QUOTE(unknown warrior @ Nov 4 2014, 05:30 PM)
I'm well aware of that interpretation long before you told me, bro but I'm talking about specifically when God blessed Abraham twice (Genesis 13:1 & Genesis 20:14)
He didn't cut a covenant that He'll bless Him in those 2 accounts for the sake of his offspring. What God promised is that He & his offspring will posses the lands.
These 2 accounts are material blessing that happened irrelevant to possession of the promised land. It happened because of his wife Sarah. Go read it, if you don't believe me.
So therein, I don't think it happened because of your context of it.
Besides, It not just confine to Abraham. God bless Job, what was Job's reason? He didn't have a nation to take care of. Job was a very rich Man more than he needed.
The whole point is this: I never said that God will bless you with the same exact type of blessing, my point is, He just does. Why do I even bother trying to explain this?
It's because Some Christian say that they find no scripture evidence that God delights in prospering his children. And they will say things like wealth will destroy your spiritual relationship with God. God people shouldn't have so much money because it's un-spiritual, things like that.
I point those examples to show that those sort of arguments is baseless. If it's not specifically explained in the Bible, for that reason, it's not. I fully agree with you that Bible must be understood in context. But we cannot simply assume for things that is not and say it is.
The word Healed mentioned in Isaiah 53:5, in the Hebrew is the word Rapha which is where you get God's Name, Jehovah Rapha, God our Healer. Same meaning in 1 Peter 2:24, the Greek word for healing is iaomai which also refers to the Lord Himself as the Great Physician. The very same word used in Luke 17:15, where the lepers were healed. And as with all the account when Jesus healed the sick. Same word, same meaning. That is correct exegesis and interpretation.
I can understand when you say the word heal means taking away sin from the cross, but that is not the correct word. Taking away sin from the cross is this word, Cleansed.
1 John 1:7 - But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
In the Greek is katharizó which means in English: Made Clean. Anyway I wouldn't say you're totally wrong int this, because when God removed our sins, therefore we can now be healed.
Which is what Jesus say to his disciple anyway.
Luke 10:8-9 - And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
In case you want to say, that is only valid for his disciple,
John 14:12 - Very truly I tell you,
whoever believes in me
will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
Plural. Works, so it's not just saving souls but manifesting his miracles as well.
Bro I never say we will have a problem free lives.
Don't get caught in that. You clearly misunderstood me. Didn't I mentioned, Fallen world, so many times?
Yes, Nick Vujicic may not be restored of his limbs but point is, there are others who do. I heard testimonies of it.
Based on who Jesus is, I'm thoroughly convinced, that God is more than willing to heal. How do I know? Look at the life of Jesus.
He never reject anyone. Not one person who came to Him, was not healed. Even when the leper was not sure and asked Him, "Lord if you are willing...."
And Jesus answered ""I am willing". (Matthew 8:3). And Jesus is the exact representation of who God the Father is.
Bro.
NOBODY in here is discounting the Fact that Jesus work on the cross is to save us. No need to get technically correct with us on this. We all know this and we all understood this and we all accept this. The work on the cross is well established with all Christians.
Though you may not agree with me, But we can have the best of life despite there are problems in life.
This is the meaning of John 10:10. How come? Because we have Jesus. And having him, is everything. Love, Grace, Blessing, Protections, the whole works!
In all these, I still respect your view because I came from that same view, never discounted that this was how we all started anyway in our doctrine believe.
But What made me see the scripture as how I've described to you now is because of the revelation of God's love. It's deeper than what we think it is.
And I'm not talking from head knowledge. You should get my meaning and I don't see that it contradicts scripture. Not one.
Can I just reassure you, that my definition of prosperity is that we have
no needs (why? Because the Lord
IS my shepherd) and is not having tons of $$$$$$$.
Thanks for the lengthy reply
I'll try to deal with your concerns systematically so that hopefully not just you, but the readers here, would be able to see where I'm arguing from more clearly:
The blessings of Abraham and JobBoth verses that you've quoted only say this: Abraham was rich. Remember, no one is denying that God doesn't bless people or give anyone money. If it is God's will that you drive a BMW, then you will drive a BMW. If it is God's will that you drive a proton Saga, then he will give you a proton saga.
What I said about using these OT figures still applies: We cannot derive a theological principle simply by saying that "Job was rich, therefore we will be rich too". You argument MIGHT work against someone who argues that God *will not* bless *anyone* with *Anything*. Again I must reiterate the point that this is not my position, nor is it Sylar's position.
Let me make clear our position again: We are simply against the belief that Jesus' death on the cross means we will *not* be sick and poor. <<< This statement does *not* mean that we believe that God cannot bless any of his children.
The Messiahnic prophecy of Isaiah 53The question here now is :"Did Christ die for my diseases?" You affirm this, I deny this. So let's dig into the text...
Firstly, this is where I have to bring back the hermeunetical principle of "context is king". Yes, the Hebrew word used *may* refer to physical healing, but it can also refer to a figurative healing. To determine what Isaiah meant when he used those words, we have to look at the context to determine what he meant. E.g. He uses it to figuratively to describe how Israel would be "healed" (remember, Isaiah was a prophet to the Israelites, he heard from God to warn the Israelites) if they "see with their eyes, hear with their ears and understand with their hearts (cf. Isaiah 6:10)
So what is the surrounding context?
QUOTE
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
(Isaiah 53:5-6 ESV)
The surrounding context seems to demonstrate that what Isaiah was getting at was the forgiveness of sins! To plug in "healed" to mean "physical healing" would be odd because then the rest of the text doesn't seem to fit that reading.
Also, something you should note is that "iaomai" can refer to both physical healing (your luke example for instance) OR figurative healing (Jn 12:40 etc.). So just because the greek *can* mean one thing, you would need contextual arguments to support your use of the word because the greek could mean something else.
In fact, someone from The Master's seminary who probably knows both the greek in the LXX and the hebrew better than the both of us has written a very solid argument against your position that Christ died so that we may attain physical healing:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj6e.pdf Take some time to read it.
Note how he argues from what the OT sees atonement as too. Remember, your position is that Christ died as an atonement not just for sins, but for physical healing. But the whole idea of atonement in the OT is explicitly about the propitiation of sin, and in Hebrews, the author describes how Jesus died as a propitiation for our sins and how Jesus "atoned" for our sins. This strong definition of atonement doesn't permit you to add "for our physical healing" as well.
Luke and JohnNow here's where another hermeunetical principle has to be introduced. When we're exegeting scripture, we have to look at the immediate context first, before looking at the context of the whole bible. To interpret the bible with the bible is correct practice, but to skip the immediate context first is not.
In Luke 10, we have a specific command from Jesus to the 72 disciples (it's explicitly clear that this verse is specifically for the 72). There could be better arguments against your position, but I suppose the immediate context of Luke 10 already casts doubt on your exegesis of the text. You already provided a defense that the command of Jesus in Luke 10 was for us as well, but you're using a different isolated verse that is in a different book of the Bible, so you cannot use that to defeat the immediate context of Luke 10.
But let's deal with your use of John 14. First, let's establish the context: John 14 seems to follow after the events of John 13. In John 13, we see Jesus talking about his betrayal (cf. John 13:21-30) and this seems to put the events during the last supper; The disciples were probably confused and scared as to what was going to happen.
Thus it seems fitting that in John 14 the first thing Jesus says is this :"Let not your hearts be troubled..." So here he comforts his disciples with spiritual truths and promises about how the "helper" will come, and we know that the Holy Spirit didn't come until Jesus has departed (day of pentecost).
Now bearing all of this in mind, here's what W. Hall Harris III, a professor of NT studies at Dallas Theological Seminary has to say about the verse:
QUOTE
14:12 meivzona touvtwn poihvsei Jesus then promises the disciples that the person who believes in him will do the works he does, and will do even greater works than Jesus did, because he is going to the Father.
What are the greater works that Jesus speaks of, and how is this related to his going to the Father? It is clear from both 7:39 and 16:7 that the Holy Spirit will not come until Jesus has departed. After Pentecost and the coming of the Spirit to indwell believers in a permanent relationship, believers will be empowered to perform even greater works than those Jesus did during his earthly ministry. When we examine the early chapters of Acts we find that from a numerical standpoint, the works of Peter and the other Apostles surpassed those of Jesus in a single day (the day of Pentecost). On that day more were added to the church than had become followers of Jesus during the entire three years of his earthly ministry. And the message went forth not just in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, but to the farthest parts of the known world. It seems more probable that this is what Jesus meant by “greater works” than that he referred to greater works in the sense of “more spectacular miracles.” Certainly miraculous works were performed by the Apostles as recounted in Acts, but these do not appear to have surpassed the works of Jesus himself in either scope or number.
Source
https://bible.org/seriespage/17-exegetical-...mentary-john-14 And note that *even* IF your interpretation is correct that Jesus is asking all of us to heal people just as he did, this does not mean that he died so that Christians may be healed. Remember what we're disagreeing on at this point: That Jesus died so that we maybe healed.
Nick Vujicic and etc.No, UW ):, I don't think I'm misunderstanding you here. Yes you claimed that we live in a fallen world, and I wholeheartedly agree. But the claim that you're making is that Jesus died not just for our sins, but so that we can be healed. Here's a breakdown of it
(1)Jesus died so that we may be physically healed and have protection in life <<< Your belief that I disagree with
(2)Jesus died for Nick Vujicic <<< we both accept this premise
(3)Nick Vujicic did not grow his limb back.
(4)Therefore, either (1) or (2) is false.
The logic here is pretty simple: Either (1) Jesus died so that we may be physically healed is false or (2) Jesus died for Nick Vujicic is false. You have to choose.
The reason why I'm re-emphasizing Christ's atoning work on the cross here is because you need to see the difference between what I believe the gospel to be and what you believe the gospel to be:
My belief: (a)Jesus Christ came to die on the cross for the sins of sinful men
Your belief: (b)Jesus Christ came to die on the cross for the sins of sinful men AND that they will be physically healed in this life.
Note how there is nothing about (i)Whether Christians can be blessed or healed by God if God desires them to be healed.
Man I'm starving. Time for din dins
Oct 30 2014, 12:05 AM, updated 11y ago
Quote
Bro, there's no 1 Corinthians 12:39-41
I don't need anyone to tell me If I'm doing something wrong. The HS spirit convicts me and it has happen continuously as the evidence that He is the one who leads us me to maturity. I can hear Him.[/B]
in heaven for those who pay the price. 
like me yes related.
yes 
0.2029sec
0.32
6 queries
GZIP Disabled