Does God will to heal ALL who come to Him for healing?

[JeannieC]

There is nothing in the Bible where God promises healing to everyone who asks for it. If you have evidence that He has promised healing 100% of the time, please present it for review.

Why did people come to Jesus to be healed?

Because they had undoubtedly heard that He was healing ALL who came to Him for healing.

It became well known that He healed people.

And so they came to be healed.

If Jesus Christ healed ALL who came to Him for healing then why would He then change to it now being His WILL that some remain sick now?

What changed and more importantly are there Scriptural grounds for believing that such a change occurred?

Carlos

Why didn't Jesus heal Paul of this thorn in the flesh when He asked Him three times??

Jesus' earthly healing ministry was meant to reveal who He was to Israel. Many of the diseases He healed were from maladies that the local magicians could not heal anyone of, such as leprosy. Matt 8:17 cites this as fulfilment of Messianic prophecy from Isaiah 53.

There is no promise in the Bible that God will heal everyone who wants to be healed. It just doesn't exist. The reasons why people get sick and why God doesn't always intervene are part of a long list of things we won't understand until another time.

Sometimes, God doesn't give you the answer to suffering. Rather, He gives us Himself and suffers with us.

The more that I read this thread and search the Bible the more I think that I have been mistaken. I thought that healing from God was a promise and according to one's faith but I can't find anything saying that it is and what healing I am seeing in the NT seems to be the earthly ministry of God's work done to reveal and prove who Jesus was to the people.

It is also the verse in II Corinthians 12:9 that makes me reconsider. "And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." I'm not sure how James 5: 13-18 works though I noticed verse 16 says "Confess your faults one to another,and pray one for another that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Availeth much to me doesn't imply promise of healing but I'm still searching and praying to better understand.

I do believe that if it is God's will to heal then He will heal so we should still come to him and ask. Seems to me we will either receive healing or we will receive grace as Paul describes.

[carlos123]

I applaud your seeking the Lord through the Bible on this Jeannie. In the end we must all be convinced in our minds before God as to whether or not God WILLS to heal ALL today or not.

I do have a question for you though.

You mention 2 Cor 12:9 as one verse that makes you think you have been mistaken from what presumably has been a belief in healing for today I am guessing.

Is it the word "infirmities" that makes you wonder?

I mean if "infirmities" means sickness then I can understand Jeannie but I am not at all certain that sickness is what infirmities means.

There are a number of translations that render the Greek word used as "infirmities".

Here is one such translation. I have put strong's word number in parentheses next to each relevant word. Bolding is mine.

2 Cor 12:9 (AKJV)

And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness (769). Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities (769), that the power of Christ may rest on me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities (769)...

Notice that both the words weakness and infirmities are Strong's 769.

If we take the underlying Greek word (astheneia) to mean sickness then we have...

2 Cor 12:9 (AKJV)

And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in sickness (769). Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my sickness (769), that the power of Christ may rest on me. Therefore I take pleasure in sickness (769)...

Rather than coming to Christ for healing, based on the above verse (if indeed astheneia can be seen to mean sickness) we should rather boast of sickness and glory in it that the power of Christ could rest in us. Not only boast and glory in sickness but take pleasure in it too!

That seems a bit much Jeannie but those are the implications of believing that infirmities refers to sicknesses. Not saying you believe that Jeannie...just talking out loud about the perspective that infirmities means sickness in case that is causing you to wonder.

Yet does the underlying Greek word from which we get weakness and infirmities really mean sickness?

Notice how the Greek word, the same Greek word is translated in the following verses. Again I have bolded the word that it is translated into and put the Greek word next to each word in parentheses.

I am using the Greek that underlies the King James Version and versions based on it by the way.

Acts 28:8 (AKJV)

And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him. So when this was done, others also, which had diseases (astheneia)in the island, came, and were healed:

This first verse clearly shows that astheneia does indeed sometimes mean sickness as in physical disease.

Here is another verse.

Hebrews 7:28 (AKJV)

For the law makes men high priests which have infirmity (astheneia); but the word of the oath, which was since the law, makes the Son, who is consecrated for ever more.

Notice that in the verse above the word could not possibly mean physical disease for if it did then only priests that were sick could become priests! Which is not true at all.

Here is another verse that shows an alternate meaning for the word infirmities.

Romans 6:18 (AKJV)

Being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity (astheneia) of your flesh: for as you have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity to iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness to holiness.

The use of infirmity in Romans 6:18 is NOT talking about physical sickness and disease. It is talking about the weakness of the flesh in not living righteously all the time.

In other words Paul has just stated that we have been made free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. That is a truth! But Paul goes on to say that he is speaking in the manner of men regarding the concepts of being set free and of being a slave. That what we understand these concepts to be is not always seen in our human bodies due to the weakness of our flesh to rise up to be what we in fact ARE in the spirit world at all times.

There is a fight between what we ARE in the spirit and what we are in the flesh with the flesh being infirm or weak and unable to be what we ARE all the time such as one might expect it to be from a natural perspective. If we were (again from a natural perspective) actually free from sin and a slave to righteousness.

I don't have time to go into this further just now Jeannie but I do not believe that the infirmities Paul talks of in 2 Cor 12:9 is disease or physical sickness.

I believe he is talking about being weak in the flesh.

Carlos

[JeannieC]

Carlos, thank you for posting up more food for thought and I do appreciate the time you took to do so because I know it takes me forever just to post up one or two scriptures. It is the word infirmities that gave me pause to consider my understanding of healing as a promise but not only that scripture. So far the examples of healing that I have read in the NT seem to be done as a sign to show Jesus' identity and authority to the people.

Also, what do you think John 9:3-4 means?"Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." It seems to mean this man was born blind for the purpose of being a example of God's work through his healing power being shown to all. I don't understand verse 4 though.

I'm not through praying and seeking. I will consider the greek meanings and usage for infirmities and the context and give it more prayerful thought and research. (I will be so glad when my concordance arrives.)

[Guest shiloh357]

I applaud your seeking the Lord through the Bible on this Jeannie. In the end we must all be convinced in our minds before God as to whether or not God WILLS to heal ALL today or not.

I do have a question for you though.

You mention 2 Cor 12:9 as one verse that makes you think you have been mistaken from what presumably has been a belief in healing for today I am guessing.

Is it the word "infirmities" that makes you wonder?

I mean if "infirmities" means sickness then I can understand Jeannie but I am not at all certain that sickness is what infirmities means.

There are a number of translations that render the Greek word used as "infirmities".

Here is one such translation. I have put strong's word number in parentheses next to each relevant word. Bolding is mine.

2 Cor 12:9 (AKJV)

And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness (769). Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities (769), that the power of Christ may rest on me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities (769)...

Notice that both the words weakness and infirmities are Strong's 769.

If we take the underlying Greek word (astheneia) to mean sickness then we have...

2 Cor 12:9 (AKJV)

And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in sickness (769). Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my sickness (769), that the power of Christ may rest on me. Therefore I take pleasure in sickness (769)...

Rather than coming to Christ for healing, based on the above verse (if indeed astheneia can be seen to mean sickness) we should rather boast of sickness and glory in it that the power of Christ could rest in us. Not only boast and glory in sickness but take pleasure in it too!

That seems a bit much Jeannie but those are the implications of believing that infirmities refers to sicknesses. Not saying you believe that Jeannie...just talking out loud about the perspective that infirmities means sickness in case that is causing you to wonder.

Yet does the underlying Greek word from which we get weakness and infirmities really mean sickness?

Notice how the Greek word, the same Greek word is translated in the following verses. Again I have bolded the word that it is translated into and put the Greek word next to each word in parentheses.

I am using the Greek that underlies the King James Version and versions based on it by the way.

Acts 28:8 (AKJV)

And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him. So when this was done, others also, which had diseases (astheneia)in the island, came, and were healed:

This first verse clearly shows that astheneia does indeed sometimes mean sickness as in physical disease.

Here is another verse.

Hebrews 7:28 (AKJV)

For the law makes men high priests which have infirmity (astheneia); but the word of the oath, which was since the law, makes the Son, who is consecrated for ever more.

Notice that in the verse above the word could not possibly mean physical disease for if it did then only priests that were sick could become priests! Which is not true at all.

Here is another verse that shows an alternate meaning for the word infirmities.

Romans 6:18 (AKJV)

Being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity (astheneia) of your flesh: for as you have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity to iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness to holiness.

The use of infirmity in Romans 6:18 is NOT talking about physical sickness and disease. It is talking about the weakness of the flesh in not living righteously all the time.

In other words Paul has just stated that we have been made free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. That is a truth! But Paul goes on to say that he is speaking in the manner of men regarding the concepts of being set free and of being a slave. That what we understand these concepts to be is not always seen in our human bodies due to the weakness of our flesh to rise up to be what we in fact ARE in the spirit world at all times.

There is a fight between what we ARE in the spirit and what we are in the flesh with the flesh being infirm or weak and unable to be what we ARE all the time such as one might expect it to be from a natural perspective. If we were (again from a natural perspective) actually free from sin and a slave to righteousness.

I don't have time to go into this further just now Jeannie but I do not believe that the infirmities Paul talks of in 2 Cor 12:9 is disease or physical sickness.

I believe he is talking about being weak in the flesh.

Carlos

With all due respect that is some really bad handling of the Greek. The Greek word for infirmities is both sickness and weakness. However, word usage trumps the lexical meaning of the word. You cannot take Paul's usage of the same word in other passages and apply that meaning to II Cor. 12:9. It doesn't work that way. That is one of the problems with using Srongs concordance as a stand alone reference.

Strongs gives you the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words, but it is an exhaustive concordance. It is not an analytical concordance. It doesn't tell you how words are used in specific contexts. The way a word is used is far more important to understanding than what the lexical meaning is.

The way Paul uses the word infirmity in Romans 6:18 is not the same as used in II Cor. 12:9

Word usage is determined by context. Paul's weakness was a thorn the flesh. It was either an illness or some kind of physical handicap that might have come about due to the extreme physical abuse and persecution he had faced up to that time. Paul has been beaten and flogged numerous times, has been subjected to very unsanitary prison cells and may have contracted disease as a result. It is clear from the context that Paul is referring to a physical disability.

What needs to be understood about II Corinthians is that it is was written as a defense of Paul's ministry. False apostles had infiltrated Corinth and turned the people against Paul. They criticized Paul as not being a true apostle and evidently also condemned Paul's appearance. He was not impressive man to look at. The earliest descriptions of Paul are as a balding, short ,bowlegged man with an ugly, bushy unibrow. Scholars also tell us that Paul may have had some problems seeing, and may have been going blind. So when Paul shows up with scars, scabs, half blind and rather ugly anyway, he was not picture of the great theological giant many artists have depicted him to be.

Paul's defense of his ministry includes an explanation of his physical malady(s). He explains it this way: "hey I asked Jesus three times to heal me of this, but Jesus said that He was going to give me the grace to endure this so that He could be glorified through my physical pain and weakness."

This is the same Paul said that God chooses the weak things to confound the strong and the foolish things to confound the wise. God has worked through those who are sick. Again, Joni Erickson Tada is a stellar example of God being glorified through physical infirmity. Evangelist David Ring, who has Cerebral Palsy is able to minister inspite of his handicap. Note that Fanny Crosby who has written over 8,000 hymns did so as a blind woman. Isaac Watts was another great hymn writer who was an invalid and both pastored and wrote some of the greatest hymns we sing in churches still today.

Those are examples of God's power being made perfect (complete) in human physical sickness/disability (weakness).

[Jayyycuuup]

we MUST discuss all aspects of this issue, openly and honestly without being defensive...even the possibility that a lack of faith results in no healing, if we ever hope to arrive at a more perfect understanding of what God's perspective on this may be.

Carlos

I'm sorry carlos but by saying lack of faith results in no healing you are also saying those who have great faith should be healed.

What about those who have great faith and are not healed ?

Can you look in their hearts and judge their faith?

Please don't misquote me Nigel. I HATE being misquoted (seems to happen a lot around here).

I did NOT say that a lack of faith results in no healing as if such a thing is absolutely true. I said that we need to discuss the possibility that such is true. In other words it may or may not be the case. I am not sure either way yet.

Carlos

The one thing that I have a problem with Nigel is that in Mathew 17:20-21, Christ says, if you have the faith as a mustard seed you will say to a mountain move and it will move. Now is a mountain moving apart of God's will? I don't think so lol, somethings God does grant to us through prayer, and fasting regardless of his plan, and these are sheer miracles.

[carlos123]

With all due respect that is some really bad handling of the Greek.

I have no problem with you saying so Shiloh but with likewise all due respect...I disagree.

You said "The Greek word for infirmities is both sickness and weakness." (I ran out of the number of quotes allowed in a post)

Indeed true.

However, word usage trumps the lexical meaning of the word. You cannot take Paul's usage of the same word in other passages and apply that meaning to II Cor. 12:9. It doesn't work that way. That is one of the problems with using Srongs concordance as a stand alone reference.

I agree. What I was trying to show is that in view of other verses having a different meaning than physical sickness or disease that the word use in 2 Cor 12:9 could also be related to weakness of the type that is not related to disease or physical sickness.

That IS what I believe but not just because the Greek word is used as such in other verses but also because in context that makes more sense.

So I am in agreement with you as to the importance of context for helping determine how a word is to be translated. Absolutely. No question about that at all.

It's just that I think the word itself AND the context bear out a different meaning is all.

The way a word is used is far more important to understanding than what the lexical meaning is.

Agreed.

The way Paul uses the word infirmity in Romans 6:18 is not the same as used in II Cor. 12:9

Based on what? The context? I believe the context bears up the same meaning. That is to say a weakness inherent in the flesh NOT disease.

If I have time I will go more fully into why I believe the context bears that meaning up but for now just know that my understanding of that word as being different from disease is NOT just because the Greek word is used differently in other verses.

That only highlights that it could be a different meaning than many Christians have come to see the word as (i.e. disease).

Word usage is determined by context. Paul's weakness was a thorn the flesh. It was either an illness or some kind of physical handicap that might have come about due to the extreme physical abuse and persecution he had faced up to that time.

Given that Paul himself said what his thorn was...namely a messenger of Satan why can't it be a Satanic demon or spirit to torment Paul as he goes about the business of God's work?

What makes you think that a thorn in the flesh has to be an illness or some kind of physical handicap?

I mean there are lots of folks around who are absolute thorns in my flesh too from time to time but I do not by that mean to say that they are sticking out of my belly with their feet dangling out.

It is a figure of speech at least as to how I would mean it that indicates that someone or something bothers me like a thorn stuck in my finger might.

Could not Paul have been using it in that sense? If not...why not?

Paul has been beaten and flogged numerous times, has been subjected to very unsanitary prison cells and may have contracted disease as a result. It is clear from the context that Paul is referring to a physical disability.

No...it is not clear from the context that such is the case. I mean the first part of your statement is absolutely true Shiloh about Paul and his persecutions, potentially catching diseases, and so forth. But that fact does not for context (at least in the immediate text surrounding 2 Cor 12:9) a physical disability make.

What is there in the immediate context of 2 Cor 12:9 that might lead one to believe and definitely so that the thorn in the flesh is a disease or physical ailment?

I do not mean to say that the overall context of his life should be ignored. Not at all. Only that we should not paint the context with too wide a brush lest we end up with all manner of interpretations which cannot be supported for certain and end up being little more than assumptions.

What needs to be understood about II Corinthians is that it is was written as a defense of Paul's ministry. False apostles had infiltrated Corinth and turned the people against Paul. They criticized Paul as not being a true apostle and evidently...

Agreed up to this point.

also condemned Paul's appearance. He was not impressive man to look at. The earliest descriptions of Paul are as a balding, short ,bowlegged man with an ugly, bushy unibrow.

Where may I ask do you get that from? I certainly do not see that in the biblical text.

Scholars also tell us that Paul may have had some problems seeing, and may have been going blind.

I am aware of that but scholars throughout the ages have been in part precisely the problem with the church going astray to follow the traditions of man as opposed to God!

I am not discounting what scholars say altogether Shiloh but am making the point that what scholars say should not be believed as Gospel truth.

What proof is there from any source that Paul had an eye problem?

Paul's defense of his ministry includes an explanation of his physical malady(s). He explains it this way: "hey I asked Jesus three times to heal me of this, but Jesus said that He was going to give me the grace to endure this so that He could be glorified through my physical pain and weakness."

I understand your paraphrase Shiloh but he said "infirmities". A word which CAN mean something other than physical pain and weakness. And he described something with the phrase "thorn in the flesh" which CAN be a figurative way of describing something that one does not like having to endure.

What clear proof is there in the text or otherwise that shows that both refer to "physical pain and weakness"? If there is none would that not be grounds for saying that such a thought is simply an assumption by any other name?

Carlos

[Guest shiloh357]

[

The problem is that Romans 6 and II Cor. 12 are entirely different contexts and have entirely different purposes for having been written. II Cor. 12:9 is dealing with a thorn in the flesh. If it were a weakness relating to spiritual matters, to say that Jesus would not help or strengthen Paul simply doesnt wash. It was a weakness in the flesh in the form of a physical infirmity.

The Bible teaches that we are daily be conformed into the image of Christ. That entails the Lord revealing our weak area to Him so that we will surrender that part of our live over to Him so that He work his character/nature into those areas of our lives. If Paul were dealing with a weak area in his life there is NO basis anywhere in Scripture for saying that Jesus allows us to remain with parts of our lives where we are unable to grow spiritually and overcome the weaknes of our flesh. To assert such is sloppy theology.

The context is clearly related to a physical problem, hence the term "thorn in the flesh." The thorn in the flesh was not a weakness of the flesh in terms of his walk with the Lord. It was a physical malady or it was a handicap that might very well have been caused by the abuse he had been subjected to over the years. Paul is an old man at this point in his life and a lot has happened to Him. An unprejudiced reading of the text in the plain sense, indicates that it is physical problem and people who actually KNOW the Greek language and have the skill to handle it, will tell you the same thing.

You are trying to mold the text around what you want to believe and your theology is driving your interpretation. No amount of theological gymanastics is going to produce a verse in the Bible that says God's wants everyone healed 100% of the time. You are trying to pencil that in to the text and that amounts to a very dangerous hanlding of Scripture.

[carlos123]

Carlos, thank you for posting up more food for thought and I do appreciate the time you took to do so because I know it takes me forever just to post up one or two scriptures. It is the word infirmities that gave me pause to consider my understanding of healing as a promise but not only that scripture. So far the examples of healing that I have read in the NT seem to be done as a sign to show Jesus' identity and authority to the people.

Here is a question for you Jeannie. It is indeed true that the healings done in the New Testament by Jesus were a sign to show Jesus' identity and authority as God. But that was NOT the only thing they showed.

Jesus modeled a life of faith for us all.

He not only lived it but He kept encouraging His disciples and more specifically the Twelve to do what He did.

He gave them authority to heal just as He Himself did. He passed the bread and the fish through their hands to teach them to do what He could do by faith. How is that explained by the thought that the healings were ONLY about showing us who Jesus was (I say ONLY in that some Christians believe that)?

What did Jesus mean when He said that as the Father sent Him so He sent the disciples and that greater works than those that He did we will do because He goes to the Father to intercede on our behalf?

Also, what do you think John 9:3-4 means?"Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." It seems to mean this man was born blind for the purpose of being a example of God's work through his healing power being shown to all. I don't understand verse 4 though.

The full quote is as follows...

John 9:1 (AKJV)

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night comes, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Here is my take on these verses...

Sickness in anybody does NOT mean that someone is sinning and that through their sinning God has brought sickness into their life.

In the case of the blind man above he was blind so that God could be glorified through Jesus healing him (there wouldn't have been much of any glory to God if Jesus had left him blind!).

That last part is interesting. That Jesus felt a need to work, as in heal people for example, while it is day. That night was coming when no man could work.

Now off the bat that verse seems to say that when Jesus, who is the Light of this world, leaves that no man will be able to do what Jesus did.

But that CAN'T be what it says. Why?

Look at what happened in Acts AFTER Jesus left.

Acts 3:1 (AKJV)

Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes on him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

Peter and John and Philip and Paul for that matter were able to continue doing what Jesus had done in healing the sick.

So we can be certain that what Jesus said about no man being able to do the works He did when darkness comes did NOT refer to the time period after He died and went to heaven.

For the disciples continued to do the works that He did AFTER He left!

The other consideration is that Jesus as the Light of the world now resides in...His Body! In that sense He has never left!

I'm not through praying and seeking. I will consider the greek meanings and usage for infirmities and the context and give it more prayerful thought and research. (I will be so glad when my concordance arrives.)

Incidentally Jeannie there are EXCELLENT tools online to help.

The Blue Letter bible is one of my favorite -> http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Bible Gateway has lots of different translations and great verse lookup -> http://www.biblegateway.com/

The Parallel Bible is also useful when you want to compare different translations of a verse -> http://bible.cc/

I personally use a local program under Linux called Xiphos which has public domain copies of various translations based on the King James. I use that to copy and paste large pieces of verses where I don't need to concern myself with the copyrights on God's Word (an oxymoron if there ever was one respecting how one can copyright such a thing).

Hope that helps.

Carlos

[carlos123]

The problem is that Romans 6 and II Cor. 12 are entirely different contexts and have entirely different purposes for having been written. II Cor. 12:9 is dealing with a thorn in the flesh. If it were a weakness relating to spiritual matters, to say that Jesus would not help or strengthen Paul simply doesnt wash.

I did not say it was a weakness of the kind you speak of Shiloh. I said it was a general weakness of the kind inherent in the flesh.

In other words we are weak in our natural selves but Christ is strong.

That kind of weakness.

When I am weak and know that I am weak of my own self to do anything for God THEN I am strong. That type of weakness.

To assert such is sloppy theology.

I obviously disagree with your theology but I would not presume to call your theology sloppy. Just a tad incorrect I think .

Though I am to be sure still thinking through some of this and have not arrived at a settled conviction regarding some aspects of what we are discussing.

The context is clearly related to a physical problem, hence the term "thorn in the flesh." The thorn in the flesh was not a weakness of the flesh in terms of his walk with the Lord. It was a physical malady or it was a handicap that might very well have been caused by the abuse he had been subjected to over the years. Paul is an old man at this point in his life and a lot has happened to Him. An unprejudiced reading of the text in the plain sense, indicates that it is physical problem and people who actually KNOW the Greek language and have the skill to handle it, will tell you the same thing.

While I appreciate hearing what you have to say about this Shiloh the only thing you seem to be doing is stating authoritatively how this or that is so because...well...just because I guess.

Like that the context clearly indicates a physical ailment which I simply do not see.

I beg to differ on how prejudiced you think I am in reading the text. Again I disagree with you on this but I would not presume to say that you are prejudiced in the reading of the text. Just a whee bit incorrect is all. Happens all the time. From time to time I get it wrong too.

Rather than stating authoritatively that people who KNOW Greek will say so and so it would be more beneficial if you would kindly show this prejudiced Greek scholar wanna be (that's me by your statements LOL) WHY the Greek says so and so.

You are trying to mold the text around what you want to believe and your theology is driving your interpretation.

No..you are assuming that I am trying to drive the interpretation to a desired result. I am trying to arrive at a clear and unprejudiced understanding of what it says.

I could equally say that you are sticking to the status quo interpretation without a willingness to re-evaluate your position but I am not saying that.

We just think differently on what is being said. Hopefully we can learn something from each other in the process of discussion and arrive at a more perfect understanding without making assumptions about each other.

You are trying to pencil that in to the text and that amounts to a very dangerous hanlding of Scripture.

Your assumptions of me of course but I beg to differ on the truthfulness of your assumptions. I am doing no such thing.

Carlos

[Guest shiloh357]

I did not say it was a weakness of the kind you speak of Shiloh. I said it was a general weakness of the kind inherent in the flesh.

In other words we are weak in our natural selves but Christ is strong.

Yes, but Paul says that the thorn in the flesh was given to him as a result of his vision of heaven. If it were simply the weakness of the flesh, then such an interpretation would imply that Paul did not have that weakness prior to the vision which is patently absurd. This "weakness" was something he didn't have before, and it was something that was thorn (pain) IN his flesh, not OF the flesh. Sorry but your exegesis doens't stand up.

While I appreciate hearing what you have to say about this Shiloh the only thing you seem to be doing is stating authoritatively how this or that is so because...well...just because I guess.

I am saying it "just because." I am saying it because it is the truth and so far you haven't provided any substantive response to it.

I could equally say that you are sticking to the status quo interpretation without a willingness to re-evaluate your position but I am not saying that.

Yeah you could say that, but you would be wrong. I am sticking to it because the context demands it. You have not provided any good reason to believe the context doesn't demand the thorn in the flesh is a physical/bodily issue that is causing Paul pain and discomfort.

Your assumptions of me of course but I beg to differ on the truthfulness of your assumptions. I am doing no such thing.

I am not "assuming" anything. Your posts are bent on changing and reading stuff into the text to make it fit what you are prepared to accept, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

In addition, you still have not provided ANY passage that actually says that God will heal people 100% of the time. That is what you need and that is what you cannot provide that alone sinks any notion that God has promised 100% healing. There is an inherent danger in trying to assign values to God that HE doesn't take to Himself. I would not be making promises to people that God will heal them 100% of the time when He has made NO such promises.