Physcial Healing or Spiritual Healing?

[tom55]

the Book will tell you that you are not promised a tomorrow, and this should be considered in the light of our popular "kingdom, tomorrow" myths, possibly. There is a valid sense in which tomorrow never comes, yet we are often led to dwell or "live" in "tomorrow," or yesterday, by not being in the moment. Understand I AM is likely another way to phrase this, wherein your "future salvation" is rendered irrelevant in the face of the many issues that you might remedy in your domain, right now. Speaking generally, of course.

Now naturally, these will be discounted, and make little sense, to someone who has been programmed to live for a Christ that has been pointed out to them as coming back in some undetermined tomorrow; the two models are mutually exclusive. If you are the Body of Christ, then by definition Jesus is not bodily coming back to save you from your snakebit condition, oh worshippers of Nehushtan. Or apply the lesson of Nehushtan as you see fit, by all means, ok, you do not have to believe like i do. Seek your own salvation.

Where does the Book tell me I am not promised a tomorrow?

The rest of your post is gibberish so I don't know how to respond.

 

[epostle1]

i agree, but you might now address what a believer should do when that is not effective, to address the OP.

I will, but first the basics.

The anointing of the sick is administered to bring spiritual and even physical strength during an illness, especially near the time of death. It is most likely one of the last sacraments one will receive. A sacrament is an outward sign established by Jesus Christ to confer inward grace. In more basic terms, it is a rite that is performed to convey God’s grace to the recipient, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Like all the sacraments, holy anointing was instituted by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. The Catechism explains, "This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord" (CCC 1511; Mark 6:13; Jas. 5:14-15). read more here

 

[tom55]

the Book will tell you that you are not promised a tomorrow, and this should be considered in the light of our popular "kingdom, tomorrow" myths, possibly. There is a valid sense in which tomorrow never comes, yet we are often led to dwell or "live" in "tomorrow," or yesterday, by not being in the moment. Understand I AM is likely another way to phrase this, wherein your "future salvation" is rendered irrelevant in the face of the many issues that you might remedy in your domain, right now. Speaking generally, of course.

Now naturally, these will be discounted, and make little sense, to someone who has been programmed to live for a Christ that has been pointed out to them as coming back in some undetermined tomorrow; the two models are mutually exclusive. If you are the Body of Christ, then by definition Jesus is not bodily coming back to save you from your snakebit condition, oh worshippers of Nehushtan. Or apply the lesson of Nehushtan as you see fit, by all means, ok, you do not have to believe like i do. Seek your own salvation.

?????????

Please help.....I don't understand what he just said.

 

[bbyrd009]

Where does the Book tell me I am not promised a tomorrow?

The rest of your post is gibberish so I don't know how to respond.

1Don’t boast about tomorrow,
for you don’t know what a day might bring.

13Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will travel to such and such a city and spend a year there and do business and make a profit."
14You don't even know what tomorrow will bring--what your life will be! For you are like smoke that appears for a little while, then vanishes.

and as to the rest, if that is gibberish to you, then leave it there for someone else. If or when the lesson of Nehushtan becomes pertinent for you, it might make sense then. You either recognize the many various ways in which we are pulled out of the present moment into the past or the future by religious or repetitive, rote worship systems, or this issue has not come up for you yet, or maybe even does not apply to you--although it is generally an epidemic. Books are written on the subject.

You have some concept of Understand I AM--even if Nehushtan is likely unfamiliar to you--and my position right now is that that will no longer be "gibberish" if or when you have a fuller understanding of "Understand I AM," but i don't know where you are at with that so i can only speak generally. Specifically, your judgement of "gibberish" really tells me enough; that that is just not for you right now.

 

[epostle1]

i agree, but you might now address what a believer should do when that is not effective, to address the OP.

Then a believer should accept the cross that befalls them. Getting healed of something is not a badge of holiness, and not getting healed does not make a second class Christian. Gal. 4:13-14; 2 Tim. 4:20 - Paul was afflicted with sickness. These verses show that not all illnesses were cured in the apostolic age.

Matt. 10:38 - Jesus said, "he who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Jesus defines discipleship as one's willingness to suffer with Him. Being a disciple of Jesus not only means having faith in Him, but offering our sufferings to the Father as He did.

Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34 - Jesus said, "if any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Jesus wants us to empty ourselves so that God can fill us. When we suffer, we can choose to seek consolation in God and become closer to Jesus.

Phil. 1:29 - for the sake of Christ we are not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for His sake. Growing in holiness requires more than having faith in God and accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. We must also willfully embrace the suffering that befalls us as part of God's plan. Thus, Christ does not want our faith alone, but our faith in action which includes faith in suffering.

Col. 1:24 - Paul rejoices in his sufferings and completes what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body. This proves the Catholic position regarding the efficacy of suffering. Is there something lacking in Christ's sufferings? Of course not. But because Jesus loves us so much, He allows us to participate in His redemptive suffering by leaving room in His mystical body for our own suffering. Our suffering, united with our Lord's suffering, furthers the work of His redemption.

Mental illness is a huge cross that is stigmatized and always overlooked as redemptive.

 

[bbyrd009]

i don't know, but i suspect that most mental illness is self-inflicted too, or a better perspective might be that it is manifested by people, even if it is in agency with other people, a reaction to them or whatever. Dunno.

?????????

Please help.....I don't understand what he just said.

people, lost sheep, are easily led by others (who seem to know what they are doing, and radiate charisma) into rote, ceremonial worship systems, that generally dwell on tomorrow or yesterday, and center on sacraments, rituals, vestments, offices, and exclusive ceremonies, and other voodoo witchery, complete with prognostications, divination, and various eschatologies, with a strict code of works required to be considered one of the "accepted," which has nothing whatsoever to do with "wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name."

we seek an In Crowd, a Winning Team, a group of peers to be commended by, and to commend, little realizing that we are now 7 times worse off than before, because now we are validated by other people who seem wise to us, in our beliefs, the things we are convinced that we now know, because after all how can a billion other people be wrong, especially if they are talking about Jesus 24/7?

And sure, the focus is Sin and Death, but that is kind of occluded, isn't it, because after all the assumption is "New Life" (someday; maybe; if you agree with us), so the reason we focus on sin and death 24/7 is because other people have that problem, and they need us to save them--"us," who have found Jesus and can even point to Him confidently, in the past or in the future, always one or the other

little knowing that when you accepted this "winning team" that you are now on, the main purpose was to incorporate and identify a "losing team" to your belief system, that you might be encouraged to make a judgment therein, and thus lose your soul. That is the wide path, the boulevard, that religion, "man's attempts to seek God," offers us. See, you have no concept of Christ as Nehushtan--much less a testimony about leaving everything you know, no extra shirt or shoes, to follow Christ's direct instruction--and so since it is not familiar to you, and you never heard a sermon on it, it must not be important, and prolly it is gibberish.

but for now, anyone might notice how much of their mind is preoccupied with yesterday or tomorrow, things they did yesterday or might do tomorrow, and the other mechanisms and devices we have for pulling us out of the present moment in all manner of different ways; iPhones, TVs before them, etc. It is no different.

 

[bbyrd009]

don't get me wrong, there is no shame in not understanding per se, imo; just recognize that you also may not understand why no one you know is dying in their sleep, full of years much, anymore, or why your kids are sterile, or have autistic tendencies, or are being born with cancer now. Or exhibit the sympoms of atrazine poisoning, or ingesting unfermented soy all day long, which, gee, is all legal, just like fluoride in your water, so the point is maybe--although i am still speaking generally here, as i don't know about anyone's specifics--but the point is that maybe you aren't seeking understanding, so much as validation of what you already think you know, like all people do. Any new information is naturally treated with skepticism, which is why we seek people with commendations to impart information to us; we ask the "experts," right?

17The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

 

[bbyrd009]

perhaps what i am having a hard time getting across is the extent to which if you are not playing, you are doing it wrong. Play is expressed twice as often as redemption in Scripture, and the image of God as Creative Force is a far more powerful one than a model based upon Original Sin:

...We are going to assume for brevity's sake that you would be comfortable with "Word of God" (Hebrew Dabhar) being translated "Creative Energy of God", even if you are a Western Christian; God's word "does not return to (Him) void," meaning that when God says it, it is going to happen; His word (and yours!) is literally "creative energy." Let's take a look at John 1 through this much more meaningful lens:

"In the beginning was the Creative Energy:
The Creative Energy was with God
and the Creative Energy was God.
It was with God in the beginning.
Through it all things came to be,
not one thing had its being but through it.
All that came to be had life in it
and that life was the light of persons,
a light that shines in the dark,
a light that darkness could not overpower...
The Creative Energy was the true light
that enlightens all people;
and it was coming into the world.
It was in the world
that had its being through it,
and the world did not know it...
But to all who did accept it
it gave power to become children of God...
The Creative Energy was made flesh,
it pitched its tent among us,
and we saw its glory,
the glory that is its as the only Child of the Creator,
full of grace and full of truth."
John 1:1-5,9,10,12,14

Kinda takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
When you can accept this as a Christian Manifesto, where is fall/redemption in this model? "And the world did not know it," that one line, about 3/4 of the way through, and the next, "but to all who did accept it..." https://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-the-Fallacy-of-Death-Centric-Western-Christian-Models which is just a ripoff of Matt Fox "Original Blessing" btw

um, so, the point might be to lose the judgement model entirely, and instead proceed from the premise of play.

this is also clearly expressed in discourses on the concept of "nonsense and sense" in Scripture, wherein we are informed that we are not a good judge of the concept, from our own points of view. Objectifying or vilifying something new, just because it doesn't talk like you or fit your current understanding, becomes the personification of "the veil," which i have a great moose video for if you haven't seen it. But if you can't find God in a guy because he has a turban on his head, then it won't matter.

 

[bbyrd009]

"First, the theory:
I see a rabbit, You see a duck.
Thomas Kuhn described the nature of scientific revolutions back in 1962 (his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
A contrarian back in the time, as he re-defined progress by moving from development-by-accumulation (on pre-established assumptions) into paradigm shifts, or revolutions in scientific progress by looking into anomalies inferring a drastic change of assumptions.
In other words, Kuhn advocated for a change of rules over the pre-existing framework as the ultimate scientific progression method.
The Copernican revolution, Newton’s reformulation of gravity, Einstein’s relativity or Darwin’s evolution all were ‘anomalies’ as theories..."


The ethos of the scientific progress theory rests on identifying the right anomalies which support new paradigms. Anomalies come up as revolutions in disguise and, utterly (and I love this), expand on the previous paradigm which ends up nested within remaining perfectly valid.
A
nomalies create rejection by opposition (it’s a Duck!, no is not, it’s a Rabbit), but after the new paradigm takes over (…I can see the Duck now ?!?) both paradigms co-exist (it’s a duck AND a rabbit!, illustration above)https://medium.com/no-i-wont-fix-your-computer/two-duck-rabbit-paradigm-shift-anomalies-in-physics-and-one-maybe-in-machine-learning-86e6e1fbdcd7#.ph9k456on
and nevermind that they got some other stuff wrong, prolly