have now is of terrible quality.

I think the evidence offered by apologists is generally of poor quality.

Apologists must know that on some level, because their main argument isn't actually why the evidence is good, it's why skeptics should lower the bar. It's the reason why apologists are constantly asking if their interpretation of evidence is impossible. If the evidence showed that miracles probably happened, they'd say so.

If only apologists would just shut up and demonstrate a miracle.

Apologetics in a nutshell: when it's all you have, it has to be good enough.

And if it's not good enough for the skeptics, then those skeptics "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

[Difflugia]

I've heard apologists like Craig Evans complain that mythicists have raised the bar too high for evidence for a historical Jesus. Another way to look at it is that the evidence is too low.

Though I wasn't thinking about Craig Evans specifically, I was actually thinking about Jesus mythicism when I wrote that. I don't think Jesus was real, either, but mostly because reading the New Testament from that standpoint makes sense to me, which is subjective. On the other hand, if the New Testament could have been created based on a mythic Jesus, then it could just as easily be based on a real Jesus.

I mean, we already know that some of it's definitely fiction and most of it's probably fiction. Whether Jesus is even probably historical is already down to arguments about the few remaining events, about which we have no extra-biblical information. The data are crap and whether or not we should expect better data is irrelevant; we simply don't have them.

[Jagella]

Though I wasn't thinking about Craig Evans specifically, I was actually thinking about Jesus mythicism when I wrote that. I don't think Jesus was real, either, but mostly because reading the New Testament from that standpoint makes sense to me, which is subjective. On the other hand, if the New Testament could have been created based on a mythic Jesus, then it could just as easily be based on a real Jesus.

I'm not sure if Jesus was real or not. However, I agree that many questions about the the New Testament are better answered if we posit a mythical Christ. For example, many of us wonder why nobody bothered to mention him during the time he was supposed to have lived. This puzzle is easily solved if we assume there was no Jesus to mention.

If Jesus was real, then his life was so distorted and embellished by his propagandists that he may as well be fictional.

I mean, we already know that some of it's definitely fiction and most of it's probably fiction. Whether Jesus is even probably historical is already down to arguments about the few remaining events, about which we have no extra-biblical information. The data are crap and whether or not we should expect better data is irrelevant; we simply don't have them.

Real-Jesus apologists are loathe to admit how poor their evidence and arguments for a historical Jesus are. Whenever I point out these problems out to them, they often react with anger and abuse. They sometimes compare me to a holocaust denier or a young-earth creationist.

[Tcg]

Committed atheists might be tough eggs to crack, all right, even for the Holy Ghost. I'm not sure why you're so confident that they would dismiss the gifts of the Spirit, though. To know that they would do so, wouldn't we need to demonstrate a gift of the Spirit to them first and then observe how they would react?

This is undoubtedly true and we'd have to do the same for some theists given they too are equally skeptical...

One of the most common arguments I've heard from apologists regarding the dearth of miracles is that miracles wouldn't convert unbelievers even if those unbelievers saw miracles.

Yes, I encounter this argument frequently. Oddly though, another is that miracles occurred during the time of Christ to provide evidence that he was the son of God. These gifts were limited to the apostles and when they died out, so did these gifts.

Some apologists hold both these views even though they are obviously contradictory. Miracles were used during Jesus' time to convince unbelievers, but now they aren't used because they wouldn't convince unbelievers?

This is another example of the spaghetti logic needed to attempt to make sense of a failed theology.


Tcg

[Jagella]

...miracles occurred during the time of Christ to provide evidence that he was the son of God. These gifts were limited to the apostles and when they died out, so did these gifts.

I'm not aware of any Christian theologian who has tried to explain why God only bothered to demonstrate his power to primitive, superstitious people leaving the rest of us to trust their testimony only. Some apologists do tackle this problem by arguing that the eyewitness testimony of Christ's closest followers is "reliable" because those eyewitnesses suffered and died for what they were claiming. Personally, I'd find actually experiencing a miracle first-hand to be much more convincing than words alone.

Some apologists hold both these views even though they are obviously contradictory. Miracles were used during Jesus' time to convince unbelievers, but now they aren't used because they wouldn't convince unbelievers?

Many apologists would try to resolve this paradox by lauding the supposed quality of the eyewitness testimony. (See above.) The New Testament is so amazing that it's a virtual miracle in its own right! So who needs to see a man risen from his grave when you have four evangelists to assure you it happened?

[Tcg]

Personally, I'd find actually experiencing a miracle first-hand to be much more convincing than words alone.

Jesus agreed with you:

• Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Odd that so many of Jesus' followers disagree with his assessment of the power of miracles. Perhaps they haven't read much of the Bible.


Tcg

[Jagella]

Jesus agreed with you:

• Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Odd that so many of Jesus' followers disagree with his assessment of the power of miracles. Perhaps they haven't read much of the Bible.

I'm afraid I must disagree with your interpretation of this passage. We have Jesus here denouncing all the people of Capernaum complaining that they all refuse to repent after seeing his miracles. So just like Christians say, unbelievers are not necessarily changed by witnessing miracles assuming we can trust what Matthew has written.

It's odd that Jesus was not able to convince many unbelievers with his magic even if they were there to see it. No doubt they saw something about those miracles that we cannot see, something that might cause them to question if what they saw was real.

In conclusion, I think it's important to note that Jesus is not only condemning the entire city of Capernaum, he condemns all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida too. Christians will allege that I generalize them, yet they worship a god who routinely broad-brushes large groups of people.

[Tcg]

Jesus agreed with you:

• Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Odd that so many of Jesus' followers disagree with his assessment of the power of miracles. Perhaps they haven't read much of the Bible.

I'm afraid I must disagree with your interpretation of this passage. We have Jesus here denouncing all the people of Capernaum complaining that they all refuse to repent after seeing his miracles. So just like Christians say, unbelievers are not necessarily changed by witnessing miracles assuming we can trust what Matthew has written.

It's odd that Jesus was not able to convince many unbelievers with his magic even if they were there to see it. No doubt they saw something about those miracles that we cannot see, something that might cause them to question if what they saw was real.

In conclusion, I think it's important to note that Jesus is not only condemning the entire city of Capernaum, he condemns all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida too. Christians will allege that I generalize them, yet they worship a god who routinely broad-brushes large groups of people.

Well, Jesus does both does he not? He condemns Capernaum and other localities for not believing based on miracles, but claims that if equivalent miracles had been performed in Sodom, they would have believed. He supports the power of miracles to sway some unbelievers.

Of course it's easy to claim success would have happened in an event from the past. Perhaps Capernaum and company realized that the miracles were bogus. Sodom never had that chance even though Jesus claims it would have been a victory if they'd seen miracles. Perhaps there were no miracles to be seen and Jesus was attempting to divert attention from this fact.


Tcg