Is Faith Healing Really from God?

[JohnPaul]

I'm sorry I offended you. I thought you left the RCC. The church I go to has communion every week. Some don't, except once a month. Others is once a quarter (13 weeks).

I have left the RCC, and no worries it’s all forgotten.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I need no knowledge of you personally because it’s not you who is under scrutiny here, but what you and others claim to be able to do that is the subject of this thread.

It is not what I do that matters it is what Jesus does.

My testimony is about what God did not what I did.

Jesus is with those who are “doing the will of his Father”. This is what being a Christian means......it is the criteria upon which our future depends. Are miracles part of that criteria? Why were they performed in the first century? For whom were they performed? Check the scriptures...they were not already Christians. Only unbelievers were the subject of miracles....to bring them to Christ....is that true today? You know it’s not.

Your definition of a Christian and mine are quite different.

Salvation and God doing the miraculous are two entirely different things.

Your claim that the early church ministry only healed unbelievers is false.

I have seen unbelievers saved as a result of the miraculous in this age.

I have also seen believers touched by God and healed.

Romans 14 tells us not to judge those with different faith who serve as unto the Lord.

 

[Aunty Jane]

It is not what I do that matters it is what Jesus does.

My testimony is about what God did not what I did.

No, its about what you "believe" God did. There is a difference.

Your definition of a Christian and mine are quite different.

I think that is quite obvious. But in this "time of the end" we are in a judgment period, just like the people of Noah's day were. We are facing exactly the same outcome. (Matthew 24:37-39)
Only "few" Jesus said are on the right road, which leaves the majority on the wrong road. (Matthew 7:13-14) Think about that for a moment.

We get no second chances because Jesus has seen to it that his disciples have preached "the good news of the kingdom" "in all the inhabited earth as a witness for all the nations" before God brings the curtain down on this wicked world. (Matthew 24:14) When "the end" comes, no one will be able to say..."nobody told me".

If we do not know what the Kingdom of God is, there is no way that we can preach it.

Salvation and God doing the miraculous are two entirely different things.

Not really.....salvation is attached to what we believe, so they are inextricably linked. If we do not believe the truth but are deceived by God's adversary, God will not stop that from happening because our choices are ours to make. If the devil has us wrapped up in things that are deceptive, it will be by our own choice.

Your claim that the early church ministry only healed unbelievers is false.

The first century miracles were two fold....to bring people to Christ, and to demonstrate what will come when the Kingdom rules mankind. (Revelation 21:2-4)

Were the Jewish people to whom Jesus preached, "believers"? If you asked them, they would have said "yes".....Jesus did not come to start a new religion...he came to clean up the old one, and to institute a "new covenant". It was the same God, but under a completely new arrangement. Those entrenched in the old arrangement didn't respond to Jesus at all.

We see the same today.

I have seen unbelievers saved as a result of the miraculous in this age.

Paul indicated that the need to see miracles was the trait of a spiritual infant. He said that such would cease and be replaced by the more mature aspects that Jesus taught...."faith, hope and love". (1 Corinthians 13:8-13) This is what makes a true Christian.
If you need to "see miracles" to have faith...then there is no faith to speak of.

Hebrews 11:1...
"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen."
We endure trials because of what is not seen, not because we have had our faith fed emotionally by miracles.
2 Corinthians 4:18....
"while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting."

I have also seen believers touched by God and healed.

Again...that is your belief...not necessarily a reality.

Romans 14 tells us not to judge those with different faith who serve as unto the Lord.

We must judge what it right from wrong, and what is scriptural from what is not scriptural. Romans is about judging in relation to food....it isn't about judging a different faith. For Christians there can be no "different faith". (1 Corinthians 1:10)
With Gentile believers, food was very much a part of their religion, sacrificed to idols.

Remember the circumcision issue? (Acts 15:1-2, 6-11, 19-20) The Jewish Christians were trying to impose circumcision on their Gentile brothers, but the elders in Jerusalem ruled that the old law covenant was not binding on Gentiles nor even in fact on Jewish Christians.

God requires that we follow the teachings of his son.....can you tell me what those teachings are....and who in Christendom follows them?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Church meetings are a good thing when two or more are gathered "in His name".

Gathering with like-minded Christians can have two effects....if one is with the right group, they will prosper spiritually, but like the first century Christians, gain the world's hatred for doing nothing more that practicing what Christ taught them. (John 15:18-21)

If they are gathered with the wrong group, they will feed each other spiritual poison and wonder why God is not answering their prayers or why 'miracles' seemingly happen to other people.
We hear about the "echo chamber" which in practice is what Jesus recommended, so that all would speak in unity, but if the echo is of a foreign voice and not that of Jehovah or his son, then we will be lost in the confusion. Christendom is just globally confused...often with churches identified with the nation that supports them. Christians have no nationality. They are a united brotherhood found in every nation on earth.....all citizens of God's Kingdom. There can be no dual citizenship. (Acts 10:34-35; John 17:16)

As to what is meant by the Bible, I believe that God will open up the eyes, ears and mind of a person hungry and thirsty for the right things so that he may understand what God wants him to understand. This can happen through what men have designated as the worst of the best of translations.

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6

I have to agree with you here because of what Jesus said...."No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him....Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Those whom the Father invites will sense the truth when they hear it because it is God who opens the heart to accept his truth. We cannot come to the son without an invitation from his Father.....soooo that being said, what of all those who believe that they have that invitation, but who are not teaching what Christ taught? (Matthew 7:21-23)

Language changes, or it does not, according to the people who use it. When I first started reading the Bible in 1976, that particular group used only the KJV, and they rarely said the Holy Spirit in spoken conversation or testimony even though it is also in that Bible. They always said, the Holy Ghost. It was not until many years later that I began encountering people who used Holy Spirit instead of Holy Ghost and that was on the Internet. It was hard for me to adjust to that... but I did. I simply accepted what they were doing. I did not see it as a problem for me. I know that sometimes it has been for others, which is why sometimes for their benefit, I say or write, Holy Spirit, instead of Holy Ghost. I want to communicate.

There is no denying that language changes over time, which is why a dinosaur like the KJV needs to be put back on the shelf as the antique that it is, and a more modern version of the scriptures that conveys in clear modern English, the truth that will 'set us free'. Being enslaved to the past has consequences. (1 Corinthians 14:8-9)

 

[Aunty Jane]

Good communication requires that people understand what another person means when he speaks or writes...which includes, of course, the intended or understood meaning of a particular word or words. It should not be a major issue but sometimes to some people it is.

Again I refer to 1 Corinthians 14:8-9....the meanings of original language words is as important as understanding the English itself.
Translations are for that exact purpose. It is why there was a Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was the common language of the day, and the translation needed to be accurate if the Greek speaking Jews were to gain benefit from their own scripture, and identify their Messiah.

If a person really loves the truth [God's Truth, rather than the truths of men] he will get on the right road and stay on it. People too often really love themselves more than God and that does not change... even after they have encountered Him. How well does a person have to know God to love Him? How clearly must the face of God be seen in order to walk toward Him?

If you look through the eyes of Christendom, their collective vision of God is very distorted. Those who really love the truth see Him as the scriptures see him, not as a three headed monster who tortures people in hell. That God is not the one who was worshipped by Jesus.

Do only very intelligent well-educated Bible student come to know God and ultimately and get saved?

God doesn't care about intellect....but he does care when his sheep are being fed with a bad diet. Like the human propensity to prefer sweet things can dominate their food choices leading to ill health physically, so a diet of half baked unscriptural ideas can pollute us spiritually, making us spiritually malnourished.
We make our own food choices and we make our own spiritual choices as well.....sometimes we know that they are not healthy, but we prefer them anyway. God will not prevent that or interfere with our free willed choices.

What if the Land Promised, is the little bit of earth [our physical bodies] over which we have been made stewards by God? At what point in meekness may one actually inherit, becoming an owner?

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." Matt 5:5

"The Promised Land" was a physical estate, a prime piece of real estate that was pictorial of the whole earth under God's Kingdom. As long as Israel obeyed their God, life in that land would be blessed abundantly.
God first intended that the whole earth be transformed into a paradise by its human inhabitants.....it is what he instructed them to do in the first place.....to "fill the earth" with their children and to "subdue" the land outside the garden. We never got there because three rebels took us all off on a detour. That detour will end when God's first purpose is re-established. (Isaiah 55:11; Revelation 21:2-4) This is what the Kingdom of God will accomplish.

In the end, no fence to sit on, no lukewarmness to be spit out of the mouth of God, but on the Way, there is certainly for many [all?] a lot of stumbling and sometimes falling... but hopefully growing. To stand still is to stagnate and die once and for all.

Again I agree, which is why we keep evaluating what we believe and we will update previous beliefs as new light is shed on God's word. (Proverbs 4:18) The "day" is getting closer all the time....

Many individuals remain houses divided...or "double minded". John the Baptist put it this way:

"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30

Not sure of the correlation of the scripture with your statement because John was establishing his role as the one who was sent ahead to "prepare the way" for the Messiah. This is the reason why he had to"decrease" and Jesus had to "increase"....his work was temporary, but Christ's work was permanent.....

 

[Carl Emerson]

OK let's summarise...

You are espousing the doctrine of what is considered a cult.

Why?

Because at the hub of your theology is a misidentification of who Jesus is.

Your "New World Translation" supports this error.

If the hub is faulty, the wheel of knowledge wobbles.

Your claim to be the only ones with "truth" is in serious error.

Your 'inspiration' is coming from a different spirit.

I don't expect my frank assessment will make a fig of difference because with deception comes blindness to the deception.

I have been around a little too long to be sucked into the web.

Have a great day.

 

[Aunty Jane]

OK let's summarise...

You are espousing the doctrine of what is considered a cult.

Considered by whom? Don't forget that Jesus and his apostles could have been accused of the same thing.....
Was Jesus a cult leader? Did he start a new cult within Judaism? Or was Judaism already off the rails and he was endeavoring to rescue the ones who were "lost" because of their negligent shepherds? What do you know about Israel's history....and how it relates to Christendom's history? They are mirror images of one another. History repeats because humans never learn the lessons from the past.

Why?

Because Jesus said that "weeds" would take over the Christian faith and lead to the same fate that befell Judaism. Men would introduce all manner of false teachings adopted from paganism and pass it off as Christianity. The "church" became a disgusting counterfeit in God's eyes....how do we know that? Because of what Jesus says to those ones on judgment day who were so sure that their "Christianity" was proven by their 'powerful works'.
Matthew 7:22-23...
"Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

"Never" means "not ever"....so the "Christianity" that fits Jesus' description there, is the "weeds"....a fake, disgusting counterfeit planted by the devil and practiced by the spiritually blind. Do these ones sound like they knew that their "Lord" would cast them off?

Because at the hub of your theology is a misidentification of who Jesus is.

I believe it is Christendom who has misidentified Jesus. Can you tell me why no Jew would ever have accepted that Jesus was Almighty God incarnate?
Because it would have breached the first commandment, not to put another "god" in the Father's place. Christendom has put two other gods in the Father's place.
The Jewish Shema stated....
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one. דשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהֹוָ֥ה | אֶחָֽד:" (Deuteronomy 6:4 Jewish Tanakh)

"The Lord" is Yahweh (Jehovah) "יְהֹוָ֥ה".....Unlike many of the pagan gods, Israel's God was ONE...not three.
Neither Jesus or any of his apostles ever taught that Jesus was "Almighty God".

Your "New World Translation" supports this error.

Have you ever read the NWT? Please tell me how it supports an error when the Greek backs up our translation as accurate...and yours as misleading.

Let me illustrate.....
John 1:1 is a favorite, right? You know how it reads in your preferred translation, but what does the Greek interlinear reveal?
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."
Do you see that little word "ho"? You see that it means "the" "ho logos" is "the Word" but what about "ho theos"?
The Greeks had no word for the one God of the Jews because they were polytheistic. All of their gods were identified by name but the Jews had stopped uttering God's name, so he was just identified as "The LORD" to them. When it came to speaking about this nameless God, the Greeks compensated by adding the definite article "ho" meaning "THE God". We do the same when we speak of a person who has the same name as a well known celebrity....if we found out that Brad Pitt was attending a function we were invited to, wouldn't we ask ...."Not THE Brad Pitt?"

So read John 1:1 again and see that there are two "gods" mentioned in that verse. The word "theos" is used of any god or goddess or divinities in general....so "theos" is not a word used exclusively for the Father Jehovah, it is used for those with divine authority, or divine ones who act as God's representatives. Both Jehovah and his son qualify under that Greek definition as "gods". But only one is THE God....and it wasn't "the God" who became flesh....it was "the Word".

If you know about redemption, you would see that God himself could not pay the ransom demanded. Added to that is the fact that God is immortal and cannot die.

If the hub is faulty, the wheel of knowledge wobbles.

Your claim to be the only ones with "truth" is in serious error.

What if this description fits you? Your wheels of knowledge seem to be missing.

Your 'inspiration' is coming from a different spirit.

You betcha.....and I thank God every day that I got out of that place where you appear to be so happy.

I don't expect my frank assessment will make a fig of difference because with deception comes blindness to the deception.

Again, I can apply that right back to you. Why do you assume that is me who is blind to deception? The odds are more in my favor than yours if you want to get scriptural about it. I have the advantage of studying the Bible for myself.....not superficially but with original language word studies.

The fact that you refer so seldomly to the Bible to back up your claims, and when you do they are totally out of context, it gives me the impression that you don't know your Bible at all....only what appears to agree with your own theology. So the finger pointing usually means that three fingers are pointing back to you.

The first sign that someone is out of defense, is attack......why can't you just scripturally defend your position?

I have been around a little too long to be sucked into the web.

I think you got sucked in some time ago....perhaps its time to actually study the Bible instead of just reading it and putting your own pre-conceived spin on it?

You are parroting off the party line...but what do you really know about us? My guess is absolutely nothing that you haven't heard from our opposers. Maybe get you facts straight and then provide some scripture to support your assertions. OK?

 

[Carl Emerson]

You are parroting off the party line...but what do you really know about us? My guess is absolutely nothing that you haven't heard from our opposers. Maybe get you facts straight and then provide some scripture to support your assertions. OK?

Wrong again - my family got your literature for years.

The study of cults was part of my university major.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Wrong again - my family got your literature for years.

LOL....so that means what? That your family did not know the truth when they heard it?
The majority of people rejected Jesus too...did it make him wrong?

The study of cults was part of my university major.

LOL again....perhaps the Pharisees would have had the equivalent in their day....didn't do them much good, did it?
They got to execute Jesus but lost out on life. Gehenna was waiting for them....
What is Gehenna? Can you tell me?

 

[JohnPaul]

Considered by whom? Don't forget that Jesus and his apostles could have been accused of the same thing.....
Was Jesus a cult leader? Did he start a new cult within Judaism? Or was Judaism already off the rails and he was endeavoring to rescue the ones who were "lost" because of their negligent shepherds? What do you know about Israel's history....and how it relates to Christendom's history? They are mirror images of one another. History repeats because humans never learn the lessons from the past.


Because Jesus said that "weeds" would take over the Christian faith and lead to the same fate that befell Judaism. Men would introduce all manner of false teachings adopted from paganism and pass it off as Christianity. The "church" became a disgusting counterfeit in God's eyes....how do we know that? Because of what Jesus says to those ones on judgment day who were so sure that their "Christianity" was proven by their 'powerful works'.
Matthew 7:22-23...
"Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

"Never" means "not ever"....so the "Christianity" that fits Jesus' description there, is the "weeds"....a fake, disgusting counterfeit planted by the devil and practiced by the spiritually blind. Do these ones sound like they knew that their "Lord" would cast them off?


I believe it is Christendom who has misidentified Jesus. Can you tell me why no Jew would ever have accepted that Jesus was Almighty God incarnate?
Because it would have breached the first commandment, not to put another "god" in the Father's place. Christendom has put two other gods in the Father's place.
The Jewish Shema stated....
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one. דשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהֹוָ֥ה | אֶחָֽד:" (Deuteronomy 6:4 Jewish Tanakh)

"The Lord" is Yahweh (Jehovah) "יְהֹוָ֥ה".....Unlike many of the pagan gods, Israel's God was ONE...not three.
Neither Jesus or any of his apostles ever taught that Jesus was "Almighty God".


Have you ever read the NWT? Please tell me how it supports an error when the Greek backs up our translation as accurate...and yours as misleading.

Let me illustrate.....
John 1:1 is a favorite, right? You know how it reads in your preferred translation, but what does the Greek interlinear reveal?
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."
Do you see that little word "ho"? You see that it means "the" "ho logos" is "the Word" but what about "ho theos"?
The Greeks had no word for the one God of the Jews because they were polytheistic. All of their gods were identified by name but the Jews had stopped uttering God's name, so he was just identified as "The LORD" to them. When it came to speaking about this nameless God, the Greeks compensated by adding the definite article "ho" meaning "THE God". We do the same when we speak of a person who has the same name as a well known celebrity....if we found out that Brad Pitt was attending a function we were invited to, wouldn't we ask ...."Not THE Brad Pitt?"

So read John 1:1 again and see that there are two "gods" mentioned in that verse. The word "theos" is used of any god or goddess or divinities in general....so "theos" is not a word used exclusively for the Father Jehovah, it is used for those with divine authority, or divine ones who act as God's representatives. Both Jehovah and his son qualify under that Greek definition as "gods". But only one is THE God....and it wasn't "the God" who became flesh....it was "the Word".

If you know about redemption, you would see that God himself could not pay the ransom demanded. Added to that is the fact that God is immortal and cannot die.


What if this description fits you? Your wheels of knowledge seem to be missing.


You betcha.....and I thank God every day that I got out of that place where you appear to be so happy.


Again, I can apply that right back to you. Why do you assume that is me who is blind to deception? The odds are more in my favor than yours if you want to get scriptural about it. I have the advantage of studying the Bible for myself.....not superficially but with original language word studies.

The fact that you refer so seldomly to the Bible to back up your claims, and when you do they are totally out of context, it gives me the impression that you don't know your Bible at all....only what appears to agree with your own theology. So the finger pointing usually means that three fingers are pointing back to you.

The first sign that someone is out of defense, is attack......why can't you just scripturally defend your position?


I think you got sucked in some time ago....perhaps its time to actually study the Bible instead of just reading it and putting your own pre-conceived spin on it?

You are parroting off the party line...but what do you really know about us? My guess is absolutely nothing that you haven't heard from our opposers. Maybe get you facts straight and then provide some scripture to support your assertions. OK?

Amen Aunty Jane! Pay no attention to those that accuse you of being a cult, for they will always say that to others whom they don't agree with.

I know first hand Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult, if they were I would not be sitting down with them and learning the Bible, as no one has ever offered me a seat to do so but the brothers and sisters who are Witnesses, I see absolutely no proof of the Kingdom Hall being a cult, if that's the best insult Carl has to hurl at you then let him be and carry on, that's usually what people do when they have nothing better to offer is to hurl insults.

Jehovah Bless you my dear sister, Amen.

 

[Mantis]

Sounds like you were healed but lost the territory gained.

This suggests you need to be in tight loving fellowship standing alongside others and learn to hold your ground.

I suggest getting into a loving fellowship and don't be afraid to ask for prayer.

G

Sounds like you were healed but lost the territory gained.

This suggests you need to be in tight loving fellowship standing alongside others and learn to hold your ground.

I suggest getting into a loving fellowship and don't be afraid to ask for prayer.

I disagree. So you think I did something to make the pain come back? Jesus let me know that this pain is for a reason. I don’t think he is taking it away anytime soon. And what would I have done to make it come back? Is his grace sufficient?

 

[amadeus]

Gathering with like-minded Christians can have two effects....if one is with the right group, they will prosper spiritually, but like the first century Christians, gain the world's hatred for doing nothing more that practicing what Christ taught them. (John 15:18-21)

If they are gathered with the wrong group, they will feed each other spiritual poison and wonder why God is not answering their prayers or why 'miracles' seemingly happen to other people.
We hear about the "echo chamber" which in practice is what Jesus recommended, so that all would speak in unity, but if the echo is of a foreign voice and not that of Jehovah or his son, then we will be lost in the confusion. Christendom is just globally confused...often with churches identified with the nation that supports them. Christians have no nationality. They are a united brotherhood found in every nation on earth.....all citizens of God's Kingdom. There can be no dual citizenship. (Acts 10:34-35; John 17:16)


I have to agree with you here because of what Jesus said...."No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him....Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Those whom the Father invites will sense the truth when they hear it because it is God who opens the heart to accept his truth. We cannot come to the son without an invitation from his Father.....soooo that being said, what of all those who believe that they have that invitation, but who are not teaching what Christ taught? (Matthew 7:21-23)

I am glad we are able to agree on many things. We do serve a God that is able to accomplish His purpose. We want to be with Him as well as with one another at the end of our road.

There is no denying that language changes over time, which is why a dinosaur like the KJV needs to be put back on the shelf as the antique that it is, and a more modern version of the scriptures that conveys in clear modern English, the truth that will 'set us free'. Being enslaved to the past has consequences. (1 Corinthians 14:8-9)

In my first non-Catholic assembly I was taught that the KJV was the best and so as a new convert it was the only one I read in English during my earlier years.

For me it remains the best because I have used it for so long and the antiquated English fits together so well with both my German and Spanish Bibles. However, I never insist that a person read only from the KJV. If I press on anything when a person asks me, it is that as he reads, he also tries to communicate with God. We are to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I am glad we are able to agree on many things. We do serve a God that is able to accomplish His purpose. We want to be with Him as well as with one another at the end of our road.

We sure do.....just as He wants all to "attain to repentance". (2 Peter 3:9)
He has given us all the tools and the correct advice in his word, but the rest is up to us.
At "the end", we will all be accountable to the same judge, and his judgment will be righteous and in full accord with God's standards.

In my first non-Catholic assembly I was taught that the KJV was the best and so as a new convert it was the only one I read in English during my earlier years.

For me it remains the best because I have used it for so long and the antiquated English fits together so well with both my German and Spanish Bibles. However, I never insist that a person read only from the KJV. If I press on anything when a person asks me, it is that as he reads, he also tries to communicate with God.

I know some remain attached to the KJV for sentimental reasons....the Lord's Prayer in particular makes people uncomfortable if the wording is changed, which it can be because its a translation....."Let your kingdom come, let your will take place, as in heaven also upon earth"....says what the original Greek says in essence. But because people have said this prayer by rote for centuries, they neglect to understand that it was a model prayer....not something to be parroted of on all occasions.
The words before the Lord's Prayer are interesting.....
Jesus said...Matthew 6:7-9...
"When praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words. 8 So do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need even before you ask him.

9 “You must pray, then, this way:"....

We were to model our prayers after this one....understanding what the priorities were. First and foremost was the sanctification of God's name. ("Hallowed be thy name")
Do we hear God's name mentioned in Christendom's churches? Do we see God's will being done by those who will put God's standards in the closet when they are in conflict with their own will? Not all who claim to be Christians, are. (Matthew 7:21-23)

We are to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Those of God's elect are the ones who will take those emblems worthily, having been taken into the new covenant as parties along with their King, Christ Jesus. These receive what the apostle Paul refers to as "the heavenly calling". It is a token in advance of their heavenly resurrection as "kings and priests". (Revelation 20:6) Those of us who are not of the elect, will be beneficiaries of that arrangement, who will prosper under their rulership, bringing all redeemed mankind back into reconciliation with God.

Revelation 21:2-4 will then have its fulfillment when the heavenly Kingdom brings its rulership to this earth.....the best government that humans have ever had.

"I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

That is definitely something to look forward to....

 

[Carl Emerson]

G

I disagree. So you think I did something to make the pain come back? Jesus let me know that this pain is for a reason. I don’t think he is taking it away anytime soon. And what would I have done to make it come back? Is his grace sufficient?

In some cases a demonic entity is driving the condition as with Paul.

It is not what you did but what you didn't do that may be the issue.

So unless you have a Word from Him as Paul did that the condition should remain, you need to get more prayer, stand against it with others, and hold your ground.

 

[Mantis]

In some cases a demonic entity is driving the condition as with Paul.

It is not what you did but what you didn't do that may be the issue.

So unless you have a Word from Him as Paul did that the condition should remain, you need to get more prayer, stand against it with others, and hold your ground.

Ok I see. Well my whole Christian experience has been around this pain. I did get a word from Jesus about this pain twenty plus years ago. I don’t think it is going anywhere soon. I think God just gave me a break.

 

[Marymog]

I had Communion in the Lutheran Church, and was even an acolyte and assistant to the pastor, who administered the bread and wine. Luther broke from the Catholic Church, and so had a view of the Eucharist very similar to how Catholics viewed it.

The breaking point between Protestants and Catholics, in terms of the Eucharist, is in how Jesus meant to indicate the bread and wine was his body and blood. To say the bread is his body could be a metaphorical statement, and is what most Protestants believe. Luther may have stuck with the idea of the "real presence" in the symbols. Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation. You really have to decide for yourself how you're going to say it and how you're going to mean it.

Usually the derogatory claim that Catholics mythologize the Eucharist comes with the claim that bread and wine are not physically transformed into Christ's literal flesh and blood, which obviously nobody means! Catholics simply mean that there is a *mystical* transformation of the physical elements to spiritual food, which would be like Jesus saying "my blood is drink indeed." John 6.55

Personally, I think Jesus was just calling his disciples to literally partake of his spiritual life, his body and blood being metaphors representing the truths contained in the gift of his Spirit. But however imperfect or perfect the language may be, I think we all mean the same basic thing, that we must spiritually partake of Christ.

I do believe there is a problem not just with Catholics but with any Christian group when they claim that eating Christ's body and drinking his blood in Communion somehow gives them Eternal Life. It is faith in Christ's word that saves, and is a spiritual thing.

Physical acts of religion, repetitive exercises, perfunctory ceremonies, etc. do not save unless they are con-joined with an exercise of faith in God's word. And that word must be spoken by God to our heart in order for any religious ritual to be effective and real.

Hello Randy,

What a very thoughtful and articulate post. What you said is true. It is a mystical transformation. Truley a miracle.

What I have gathered from you is that you do participate in communion; bread/wine. So I have 2 questions for you. Actually, The Apostle Paul has 2 questions for you: Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

I look forward to your answer....Mary

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hello Randy,

What a very thoughtful and articulate post. What you said is true. It is a mystical transformation. Truley a miracle.

What I have gathered from you is that you do participate in communion; bread/wine. So I have 2 questions for you. Actually, The Apostle Paul has 2 questions for you: Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

I look forward to your answer....Mary

I see the act of participating in Communion as one form of partaking of Christ. I actually believe we partake of Christ all the time, because we are to be "led by the Spirit." To do this, we have to make use of His presence and power.

The Communion is a liturgical form of partaking of Christ, which is *just as real* as our choice to daily partake of his Spirit. It is a specific moment, through ritual, in which we signify, publicly, that we are making this decision.

It is similar to the ritual of Baptism, in which a person utilizes a specific ritual to signify what he or she has already chosen to do, namely to embrace Christ as our life. But it is a public display that that's what we're doing. And we don't stop embracing Christ after the Baptism. Baptism is therefore a signal event showing what we do from that time forward.

Communion is just doing the same thing, showing to all and to ourselves that we partake of Christ every day and forever. In my opinion, if we're to be completely frank, is there is no physical "transformation," although I'm not bothered by Catholic terminology.

What they mean is that what is ordinary bread becomes something substantially significant in a spiritual sense. If we want to call that "transformation," it's okay with me.

The ritual itself, in dedicating the wine and bread, transforms them from something common to something sacred. In partaking of this otherwise common substance, ie the bread and the wine, we are transforming it by our dedication so that indeed we are participating in Christ, spiritually.

It is therefore the dedication of our hearts that transforms the elements, and not some kind of physical transformation. It doesn't make sense to me to say something physical is being transformed into something spiritual?

So I would just say we dedicate the elements, and in accepting our dedication, God enables us to, once again, partake of Him, just as we always do. It is a memorial participation in Christ, along with a spiritual participation. And that's what makes the ritual so important--the remembrance and the public display.

 

[lforrest]

Many cults are started by false prophets speaking unilaterally from a lying spirit. By two or three witnesses a matter is established. For example if an Angel visits a prophet, and there is no verification of what he says in the word, or his prophecies fail. You should ignore that Angel.

So I wonder what two or three witnesses are there for the unique and controversial doctrines of the watchtower.

 

[Marymog]

I see the act of participating in Communion as one form of partaking of Christ. I actually believe we partake of Christ all the time, because we are to be "led by the Spirit." To do this, we have to make use of His presence and power.

The Communion is a liturgical form of partaking of Christ, which is *just as real* as our choice to daily partake of his Spirit. It is a specific moment, through ritual, in which we signify, publicly, that we are making this decision.

It is similar to the ritual of Baptism, in which a person utilizes a specific ritual to signify what he or she has already chosen to do, namely to embrace Christ as our life. But it is a public display that that's what we're doing. And we don't stop embracing Christ after the Baptism. Baptism is therefore a signal event showing what we do from that time forward.

Communion is just doing the same thing, showing to all and to ourselves that we partake of Christ every day and forever. In my opinion, if we're to be completely frank, is there is no physical "transformation," although I'm not bothered by Catholic terminology.

What they mean is that what is ordinary bread becomes something substantially significant in a spiritual sense. If we want to call that "transformation," it's okay with me.

The ritual itself, in dedicating the wine and bread, transforms them from something common to something sacred. In partaking of this otherwise common substance, ie the bread and the wine, we are transforming it by our dedication so that indeed we are participating in Christ, spiritually.

It is therefore the dedication of our hearts that transforms the elements, and not some kind of physical transformation. It doesn't make sense to me to say something physical is being transformed into something spiritual?

So I would just say we dedicate the elements, and in accepting our dedication, God enables us to, once again, partake of Him, just as we always do. It is a memorial participation in Christ, along with a spiritual participation. And that's what makes the ritual so important--the remembrance and the public display.

Wow Randy....Such a long answer. I read it 3 times and still can't find the answer to Paul's question. Is it in there and I missed it?

I guess I can ask the same question in a different way:

When you were an acolyte and assistant to the pastor at the Lutheran church and when you administered the bread and wine did you believe that the cup of wine that you were taking and giving to other parishioners was a participation in the blood of Christ? When you gave them and partook of the bread did you think that you and they were participating in the body of Christ?

Also, one can be baptized out of public view with only you and the baptizer present. So baptism does NOT have to be a "public display" to make it valid or to show other people that we have 'embraced Christ'. If you were alive in the NT times and one of the Apostles said to you, "Randy, now that you have chosen to embrace Christ as your life you need to rise and be baptized to wash away your sins." Would you disagree with him and tell that Apostle he made a mistake and that baptism doesn't wash away sins. Baptism is only a public act for everyone else to see that we have embraced Christ as our life?

Mary

 

[Carl Emerson]

Ok I see. Well my whole Christian experience has been around this pain. I did get a word from Jesus about this pain twenty plus years ago. I don’t think it is going anywhere soon. I think God just gave me a break.

What was the Word you got?