What do you think the word "perfect" means in 1Cor. 13:10?

DHK,

Maybe you should define a miracle. A lot of Pentecostals will lay hands on a sick person and command the sickness to go, or the person to be healed, etc. in the name of Jesus. Just like prayer, this works sometimes. You said people still get healed in answer to prayer. Commanding sickness to go/healing to come in Jesus name is not 'prayer' per se, but it has a basis in scripture. Some of these healings are done by the laying on of hands. How can you not call these things manifestations of the gift of healing or miracles?

There were seasons in Acts where all in a crowd were healed, but apparently this didn't happen all the time. Some old-timers talk about meeting in the late 30's or in the 40's when all were healed. I wasn't alive to witness it. Some of these things come in seasons.

If one person gets healed through the gift of healing, when someone lays hands on him or her and pronounces healing in Jesus' name, then this is evidence that the gift of healing is still around. It doesn't matter if you have never seen a hospital cleaned out.

The comments about no reports coming back from the area being hit by the tsunami in Indonesia are naive. This area is like the Saudi Arabia of Indonesia. People doing missions work there tend to be rather secretive about it, especially if they are long-term expat missionaries here. Locals tend to be a little bit less secretive, but still would be secretive if working in that area. And reports of things going on in the church here take a while to get out of the country if they leave at all. How long did it take for the reports of the jihad against the Christians in the Malukas, as big as that was, to start circulating in the US? Maybe a year or two after it was common knowledge among Christians in Jakarta.

 

Link, lets face it. With all the coverage and news people in the areas hit by the Tsunami there would be coverage if a man was walking about healing great numbers of people at a time. Picture Jesus walking amoung the wounded and healing person after person. Picture Peter or Paul with other Christians in a group going from tent to tent healing. No, this would get coverage. What the Christians are doing over there is ministering to needs, by giving food, water, and medicine and then sharing the love the gospel. The gospel lived out and then preached, just how it should be done. Praise those Christians for being there and doing God's work.

Link, I think you and M4H must see the difference between the early church and now when it comes to these gifts. People get healed today because God decides when and where. If by prayer, great, if in a revial when a preacher commands a disease to go, fine and if by doctors and medicine, thats great as well. Not the Gift of healing because that would be at the persons commands as ALL THE OTHER GIFTS ARE. A gift is not a gift if it is not controlled by the person who got it. I explained that concept before and you jumped right over it. Please deal with that and we can go on from there. What I am asking is you deal with the concept of what a "gift" is. Remember in this way, Salvation is a "gift". Is Salvation fully given from God? I'll let you ponder that for a while.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Link, you mentioned that Pauls "thorn" may not be physical. For one thing it was called a "thorn in the flesh". Flesh points toward physical but read what Paul wrote below. This has always convinced me that it was Pauls eyes that were the problem.

Galations 4: [13] Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
[14] And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
[15] Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
Paul seems to have had a physical infimity that would have made the Galatians pluck their eyes out and give them to him. My argument is a logical conclusion. Also, we see in a few places Paul signed his name or a greeting and says he did it large. Maybe a language thing but even more likely sight as language barriers don't usually have anything to do with the size things are written. Anyway, Paul could have healed himself and chose not to pervert the gift by self edification.

More later,
In Christ,
Brian

 

16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

Link says: 1 person = a multitude

Please get your dictionary out and learn what a multitude means.
It does matter if a hospital is cleaned out. Take notice that they didn't have hospitals in those days pleeeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!!
A multitude out of the cities round about Jerusalem came to be healed. Who was healed? Everyone of them.
It doesn't happen today. Why? The gifts have ceased. Only the blind and the biased will not accept this so evident truth. Show me the person who heals everyone that comes to them. Where is the evidence.
You are grasping at straws, rather lamely so, to say that one person is equal to a crowd. Stick with the facts of the Bible. Does anything on the scale of what happened in the Bible happen today: yes or no? A simple answer will do.
It doesn't happen. And you know it doesn't happen, but just won't admit it.
DHK

 

DUH! The street was the hospital, and in some third world countries still is. They didn't have hospitals back then. You are living in the wrong historical era.

Jesus healed all that came to "his hospital." He didn't refuse anyone. Where do you get the idea that he did?

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Matthew 8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

Matthew 12:15 But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;

Are ye also without understanding?
For the umpteenth time, I never denied that God heals. Yes God still heals, but not like in the verses quoted above. Show me when and where anyone alive today heals all that come to him. If they have the gift then they or he can go to the hospital where the sick are gathered and their loved ones don't have to drag them over land and sea to get to the famous faith healer. Our society has changed. We have faster and more convenient modes of travel. Think a little before you post.

--------------------------------------------------
Acts 28:8-9 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 in the island, came, and were healed:
--------------------------------------------------

And the house became the hospital didn't it. Actually Paul was going to transfer Publius to the largest hospital in New York city but the plane was delayed on account of a tsunami.

You still don't get it do you. I too have seen people healed. I don't deny that God heals. I don't deny the miraculous or the supernatural. I am not a liberal. I believe the Bible, and in the existence of a God who is capable of and does answer prayer. But the gift of healing has obviously, very obviously, ceased. None of you can point to multitudes being healed today as they were in the days of Jesus or the Apostles. Great multitudes (too great to name all the names) do not get healed. The gift of healing has ceased.
DHK

 

John 5-7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked:

In the scripture above, Jesus only healed the ONE man. It doesn't say anywhere that He healed anyone else at that particular time.

Peace,

Tam

 

1 Cor. 12:9) To another faith by the same Spirit; to another *the GIFT(s)* of healing.

I'd like to know where anyone gets the idea that the Apostles or anyone ever carried "The gift of healing," around in their pocket? It just isn't so! *Gift of healing* is a man made term.

1 Cor. 12:9 says, "gifts of healing!" There is no such thing as someone owning such a gift to use at their will!

Look below and see what the word 'gifts' in 1 Cor. 12:9 means in the Greek!..Strong's:


5486. carisma charisma, khar'-is-mah
Search for 5486 in KJV


from 5483; a (divine) gratuity, i.e. deliverance (from danger or passion); (specially), a (spiritual) endowment, i.e. (subjectively) religious qualification, or (objectively) miraculous faculty:--(free) gift.


See Greek 5483 (charizomai)

It means an answer to prayer!

MEE

 

To Briguy and DHK

Briguy,

**If by prayer, great, if in a revial when a preacher commands a disease to go, fine and if by doctors and medicine, thats great as well. Not the Gift of healing because that would be at the persons commands as ALL THE OTHER GIFTS ARE. A gift is not a gift if it is not controlled by the person who got it. I explained that concept before and you jumped right over it. Please deal with that and we can go on from there.***

I have addressed this idea before, the idea that all gifts of the first century Christians occurred purely by the will of the person with the gift. I showed where it contradicts scripture. Please see my previous posts for two details. Your theory falls short for two reasons.

1. Scripture does not teach it.
2. It contradicts scripture.

Scripture shows that the Lord poured out miracles in Jerusalem _after_ the apostles and the brethren prayed for them to occur. It tells us that God did many miracles by the hands of Paul in a certain city, pointing out God's sovereign will. Notice that Peter prayed before raising Dorcas. He did not just do it automatically according to His own will.

Also, it is illogical to think a prophet could prophecy, rightly, if God did not give Him a message. Could a prophet make God say whatever He wanted God to say, so that He could communicate the message? that doesn't make sense. One with the gift of the word of knowledge recieves whatever word of knowledge the Lord wants to give. That does not mean that he necessarily understands 'all mysteries and all knowledge' does it?

I will cite a scripture that deals with the issue more specifically.


According to Hebrews 2, signs and wonders in the first century also occurred according to God's will. So what has changed?

Hebrews 2
3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4. God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

'Them that heard Him' certainly includes the apostles. The Bible teaches that even their miracles were done according to the will of the Holy Ghost.

All of this is argument based on experience. If scripture does not teach that miracles have ceased, then you should not occur that they definitely will not occur today, simply because you have not seen them.


_________________________
To DHK

DHK wrote,

****Link says: 1 person = a multitude

Please get your dictionary out and learn what a multitude means.
It does matter if a hospital is cleaned out. Take notice that they didn't have hospitals in those days pleeeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!!
A multitude out of the cities round about Jerusalem came to be healed. Who was healed? Everyone of them.
It doesn't happen today. Why? The gifts have ceased. Only the blind and the biased will not accept this so evident truth. Show me the person who heals everyone that comes to them. Where is the evidence.
You are grasping at straws, rather lamely so, to say that one person is equal to a crowd. Stick with the facts of the Bible. Does anything on the scale of what happened in the Bible happen today: yes or no? A simple answer will do.
It doesn't happen. And you know it doesn't happen, but just won't admit it.****


It sounds like you are raving now. I did not say a crowd equals a multitude. Why don't you answer the points I make, rather than inventing points I did not make. I asked you to define 'miracle.' Is it only miracles or healing if a multitude is healed? No, of course not. If multitudes are healed miraculously that is miracles, plural. If one person gets healed through a miracle, it is still a miracle.

Besides, you were the one who brought up hospitals, not me. I made the point that a minister of the Gospel going to a hospital is different from the sick seeking Jesus out with faith. If a minister of the Gospel goes to a hospital, there is no reason to think that the sick people necessarily had faith. When the sick came to Jesus, at least many of them must have had some faith in Him to come seek Him. When the sick came to be touched by Peter and John's shadows, they, or those who brought them, must have had some faith or at least exceptation that they would be healed. Also, I pointed out that on an occasion when Jesus went to a place where sick people were gathered, but not to see Him, that He healed one person out of the multitude. (Jesus healed the blind man at the Pool of Siloam.)

The attitude of sick who sought out Christ is likely to be different from that of the Acehnese who have been rejecting the Gospel and driving out those who profess Christianity, who have also instituted Islamic law. I pray that the Lord has changed their hearts through this tsunami. Many saints have been praying that Aceh would open up and it certainly has.

Btw, I am not grasping at straws. I am answering certain of your arguments which are made of straw. Btw, you haven't shown any scripture to indicate that healing will not cease. Even if no Charismatic or Pentecostal had ever done a miracle, that would not prove doctrinally that miracles could not be done today.

 

Briguy,

On the thorn in the flesh.

The passage you quoted in Galatians is not the 'thorn in the flesh' passage. I agree that that is talking about a sickness, apparently related to Paul's eyes. But that is not the passage in question.

Here is the passage in question.

II Corinthians 12
7. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9. 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.
10. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.


The context here is Paul's persecutions and other sufferings, not sickness. In chapter 10, Paul talks about false apostles who are messengers of Satan. Here is speaks of a 'messenger' (or angel) of Satan sent to buffet him. Maybe the thorn in the flesh was a demon that stirred up persecution and other trouble for him. (The persecution certainly harmed his flesh quite literally.) Maybe it was a human false apostle like the ones mentioned in chapter 10 who stirred up crowds.

 

Hi Link, this Paul thing is just a side topic anyway. I still believe that the thorn was physical because he called it "in the flesh". Even in verse 10 that you just quoted the first thing mentioned was infirmities. Also, just a side note. He does not say that he tried to heal himeself just that he besought the Lord three times to get rid of the thorn. Kind of like a son asking his dad to beat up a bully and a dad saying that the son would have to handle this one on his own. Paul does not ever imply that he commanded the thorn to leave him. I guess in some ways if the thorn was not physical it actually helps makes my case for the gift of healing being at Paul's will. Maybe I should have just agreed with you to help myself (ha ha).

In Christ,
Brian

 

Link, slow down for just a second. God has and will always perfom signs and wonders as he chooses. The gift of Miracles was referring to the ability to raise the dead. That was primarily what was meant by that gift. Healing as a gift was the healing of infirmities of all kinds but not raising the dead. The gift of Prophecy was and is a a gift allowing a person a special ability to encourage and lift up other believers, by what they say. It is a speaking gift. The word prophecy, in Greek means "to speak before". It is not in referance to time but before an audience or before others. In other words the word in Greek means "to speak in front of". Certainly at the birth of "the Church" a person with this gift may have been given a new revelation by God to speak, not a future predictor, but something God wanted to communicate. Mostly however a person in the early church used the gift to build up his brothers and sisters, the way it is used now, in our time. Once the Bible was complete there were no new revelations as all needed communication had been revealed. If you know a person who can speak in front of a few or many people and really be very encouaging and uplifting that would be the gift of Prophecy in this dispensation.

When Paul healed or raised the dead it gave the Gospel, which most of his audiences, had never heard before, the very power and authority of God himself. There was no NT to hold up and read from and claim as authority. The authoerity needed to come in a different way and boy did it, healing people by the hundreds and raising the dead!!! now that is power and authority and is the reason the "church" took off the way it did. Can I have an "AMEN"?!! (oops - got carried away, ha ha)

In Christ,
Brian

 

Here are some definitions of gibberish which I found on dictionary.com

gib·ber·ish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jbr-sh)
n.
1. Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.

2. Highly technical or esoteric language.
Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

I think that def #2 applies to most of the gibberish we are hearing here on this subject.

Unnecessarily pretentious, is something that there is a lot of when trying to twist the scripture to say that speaking in tongues is gibberish.

Highly technical is another thing people use to try to discredit us. Scripture is posted and twisted and ommitted, etc.

Then when we who already KNOW the truth of the matter tell you it doesn't make sense, you say we are unlearned misled heritics!!

You are the ones who are speaking gibberish!!

What you say about tongues, the perfect, and healing,is all classified as gibberish.

By the way Briguy, when are you going to learn that the HEALING COMES FROM GOD not from the people who have the gift. God does not operate the same way as us mortal human beings do.

A person who has the gift of healing, cannot conjure up the healing power as if it were a genie in a bottle!!


Paul would have healed himself if God had said yes!! What was he supposed to do, just pull out the gift and heal himself anyway and go against God.

___________________________________________

Briguy said:

The authoerity needed to come in a different way and boy did it, healing people by the hundreds and raising the dead!!! now that is power and authority and is the reason the "church" took off the way it did.

Tam says:

And then some people started to declare that these gifts had gone away (after the bible was put together) and then they DID cease (for them),because if you don't believe that the gifts exist,you won't see them operate!!

Peace,

Tam

 

Briguy wrote,
**he gift of Miracles was referring to the ability to raise the dead. That was primarily what was meant by that gift. Healing as a gift was the healing of infirmities of all kinds but not raising the dead. ****


What do you base this idea on? I do not see any evidence that the word 'miracle' was used only of resurrection in the Bible. In fact, the word here is a form of 'dunamis', a word for power. Jesus used a similar form of a word to refer to the 'miracle' of casting out demons. There is another word for 'miracle' which means 'sign.' This words is more commonly used in the Bible. Both words for miracle are used in reference to Philip casting out demons, healing palsies, and the lame.

I would agree that resurrection is a type of miracle, and probably could be described by either Greek word. But the word for 'miracles' in I Corinthians 12 is clearly not limited to only resurrection.

Briguy wrote
****
The gift of Prophecy was and is a a gift allowing a person a special ability to encourage and lift up other believers, by what they say. It is a speaking gift. The word prophecy, in Greek means "to speak before". It is not in referance to time but before an audience or before others. In other words the word in Greek means "to speak in front of". Certainly at the birth of "the Church" a person with this gift may have been given a new revelation by God to speak, not a future predictor, but something God wanted to communicate. Mostly however a person in the early church used the gift to build up his brothers and sisters, the way it is used now, in our time. Once the Bible was complete there were no new revelations as all needed communication had been revealed. If you know a person who can speak in front of a few or many people and really be very encouaging and uplifting that would be the gift of Prophecy in this dispensation.
***********


Paul lists exhortation and prophecy as separate gifts in Romans 12. He lists teaching and prophecy as separate gifts in Romans 12 as well, and indicates that there is a distinction between prophets and teachers in I Corinthians 12.

The Greek word for 'prophecy' is used consistently to translate the Hebrew word for 'prophecy' which had to do with revelation. 'Prophecy' in the New Testament refers to the same thing as prophecy in the Old Testament, more or less. (Greek usually specifies if the prohpet or prophecy were false, using 'psuedo' in front of the word, whereas Hebrew does not.)

What was prophecy in the Old Testament? Peter shows us how the gift of prophecy operated, speaking of how prophecy operated in the Old Testament time:

II Peter 1:21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


This is a good description of prophesying-- speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost. Typically, an Old Testament prophet would say something like 'Thus saith the Lord' (i.e. 'The Lord says') before his prophecies. We can see that prophecies in New Testament times were of a similar nature. Agabus said, "Thus said the Holy Ghost" before giving a prophecy. Prophets spoke for God.

I have read that the Greek for prophecy can also mean one who speaks for another. I do not know Greek, so I am not sure of this. What I do know is that we should not redefine the word 'prophecy' to fit whatever we are doing in our own churches. We need to know what it means in the context of scripture.

Btw, sometimes prophecy is standing up and giving words of encouragement under the leading of the Spirit. It can be prediction, the secrets of men's hearts, scripture, or whatever the Lord wants to say. Revelation is very much a part of the operation of the gift of prophecy.

From I Corinthians 14:
29. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.


Btw, on the thorn, since persecution effected Paul's flesh (getting beaten for example) I see it as fitting the description 'thorn in the flesh.' I do not see how my argument about the thorn supports your argument on healing, btw. Care to elaborate?

Btw, what is 'Briguy' short for?

 

You are just repeating your same old rant again. God heals one person is a miracle which is the same as God healing many. Wrong. God doesn't heal many people today. He doesn't heal the multitudes today. He doesn't heal as He did in the days of Jesus or in the days of Paul. Why are you avoiding this? You imply again and again that I don't believe in healing. I tell you again and again that I do. Why don't you beieve me? God heals. But not in the way he did in the first century--not multitudes of people as those who possessed the gift of healing with God's power were able to do. Certainly it was God that healed. It always is. But God worked through the Apostles to heal all that came to them. That doesn't happen today. Admit it.

This is a wrong assumption and wrong theology. Jesus healed all that came to him whether they had faith or not. The faith was irrelevant, and is today also. Consider the ten lepers. How many came back to thank him. Only one. This indicates that the other nine, ungrateful, were probably not saved. He healed all, whether saved or not. The unsaved does not have the faith to be healed. Read the steps today that a person should take if he wants to be healed in James chapter five. Whose faith heals? "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick." Whose prayer? The prayer of the pastor--the prayer of the one praying over the sick--not the faith of the sick person. The faith of the sick person has nothing to do with it. It is the faith of the pastor that is praying that must be strong, not of the sick person.
These charlatan faith healers who tell sick people that they don't have enough faith, should be ashamed of themselves. It is they that don't have enough faith.

Perhaps some of them did; perhaps some of them didn't. Their faith was totally irrelevant. It was the will of God. God heals according to his will. God heals through the faith of the person who is praying, not the faith of the person receiving.
By whose "faith" were people healed: Jesus or the crowds'? Obviously it was the will of Jesus. They could not have been healed without the prayer of Jesus, or the touch of Jesus hand.

So what has that got to do with the price of tea in China. The issue is that he healed multitudes. The Apostles were able to heal multitudes. The fact is that no one is able to heal multitudes today because the gift of healing has ceased. That is the point you fail to see. We all agree that individuals on a one to one basis get healed. That is not the issue. That is simply a red herring.

And what was the attitude of the ten lepers, particulary the nine that never came back to thank Jesus?
What was the attitude of the demoniac in the Gadarenes before he was released of the legions of demons? He was only thankful after he was delivered from the demons.

My arguments are not strawman. You deliberately avoid them.

When you can show me where mulititudes are healed as they were in the first century under the ministries of Jesus and the Apostles, then you will have your answer.
DHK

 

DHK,

Your line of reasoning is scriptural and illogical. When the ONE MAN at the temple gate was healed by Peter, it was a miracle. Look it up. A multitude does not have to be healed in order for the gift of working of miracles to be in operation. You seem to be redefining words away from their logical and scriptural usage to make you argument.

I have never seen a whole multitude be healed. I have heard of large numbers of people being healed in the 30's and 40's. For you to state that this does not happen anymore, you either have to:

1. Know everything going on in the world today.

Or

2. Have scripture to show that God will not allow such things to happen any more.

You are clearly not omniscient, as you would agree. And you haven't shown any scriputre that healing or miracles have ceased. Your main line of reasoning to argue that they have ceased is your assertion that mass-healings are not taking place. But since you cannot know this for sure, you have no case to build on. And if such healings are not taking place right now, that doens't mean they haven't in past decades or will not in the future.

Btw, I hear you are a missionary. Have you been to China?

 

The gift of healing was supernatural in nature. It was supernatural in the way that it would differentiate the apostles, and of course Christ, from the others. It would be ludicrous for me to (or you) to claim to have the supernatural gift of healing because you prayed and someone got healed. As I have alredy mentioned countless of times I believe in healing. God answers prayer. No one here denies that (except possibly yourself), because you refuse to differentiate an answer to prayer and the supernatural gift of healing as it operated in the first century.

No, I explain things on the basis of how they happened in the Bible. People today don't speak in real foreign languages at will (miraculously) as they did in the New Testament. People don't heal en masse today as they did in New Testament times. The gifts have ceased.

As Briguy already pointed out to you we don't live in a remote corner of the world. We have all kinds of media: internet, TV coverage, the press, radio, even morse code if you care to use it. We live in a global world. It is obvious that if great multitudes were being healed (remember--folk from all the cities around Jerusalem), that we would hear about such an event. We don't. It doesn't happen. The spiritual gifts have ceased. They have been that way for 1900 years now. I don't have to be omniscient to know that. If you can prove otherwise bring forth the evidence. Have there been any healings where (for example) people from, and in, all the cities around New York have been healed? That would be a parallel happening to what went on in the first century.
The gifts have ceased.
DHK

 

I must agree with DHK and Briguy. The gifts of the spirit do not operate anymore.

At least not for people who do not believe that they work today. If you think they are gone, then God will not "force " you to see them.

So sadly, they have ceased for you and all others who do not think they are for today.

You won't operate with signs following.

But don't worry, there are a lot out there who have NOT given up, and for them, the gifts are still quietly working.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

DHK,
You seem to be defining the 'gift of miracles' or 'gift of healings' as when a whole city gets healed. Show me scripture to justify that definition, because I cannot find any reason to believe that from the Bible.

Also, I have no reason to think that the believers in Corinth who were not apostles who had these gifts ever healed all the sick people in a city. Jesus did that sort of thing among Jews who had health as a part of their covenant.

You agree that there are some people who are healed in answer to prayer to God. When was the last time you aw the secular media report a case of someone being healed from something there was no medical answer for in answer to prayer by Christians? It is rare. Even if there is a genuine miracle, a lot of people in the secular media will not report it. This is just the way thigns work. The media reported one athelete habing an oversized heart acording to doctors. Later, he went to a crusade and said he was healed. Then the doctors rediagnosed him and aid they were wrong the first time.

As for cases of mass healings, I _have_ heard reports of many being healed, resurrections, etc. in the countryside in China. I also read of an outbreak of rather spectacular miracles in an island in Indonesia, though I have heard reports pro and con on this case. I met a man who had written a thesis of some sort on the miracles in Timor, and had interviewed many of the witnesses who saw the miracles. I asked him if I could see the thesis (in Indonesian) and since I moved, I never did see it. I have not heard of all thesick people in a city being healed at the same time, but I cannot think of anytime that happened in the scriptures, even, outside of Israel when Christ was ministering before the crucifixion and resurrection. Since I believe the Bible, I believe that such a thing _could_ happen if God so chose. Since God has not limited Himself by saying He will never heal a city full of people, and since the Bible teaches that healing and miracles are gifts to the church, we must believe that such things are possible. After all, all things are possible to them that believe.

But all this is beside the point. You say you believe in healing is reponse to prayer. Al ot of people get healed, not directly from prayer per se, but when an evangelist or other believer proclaims them healed in the name of Jesus, and performs a _miracle._ This still happens. If you sincerely wanted to find cases of it, you could use a search engine to find testimonies or network and find people who have been healed. A whole city does not need to be healed for the gift of miracles to be in operation.

The reason you believe that a large crowd of sick people cannot be healed is just because that is what you have chosen to believe. The Bible says nothing about healing or miracles ceasing, and you have not even attempted to show that it says otherwise. If you believe the Bible and the sovereignty of God, you should at least be open to the possibility of such things ocurring.

Show me where the Bible teahces that crowds of sick can no longer be healed or that the gifts of miracles or healing do not occur.

 

Read my previous posts. I have given plenty of Scripture where people from all the surrounding cities of a certain place such as Jerusalem were healed (that is all the sick).
So you give the evidence. Where does that happen today. That was the evidence of the gift of healing, but it doesn't happen today. You are the one that is redefining what the gift of healing is to suit your own theology.
DHK