By His stripes we are healed of what?

[Paul James]

6 hours ago, Jacob75 said:

Oldest manuscripts do not contain that part of Mark.  Even if it did, Pentecostals cannot routinely demonstrate any of it actually happening.  In fact, "Pentecostals" cannot replicate even one single feature of Acts ch. 2.  Thereby, they cannot even honestly name themselves!  Lol.

Divine healing is not exclusively Pentecostal.   It is Bible.  

Also, the earliest manuscripts available date from the 4th Century.  We cannot know what was included in earlier manuscripts because we don't have them.  We know that the 4th Century church was a pale imitation of the 1st Century church, and it was common for sick people to be healed and demons cast out.  By the 4th Century, as the church was going from Holy Spirit led to being subject to the authority of the bishops, and the overall preeminence of the Bishop of Rome,  healing, speaking tongues, and casting out of demons were significantly declining, and as the standards of the established church fell well below par, they ceased altogether.   

So, it is quite probable that the end of Mark was conveniently edited out of the 4th Century manuscripts by editors and commentators who no longer believed the supernatural was part of the church.   Therefore, the supernatural aspects of the ministry of the Holy Spirit declined and ceased through simple unbelief.  

And so the loudest modern Cessationist commentators who trumpet that the end of Mark was not in the original manuscripts, are speaking from an attitude of unbelief, and therefore the Holy Spirit can't replicate the works of Jesus, just as Jesus Himself couldn't do any mighty works in His home town because of unbelief.

But as I previously said, there are groups who do believe that the miraculous works of Jesus can be replicated today, and they are the ones who are seeing the results, while the unbelieving religious majority see nothing of it, and through their unbelief try to make it that it doesn't happen at all.

[Paul James]

7 hours ago, Jacob75 said:

No "Pentecostal" can replicate anything in Acts ch. 2.  Not one thing.

Generalised statement implying that you have total knowledge of every area of the Pentecostal movement.   The reality is that if total knowledge is represented by a pie [diagram], then if you are honest, your area of knowledge represents only a slice of that pie, while the rest of the pie is outside of your area of knowledge.  Therefore there would be groups of Pentecostals who are replicating Acts 2, but they are outside of your area of knowledge and therefore you have no awareness of them.

I have the same limitation.  I belong to a small Union church along with six old ladies and one gentleman.  When I joined it, I increased the male members by 50%.  Therefore, my slice of the "knowledge" pie is very thin indeed.   Therefore it would be very arrogant of me to comment about anything other churches were doing, because I frankly don't know.   But I have read many testimonies of people who have been healed of all sorts of medical conditions, (130 testimonies on a CD through people in Auckland NZ, and hundreds of accounts throughout NZ as part of a national itinerate healing ministry;  and had real experiences of speaking understandable languages when speaking in tongues (my own experience and of a close friend in my church), and many testimonies from those who have had demons cast out of them.   

These testimonies come from ordinary New Zealanders.  I don't know if you know anything about New Zealanders, but we are a people not given to over dramatising, or tolerant of nonsense.   It comes from our pioneer culture where our settlement came out of commitment and hard work.  We are honest, realistic, hard-core people, and not flaky.   Therefore a New Zealander testifying of healing of a medical condition would not make that testimony without carefully checking with their doctor that the healing actually took place.  

But then, New Zealand Pentecostals are totally different than American ones - down to earth, conservative, and not given to excess.  That comes from our British culture.

But then, all this may be in the area of the pie outside of your slice of knowledge...

Edited February 26, 2021 by Paul James

[Whyme]

2 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

 

Someone may ask who is that you are calling Lord? 

And may be wondering why you do not include his name?

As this is something that is published in the International news section. 

If it is not burdensome. 

I call the heavenly father and Jesus lord. Who is it inside me? Jesus, the father and holy spirit. Who is it that puts joy in my heart? I don't know exactly is it Jesus or the father or the spirit? All three perhaps? I'm not sure so I call him lord. Sounds confusing I guess. My understanding is limited, I'm. Just a simple man.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Whyme

[popsthebuilder]

On 2/22/2021 at 6:44 PM, Riverwalker said:

Thank you for the information

Matthew 8: 16 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:

“He Himself took our infirmities
And bore our sicknesses.”

And surely He does today. But does he heal everyone all the time? I experienced "word of faith" movement when I was first saved, where I was taught that if you were poor it was your lack of faith, if you were sick it was your lack of faith, whatever they said God would do for you, if it wasn't done....it was because of your lack of faith. I found the lack of compassion and even low grade condemnation of people who suffered to be against what I was learning about God. So I am a little uneasy on the subject. 

Don't be fooled my friend; it is most assuredly about spiritual healing. Jesus Himself exclaimed that affliction is not, by default, a product of ones sin, or the sins of their parents.

Surely GOD can literally heal our bodies too.... But what does the Christ of GOD say about this life and the things there of? 

Luke 17:33; Matthew 10:39; John 12:25; Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35–37; Luke 9:24–25; Revelation 2:1

 

 

 

[Paul James]

1 hour ago, Whyme said:

I call the heavenly father and Jesus lord. Who is it inside me? Jesus, the father and holy spirit. Who is it that puts joy in my heart? I don't know exactly is it Jesus or the father or the spirit? All three perhaps? I'm not sure so I call him lord. Sounds confusing I guess. My understanding is limited, I'm. Just a simple man.

 

 

It is the Holy Spirit who is inside your spirit.  He is the one who transformed you and is continuing the work to conform you to the image of Christ.  The Father and Christ are in heaven.   But Jesus said that having the Holy Spirit indwelling you is the same as having the Father and the Son, because they are absolutely one in unity, so whatever the Holy Spirit teaches you, it will be exactly the same as Jesus teaching you, and He will teach you only what He has received from the Father.

So, in that sense, having the Holy Spirit indwelling you representing the Father and the Son, makes it true that the Father and the Son are living within you in the Person of the Holy Spirit.

[Your closest friendnt]

Isaiah 9:6,7 KJV

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. 

**What an amazing passage. 

In Jesus Christ we have everything we need. We have Jesus Christ the Everlasting Father, with the Heavenly Inheritance and we have the Paracletous and in him we have the Heavenly Father, and LIFE EVERLASTING .

Because he obeyed the Heavenly Father all the way to die on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins.

To be the Savior of the whole world from the very beginning to forever. 

And God made him Lord over all. 

 

[Charlie744]

On 2/22/2021 at 5:48 PM, Paul James said:

Here is the absolute proof that it is the will of God that people are physically healed:

"When He had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him. 2 And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.”

3 Then Jesus put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed" (Matthew 8:1-3).

Therefore because Jesus said it..., I believe it, and so it is absolutely settled that it is God's definite will that people are physically healed.

If people don't get healed, it is not God's fault or of any secret decree that only some get healed.  When Jesus had His full way, everyone who was sick got healed.  What limited Him was an environment of disbelief, such has in His home town where only a few sick people got healed.   The reason why only a few get healed these days is that most churches don't believe that He either can or wants to heal the sick.  Cessationism has cast its ugly and faithless shadow over the churches and planted doubts in people's minds, and because most professing Christians are double-minded about divine healing, and that God doesn't honour double-mindedness, divine healing is largely hindered.

I just started to read this topic .... certainly never studied it like you folks but things to come to mind after reading your thoughts. 

I have always interpreted these verses in a macro approach, if you will. For me, Isaiah is pointing to The ONE who had / has the ability to save us from our sins (and is not speaking about a healing of the flesh), The Messiah.

There is no question He healed the sick, the blind, the leper, and raised the dead, but Isaiah is, to me, speaking of healing our "being", this "living soul", and is in reference to HIS PLAN OF SALVATION.

Three things quickly came to mind from this particular response above:

1) .......when He had come down from the mountain....... Lord, if you are willing..... there were those who believed in HIm......

2)....... When Moses came down the mountain........there were those that believed and those that did not......

3) ........when Jesus was taken down from the Cross.......there were those who would believe and those who would not......

In each case, and I am sure there are more, the LORD, HIS WORD, JESUS was descending downward as if HE was leaving His Heaven above to come to us, and although there certainly was physical healing in every way, His MISSION was to heal us from our sins......first and foremost. 

For those that would accept HIS WORD coming down from Mt. Sinai.... and obey IT, they would be saved (spiritually, but HE would save them in EVERY physical way during the 40 year in the desert - their physical requirements and needs were all met.

For those that would believe HE was the Messiah, they would indeed be physically healed of all and any of their infirmaries, but HIS message was for their spiritual saving,

For those that would believe HE died on the Cross for OUR sins, they would indeed be spiritually healed and saved. And of course, after His resurrection, many were healed and raised from the dead before He returned to HIS Father.

In each of these references above, man would FIRST have to accept God as their saviour.  Only then could  / would be healed. NO ONE was ever healed physically or spiritually unless they believed in the ONE TRUE GOD - OT or NT.

For me, Isaiah is written in a manner that addresses the "universal" rather than the "particular"....... ALL men will be saved by "HIS STRIPES".  BUT there is nothing I find in the Scriptures that would limit HIM from being able to do ANYTHING - God does NOT change and God is NOT subject to time, and God does not or would not place "brackets or limits" on HIS WORD and if and when HIS WORD will be applied. Everything God has done, can do, is capable of doing is available to mankind - even if we might contend they only belong or are relevant in the OT...... There are no "time zones" for His Word - whether we carve us HIS Scripture into OT v NT or ancient v modern times, or BC v AD, etc.

Looking through some of the responses I believe there may be a few different concepts being applied regarding Isaiah 53..... 

1) God's Word is the same today......... OT or NT...... nothing in the OT is prevented from taking place in the NT - miracles, healing, etc., 

2) We should never look at man (a B. Hinn, K. Copeland or whomever), to confirm or validate HIS Word........ big mistake,

3) As it was from the very beginning, FAITH AND OBEDIENCE IN GOD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS FOR US TO ADDRESS IN OUR LIVES..... with God on our side, He can and will do anything we ask in  HIS NAME..... 

4) For me, Isaiah 53 is a very special verse...... it is Messianic and is telling Israel about the coming Messiah and HIS PLAN OF SALVATION where HE WILL BE THE PERFECT SACRIFICE FOR ALL SINS.

Hope some of this is readable and might makes sense.... late on this Sabbath.......

 

PS. For those of you who do NOT believe in tongues, I believe my concise and extremely clear response above disproves that ...... some say tongues, others say babeling........... tomato / tomoto.....

Just some thoughts (maybe), Charlie

 

 

 

 

[Paul James]

41 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

I can understand your bitterness. But nowhere does scripture teach the kind of thing you seem to believe about your wife's cancer. The passage of women not teaching is rather severe since that church in those times was far different than our modern churches. I do not think you were punished for her teaching activity.

Actually Paul never taught that women should not have a vocal part in the ministry of the church.  Tertullian was the first church father to prohibit women having a vocal role in the services.  All the church fathers before him allowed women to have a significant role in the churches.   It was Tertullian's opposition of the Montanist movement that had women prophets who dominated the movement that gave rise to his opposition to woman's ministry.

In fact, Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 14 was to stop wives questioning prophecies in the church services thereby causing disruption.   He fully supported women prophesying in church (1 Corinthians 11), and his instruction to Timothy about women not usurping men was to deal with a specific issue in the Ephesian church where some women were doing just that.   Paul never meant for his teaching  to either the Corinthians or the Ephesians to be blanket instructions for all churches.   

If you read Acts carefully you will see that Paul fully supported women being church leaders, teachers, and even apostles.

Cancer comes from the devil.  He is the one who steals, kills and destroys.  God does not use the devil to punish believers.   If the man's wife was a believer, then she was not under any condemnation at all, and it was because she was an effective Bible teacher that the devil attacked her with cancer to get her out of the way.

[Jacob75]

1 hour ago, Charlie744 said:

I just started to read this topic .... certainly never studied it like you folks but things to come to mind after reading your thoughts. 

I have always interpreted these verses in a macro approach, if you will. For me, Isaiah is pointing to The ONE who had / has the ability to save us from our sins (and is not speaking about a healing of the flesh), The Messiah.

There is no question He healed the sick, the blind, the leper, and raised the dead, but Isaiah is, to me, speaking of healing our "being", this "living soul", and is in reference to HIS PLAN OF SALVATION.

Three things quickly came to mind from this particular response above:

1) .......when He had come down from the mountain....... Lord, if you are willing..... there were those who believed in HIm......

2)....... When Moses came down the mountain........there were those that believed and those that did not......

3) ........when Jesus was taken down from the Cross.......there were those who would believe and those who would not......

In each case, and I am sure there are more, the LORD, HIS WORD, JESUS was descending downward as if HE was leaving His Heaven above to come to us, and although there certainly was physical healing in every way, His MISSION was to heal us from our sins......first and foremost. 

For those that would accept HIS WORD coming down from Mt. Sinai.... and obey IT, they would be saved (spiritually, but HE would save them in EVERY physical way during the 40 year in the desert - their physical requirements and needs were all met.

For those that would believe HE was the Messiah, they would indeed be physically healed of all and any of their infirmaries, but HIS message was for their spiritual saving,

For those that would believe HE died on the Cross for OUR sins, they would indeed be spiritually healed and saved. And of course, after His resurrection, many were healed and raised from the dead before He returned to HIS Father.

In each of these references above, man would FIRST have to accept God as their saviour.  Only then could  / would be healed. NO ONE was ever healed physically or spiritually unless they believed in the ONE TRUE GOD - OT or NT.

For me, Isaiah is written in a manner that addresses the "universal" rather than the "particular"....... ALL men will be saved by "HIS STRIPES".  BUT there is nothing I find in the Scriptures that would limit HIM from being able to do ANYTHING - God does NOT change and God is NOT subject to time, and God does not or would not place "brackets or limits" on HIS WORD and if and when HIS WORD will be applied. Everything God has done, can do, is capable of doing is available to mankind - even if we might contend they only belong or are relevant in the OT...... There are no "time zones" for His Word - whether we carve us HIS Scripture into OT v NT or ancient v modern times, or BC v AD, etc.

Looking through some of the responses I believe there may be a few different concepts being applied regarding Isaiah 53..... 

1) God's Word is the same today......... OT or NT...... nothing in the OT is prevented from taking place in the NT - miracles, healing, etc., 

2) We should never look at man (a B. Hinn, K. Copeland or whomever), to confirm or validate HIS Word........ big mistake,

3) As it was from the very beginning, FAITH AND OBEDIENCE IN GOD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS FOR US TO ADDRESS IN OUR LIVES..... with God on our side, He can and will do anything we ask in  HIS NAME..... 

4) For me, Isaiah 53 is a very special verse...... it is Messianic and is telling Israel about the coming Messiah and HIS PLAN OF SALVATION where HE WILL BE THE PERFECT SACRIFICE FOR ALL SINS.

Hope some of this is readable and might makes sense.... late on this Sabbath.......

 

PS. For those of you who do NOT believe in tongues, I believe my concise and extremely clear response above disproves that ...... some say tongues, others say babeling........... tomato / tomoto.....

Just some thoughts (maybe), Charlie

 

 

 

 

Thanks.  I am sure you are sincere, hut your long explanation was too much to follow.  Jesus coming to poor and desperate people cannot be that complicated.

[Buddy D. Mouse]

20 minutes ago, Jacob75 said:

It was Tertullian's opposition of the Montanist movement that had women prophets who dominated the movement that gave rise to his opposition to woman's ministry.

If I am not mistaken, Tertullian himself - at the end of his career - became Montanist himself.