I assume that Jesus healed people to prove who he was, to get across his message and to show compassion. If those were his reasons - would it not make sense to heal more people?
If Jesus' abilities were limited in some way, then possibly that might provide an explanation. But I would assume Christians would not see Jesus as limited in any way.
Mark 6:5 is interesting "And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. " - perhaps he could only heal those that had faith?
I know if I had the ability to touch people and heal them I would set myself up to process as many individuals as possible - I'd get them to queue up and see them on an industrial scale.
If I only had a few years I'd probably focus on terminal illnesses and children. If I wanted to get my message across I would throw in a few kings here and there. My message might be for the poor and downtrodden, but getting a few people with power on-side might be beneficial - especially if they came and followed me - being God I'd know who to help. I might find a few historians to heal as well.
On the face of it Jesus' approach seems to lack imagination and foresight - unless he was limited in some way.
Board index ‹ Jesus
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Were Jesus's healing abilities limited?
by jimwalton » Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:53 pm
Jesus's healing ministry was pretty much as you say—signs of his messianic mission, explications of his divine power, and to show compassion. But then it doesn't necessarily follow that it would make sense to heal more people. He healed all who came to him.
Why didn't he just wave his hand over the whole city and heal them all at once? Or why stop at the city—how about the whole country? Or the whole earth? Because what Jesus was interested in was a relationship with people. Why do you think he made them line up? So he could talk to each one. So he could look them in the eye, touch them, and initiate a relationship with them.
Could he only heal those who had faith? No, but that's all he DID heal, because it was about the relationship.
You think his approach lacked imagination. Then you miss the whole point. This wasn't a show, but a sign and a way to foster a relationship with people. He wasn't trying to be artistically creative, but to draw people to the true God.
Why didn't he just wave his hand over the whole city and heal them all at once? Or why stop at the city—how about the whole country? Or the whole earth? Because what Jesus was interested in was a relationship with people. Why do you think he made them line up? So he could talk to each one. So he could look them in the eye, touch them, and initiate a relationship with them.
Could he only heal those who had faith? No, but that's all he DID heal, because it was about the relationship.
You think his approach lacked imagination. Then you miss the whole point. This wasn't a show, but a sign and a way to foster a relationship with people. He wasn't trying to be artistically creative, but to draw people to the true God.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Were Jesus's healing abilities limited?
by Retro Tech » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:43 pm
> But then it doesn't necessarily follow that it would make sense to heal more people. He healed all who came to him.
Well, assuming they were Christian to begin with, and begged repeatedly.
> Because what Jesus was interested in was a relationship with people. Why do you think he made them line up? So he could
Munchausen syndrome. Make them sick, so that he can heal them, in order to be able to rape them.
> Could he only heal those who had faith? No, but that's all he DID heal, because it was about the relationship.
So it had nothing at all to do with demonstrating divinity, since he would only heal those who accepted his divinity.
Well, assuming they were Christian to begin with, and begged repeatedly.
> Because what Jesus was interested in was a relationship with people. Why do you think he made them line up? So he could
Munchausen syndrome. Make them sick, so that he can heal them, in order to be able to rape them.
> Could he only heal those who had faith? No, but that's all he DID heal, because it was about the relationship.
So it had nothing at all to do with demonstrating divinity, since he would only heal those who accepted his divinity.
- Retro Tech
Re: Were Jesus's healing abilities limited?
by jimwalton » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:47 pm
Oh, wow. Where to begin...
> Well, assuming they were Christian to begin with, and begged repeatedly.
Not at all. Many people came to him in the Gospels who weren't Christian to begin with. They had heard he was a healer and showed up where he was. Nor is there record that they begged repeatedly. You're just making stuff up.
> Make them sick, so that he can heal them
Not at all. There is no indication that he made them sick.
> in order to be able to rape them
What in the world????????
> So it had nothing at all to do with demonstrating divinity, since he would only heal those who accepted his divinity.
As I said earlier in the post (maybe to someone else), his healings accomplished several things: "signs of his messianic mission, explications of his divine power, and to show compassion." So his miracles did have to do with demonstrating his divinity, but that's not all there was to it.
> Since he would only heal those who accepted his divinity
Not at all. He accepted all who came to him. There is no record that people were required to accept his divinity before he would heal them. Where do you get this stuff?
> Well, assuming they were Christian to begin with, and begged repeatedly.
Not at all. Many people came to him in the Gospels who weren't Christian to begin with. They had heard he was a healer and showed up where he was. Nor is there record that they begged repeatedly. You're just making stuff up.
> Make them sick, so that he can heal them
Not at all. There is no indication that he made them sick.
> in order to be able to rape them
What in the world????????
> So it had nothing at all to do with demonstrating divinity, since he would only heal those who accepted his divinity.
As I said earlier in the post (maybe to someone else), his healings accomplished several things: "signs of his messianic mission, explications of his divine power, and to show compassion." So his miracles did have to do with demonstrating his divinity, but that's not all there was to it.
> Since he would only heal those who accepted his divinity
Not at all. He accepted all who came to him. There is no record that people were required to accept his divinity before he would heal them. Where do you get this stuff?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Were Jesus's healing abilities limited?
by Retro Tech » Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:57 am
> Many people came to him in the Gospels who weren't Christian to begin with.
Sure. Like the Canaanite woman.
> Not at all. There is no indication that he made them sick.
That's essentially your argument. Healing them was to serve a purpose independent of well-being. Since God has no concerns for well-being, it created disease, in order to serve its purpose.
> in order to be able to rape them...What in the world????????
God had to rape Mary in order to come to earth.
> "signs of his messianic mission, explications of his divine power, and to show compassion."
As per the OP, that doesn't hold up. It's fairly obvious that, assuming the description of Jesus' power is consistent with reality (which would obviously be impossible), then he could have done more to "show compassion".... Indeed, all he had to do was not insult people, beat them or force them to beg for help. Ergo, that was not a goal of Jesus'.
> So his miracles did have to do with demonstrating his divinity, but that's not all there was to it.
Fair enough. He created disease in order to rape someone to be able to cure disease. Interesting religion.
Sure. Like the Canaanite woman.
> Not at all. There is no indication that he made them sick.
That's essentially your argument. Healing them was to serve a purpose independent of well-being. Since God has no concerns for well-being, it created disease, in order to serve its purpose.
> in order to be able to rape them...What in the world????????
God had to rape Mary in order to come to earth.
> "signs of his messianic mission, explications of his divine power, and to show compassion."
As per the OP, that doesn't hold up. It's fairly obvious that, assuming the description of Jesus' power is consistent with reality (which would obviously be impossible), then he could have done more to "show compassion".... Indeed, all he had to do was not insult people, beat them or force them to beg for help. Ergo, that was not a goal of Jesus'.
> So his miracles did have to do with demonstrating his divinity, but that's not all there was to it.
Fair enough. He created disease in order to rape someone to be able to cure disease. Interesting religion.
- Retro Tech
Re: Were Jesus's healing abilities limited?
by jimwalton » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:04 am
Wow, you have quite an out-of-shape view of Christianity.
> Since God has no concerns for well-being, it created disease, in order to serve its purpose.
But God does have concern for wellbeing, as I mentioned. Psalm 103.1-5: "Praise the Lord, my soul;
all my inmost being, praise his holy name.
2 Praise the Lord, my soul,
and forget not all his benefits—
3 who forgives all your sins
and heals all your diseases,
4 who redeems your life from the pit
and crowns you with love and compassion,
5 who satisfies your desires with good things
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s."
If we're going to discuss what the Bible teaches and what God does and does not do, then we have to stick with what the Bible teaches. And what about Matt. 14.14: "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick." God explicitly has concerns for wellbeing.
> God had to rape Mary in order to come to earth.
Rape is a forceful sexual act. Dictionary.com defines it as "unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim." So let's look at this.
1. God didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary. There was no penetration of her vagina with his penis.
2. It was miraculous conception, not a sexual predator one.
3. God didn't force himself on Mary. She understood the nature of the conception and agreed to it (Luke 2.38).
4. Mary was still a virgin after the conception.
> It's fairly obvious that, assuming the description of Jesus' power is consistent with reality (which would obviously be impossible), then he could have done more to "show compassion"
As I said to the OP, "Why didn't he just wave his hand over the whole city and heal them all at once? Or why stop at the city—how about the whole country? Or the whole earth? Because what Jesus was interested in was a relationship with people. Why do you think he made them line up? So he could talk to each one. So he could look them in the eye, touch them, and initiate a relationship with them.
"Could he only heal those who had faith? No, but that's all he DID heal, because it was about the relationship."
> Indeed, all he had to do was not insult people, beat them...
Whaaaaat in the world????????
> Since God has no concerns for well-being, it created disease, in order to serve its purpose.
But God does have concern for wellbeing, as I mentioned. Psalm 103.1-5: "Praise the Lord, my soul;
all my inmost being, praise his holy name.
2 Praise the Lord, my soul,
and forget not all his benefits—
3 who forgives all your sins
and heals all your diseases,
4 who redeems your life from the pit
and crowns you with love and compassion,
5 who satisfies your desires with good things
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s."
If we're going to discuss what the Bible teaches and what God does and does not do, then we have to stick with what the Bible teaches. And what about Matt. 14.14: "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick." God explicitly has concerns for wellbeing.
> God had to rape Mary in order to come to earth.
Rape is a forceful sexual act. Dictionary.com defines it as "unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim." So let's look at this.
1. God didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary. There was no penetration of her vagina with his penis.
2. It was miraculous conception, not a sexual predator one.
3. God didn't force himself on Mary. She understood the nature of the conception and agreed to it (Luke 2.38).
4. Mary was still a virgin after the conception.
> It's fairly obvious that, assuming the description of Jesus' power is consistent with reality (which would obviously be impossible), then he could have done more to "show compassion"
As I said to the OP, "Why didn't he just wave his hand over the whole city and heal them all at once? Or why stop at the city—how about the whole country? Or the whole earth? Because what Jesus was interested in was a relationship with people. Why do you think he made them line up? So he could talk to each one. So he could look them in the eye, touch them, and initiate a relationship with them.
"Could he only heal those who had faith? No, but that's all he DID heal, because it was about the relationship."
> Indeed, all he had to do was not insult people, beat them...
Whaaaaat in the world????????
Last bumped by Anonymous on Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:04 am.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests