Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 120

Thread: Why hasn't someone healed Ravi yet?

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    Anyone who resists healing as being God's will today would speak evil of Him if He were here doing it today like you said. You might could say they would have been a pharisee back in Jesus' day.
    Of course.

    Trouble is fuego too much of it is like this:

    This is reportedly written by Christian commentator Matt Walsh back in 2015 and can be found quoted HERE


    There are no two words in the English language more incongruous than "celebrity" and "pastor," but as we all know, these are very incongruous times. One of the latest red carpet-trotting "celebrity pastors," Rich Wilkerson, was just profiled here on TheBlaze.


    Pastor Rich is a young guy who dresses in skinny pants and deep v-neck tees, poses for photo ops, takes Instagram selfies with Justin Bieber, and shies away from "controversial" subjects like gay marriage and abortion, because, as he explains, he wants people to like him. Pastor Rich brags of being "great friends" with Kanye West, and even officiated his wedding a few years ago.

    Of course, there's nothing wrong with befriending a sinner — we're all sinners, to be sure — but maybe a pastor ought to exercise some prudence. It might be wise to avoid creating scandal among your flock by publicly hobnobbing with a blasphemous egomaniac who claims to be God and made his fortune rapping about getting high and having sex with hookers. But Pastor Rich is super cool, and super cool people are supposed to hang out with famous rappers.

    Remember, a good Christian must always be awesome, fun, and trendy, no matter what. As Jesus proclaimed, "The only rule in life is have fun, don't be boring, and dress cute wherever you go."

    Sorry I think that was actually Paris Hilton. It can be easy to get those two confused, depending on which church you attend.

  2. #92
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by FunFromOz View Post
    Yes, what you say here is correct so I should have worded myself better.

    Regeneration is a miracle, and I'm glad that still happens. But what I was referring to was times when men worked signs and wonders to confirm that what they said was true (and even that may be badly worded). There was the time of Moses, a time during the prophets and the time of Christ and the Apostles.
    In addition to Joseph and Daniel whose predictive prophecies came to pass thereby confirming that what they said was from God, there were plenty of miracle workers in Joshua and Judges. In the books of Samuel, David was confirmed as God's anointed by way of miracles many times. Ezekiel translocated to among the captives hundreds of years after the time of Elijah and Elisha. When king Solomon consecrated the temple, the fire fell from heaven and consumed the offering. That's a confirming miracle and it happened hundreds of years before Elijah and Elisha. There were dozens of miracles related to ongoing wars throughout the history of the Jews in the promised land and also quite a few other signs and a few healings.

    What you've done is to pick a few individuals, Moses and probably Elijah and Elisha, that resemble the miracle workers in the NT the most and then constructed a circumstancial narrative where there are three "60 year periods of miracles" in the Bible including from Pentecost and on. The problem is that Moses' miracles were very practical during the exodus, he wasn't trying to demonstrate the validity of any message. Elijah's an Elisha's miracles likewise. And even if one were to disregard all the other miracles and miracle workers in the Bible and focus only on those three plus the NT, the circumstancial nature of the resulting narrative doesn't prove anything. Then there's a mandate for the continuation of the demonstraton of the gospel by signs and wonders, which proves the (allegedly) circumstancial narrative wrong, regardless.

  3. #93
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    You need to study that further. Paul didn't have a sickness. It was a 'messenger of Satan' sent to buffet him. I could elaborate further but I'll let you do your own research/study.

    Edit: Just looked through the thread and see Colonel addressed this.
    The KJV's translation of "angelos" as messenger is quite strange. In Rev 12:7-9 it's translated as angel when talking about Satan's "angelos". The only viable alternative to "angel" in 2 Cor 12 is to interpret it as a human messenger who was serving Satan, whether consciously or unconciously. Who would that be ? Alexander the coppersmith ? He came much later but it could have been other people. To translate angelos as "messenger" and then interpret the messenger as a non-person is however ridiculous. If it had been a disease then it wouldn't be a "messenger", it would be a "message". And even if the word could be translated as "message" it still wouldn't make any sense. The result seems more like a scene from the Godfather, where the rivaling faction "sends a Sicilian message". When did the Bible authors start honoring Satan by magnifying his ability to "send messages" ? And what was "the message" ? "Obey me or stay sick" ?

    What the interpretation of "angelos of Satan" as "some disease" really amounts to, is anti-healing proponents clutching at straws to find something that renders Paul as diseased and unable to get healed. Why ? Because if the "great" apostle Paul couldn't possibly get healed then noone else should expect to be either. That is the real reason behind the oblique translation and the subsequent ridiculous interpretations of it.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    fuego (05-17-2020)

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    In addition to Joseph and Daniel whose predictive prophecies came to pass thereby confirming that what they said was from God, there were plenty of miracle workers in Joshua and Judges. In the books of Samuel, David was confirmed as God's anointed by way of miracles many times. Ezekiel translocated to among the captives hundreds of years after the time of Elijah and Elisha. When king Solomon consecrated the temple, the fire fell from heaven and consumed the offering. That's a confirming miracle and it happened hundreds of years before Elijah and Elisha. There were dozens of miracles related to ongoing wars throughout the history of the Jews in the promised land and also quite a few other signs and a few healings.

    What you've done is to pick a few individuals, Moses and probably Elijah and Elisha, that resemble the miracle workers in the NT the most and then constructed a circumstancial narrative where there are three "60 year periods of miracles" in the Bible including from Pentecost and on. The problem is that Moses' miracles were very practical during the exodus, he wasn't trying to demonstrate the validity of any message. Elijah's an Elisha's miracles likewise. And even if one were to disregard all the other miracles and miracle workers in the Bible and focus only on those three plus the NT, the circumstancial nature of the resulting narrative doesn't prove anything. Then there's a mandate for the continuation of the demonstraton of the gospel by signs and wonders, which proves the (allegedly) circumstancial narrative wrong, regardless.
    OK

  6. #95
    Member WMBillPrice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    76
    Thanked: 104
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    Anyone who resists healing as being God's will today would speak evil of Him if He were here doing it today like you said. You might could say they would have been a pharisee back in Jesus' day.
    No one is resisting healing. Not one time have I read on ehre where some were resisting healing. All I am saying at the end of the day that God's grace keeps and heals, all for His glory. But, if we live according to modern Charismatic false doctrine, God is OBLIGATED to heal. No, He is not! In fact, he promised healing is available, but grace for all.

    I ask you the same question that I asked Colonel. If someone is sick, are they in sin? If they die from the sickness, did they die in sin because according to your theology they did not have the faith to be healed? Are they condemned because they did not have the faith to be healed per se?

    Grace, Shalom, and Maranatha in Jesus name.
    William M. (Bill) Price

  7. #96
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by WMBillPrice View Post
    No one is resisting healing. Not one time have I read on ehre where some were resisting healing. All I am saying at the end of the day that God's grace keeps and heals, all for His glory. But, if we live according to modern Charismatic false doctrine, God is OBLIGATED to heal. No, He is not! In fact, he promised healing is available, but grace for all.

    I ask you the same question that I asked Colonel. If someone is sick, are they in sin? If they die from the sickness, did they die in sin because according to your theology they did not have the faith to be healed? Are they condemned because they did not have the faith to be healed per se?
    Noone on this forum believes that anyone is in sin because they don't have faith for healing. Nor do I think that anyone has ever been on this forum, since 2005 when I arrived here at least, who believed that. Nor does Andrew Wommack teach that. Nor does any well known Charismatic preacher that I know of. That is a very strange belief and I'm sorry that you've come to associate that with a belief in healing by faith.

    Please quit barking up that tree in every other post, there is absolutely noone found up in that tree.

  8. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by WMBillPrice View Post
    ... But, if we live according to modern Charismatic false doctrine, God is OBLIGATED to heal. No, He is not! In fact, he promised healing is available, ...
    This turned up in my FB feed yesterday.
    Why hasn't someone healed Ravi yet?-capture-jpg

    It includes the text "Since sickness and disease are works of the enemy, we should be confessing Jesus' Lordship over these evil works and enjoy a miracle life of freedom from the satanic works of sickness and disease!"

    Here's a link to the original post

    John Woolston - Chapter 48
    We are Redeemed!

    WHAT WE HEAR... | Facebook


    (Oh, the rest of your post seemed rather Roman Catholic in flavour)
    Last edited by FunFromOz; 05-17-2020 at 08:57 AM. Reason: added last line

  9. #98
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    The KJV's translation of "angelos" as messenger is quite strange. In Rev 12:7-9 it's translated as angel when talking about Satan's "angelos". The only viable alternative to "angel" in 2 Cor 12 is to interpret it as a human messenger who was serving Satan, whether consciously or unconciously. Who would that be ? Alexander the coppersmith ? He came much later but it could have been other people. To translate angelos as "messenger" and then interpret the messenger as a non-person is however ridiculous. If it had been a disease then it wouldn't be a "messenger", it would be a "message". And even if the word could be translated as "message" it still wouldn't make any sense. The result seems more like a scene from the Godfather, where the rivaling faction "sends a Sicilian message". When did the Bible authors start honoring Satan by magnifying his ability to "send messages" ? And what was "the message" ? "Obey me or stay sick" ?

    What the interpretation of "angelos of Satan" as "some disease" really amounts to, is anti-healing proponents clutching at straws to find something that renders Paul as diseased and unable to get healed. Why ? Because if the "great" apostle Paul couldn't possibly get healed then noone else should expect to be either. That is the real reason behind the oblique translation and the subsequent ridiculous interpretations of it.
    Bingo.

    Not to mention, you wouldn't generally referred to a sickness as 'buffeting' somebody. Which means 'blow after blow'. Sickness comes and stays. There is a good chapter in FF Bosworth's 'Christ the Healer' on Paul's thorn. Also Rick Renner has a good teaching on it from the Greek. It seems like someone has posted it here before.

  10. #99
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    Bingo.

    Not to mention, you wouldn't generally referred to a sickness as 'buffeting' somebody. Which means 'blow after blow'. Sickness comes and stays. There is a good chapter in FF Bosworth's 'Christ the Healer' on Paul's thorn. Also Rick Renner has a good teaching on it from the Greek. It seems like someone has posted it here before.
    2 Cor 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

    Notice that "the messenger of Satan" is equated to "a thorn in the flesh" so it's impossible to interpret the latter as a non-person like a disease and then the former as a Satanic angel or a person serving Satan. They are the one and the same. A thorn in the flesh is a metaphor for something that irritates, not something that cripples or destroys. Thorns are used as metaphors for people in the Old Testament :

    Numb 33:55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land where you dwell.

    Judges 2:3 Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.' "

    Buffet as in "blow upon blow" (which is how Strong's renders the Greek word). That's precisely what happened to Paul per the previous chapter. The Satanic angel stirred up persecution after persecution and Paul overcame it all by the power of God.

  11. #100
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    2 Cor 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

    Notice that "the messenger of Satan" is equated to "a thorn in the flesh" so it's impossible to interpret the latter as a non-person like a disease and then the former as a Satanic angel or a person serving Satan. They are the one and the same. A thorn in the flesh is a metaphor for something that irritates, not something that cripples or destroys. Thorns are used as metaphors for people in the Old Testament :

    Numb 33:55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land where you dwell.

    Judges 2:3 Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.' "

    Buffet as in "blow upon blow" (which is how Strong's renders the Greek word). That's precisely what happened to Paul per the previous chapter. The Satanic angel stirred up persecution after persecution and Paul overcame it all by the power of God.
    Speaking of the previous chapter, sickness and disease are conspicuous by their absence. Yet many say that's what it was. No basis for it whatsoever.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •