Tongues Again???

[VCO]

Hi VCO,

Quote: That we can agree on, but what we will disagree on, is the the definition of what constitutes a genuine miracle.
If they truly had the sign of miracles that the Apostles had, they could walk into any and every Hospital in the land and EMPTY EVERY BED.


Response: --- There is a pattern in healing as is outlined in James 5:
14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Actually the sick person is to call the elders, or genuine believers that he trusts to come and pray for him. --- The request for the prayer of faith is initiated by the sick person. --- So unbelievers would not be healed unless God chose to save and heal them, with the end result that they may believe.

We can pray for anyone for their salvation and healing, but the answer comes from God.
The people that came to Peter came because they had faith in God to be healed.

What was Jesus' experience? --- It says in Matthew 9:
20 And suddenly, a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years came from behind and touched the hem of His garment.
21 For she said to herself, “If only I may touch His garment, I shall be made well.”
22 But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her He said, “Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And the woman was made well from that hour.

27 When Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, “Son of David, have mercy on us!”
28 And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”
They said to Him, “Yes, Lord.”
29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith let it be to you.”
30 And their eyes were opened.

And in another place it says in Matthew 13:
57 But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”
58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Another note from James 5:15, "And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up." --- So healing is not always instantly, but they will recover from their illness. --- We have prayed for many and they have recovered, so we keep praying.

A lot of sickness is demonic attack, so the person needs to be delivered and there is an example in Matthew 17:
14 And when they had come to the multitude, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying,
15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water.
16 So I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not cure him.”
17 Then Jesus answered and said, "Bring him here to Me.”
18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him; and the child was cured from that very hour.

--- Notice that in this case the 'deliverance' was the 'healing,' "The child was cured from that very hour."
The disciples may have been praying for the boy's healing, but a demon has to be identified and commanded to leave in Jesus' name. --- We have this authority today and in our interdenominational ministry we dealt with Alcoholics and drug Addicts, and I have seen many of them delivered.

--- There are many Christians who are attacked or tormented by evil spirits and need deliverance, --- which is a subject not well undertood.

Amen, good post. That point that I made about emptying every bed, was a reference to people knowing that if Peter's shadow fell on a sick person, they could be healed, even if they were so sick that they were unconscious. There is not a single indication that the sick had asked to be taken out to the road where Peter was going to pass by. NOR is there any indication that the sick even knew or believed Peter could heal them. Therefore the so-called Charismatic Faith Healers are just covering up their failures, by saying, "He was not healed because he did not have enough faith." That is why I do not believe the so-called Faith Healers of today have the power to Heal like the Apostles did. Also, if Faith Healer's of today was HOW GOD wanted us to get HEALED, then there would have been NO NEED FOR the verses you pointed out, that instruct us call the elders to Pray for a Healing, and/or fervently pray for a sick person to be Healed ourselves. YES, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE GOD HEALS IN ANSWER TO PRAYER, and I have seen it many times. NO, I do not believe Charismatic Faith Healers have the power they claim to have.

I would like to add one point to your comment that even Christians can be attacked or tormented by evil spirits. I agree with that statement, but if you KNOW you are truly in Christ and He is in you, then those same demons can NEVER enter and possess the Christian, because of this Verse:

1 John 4:4 (NASB)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.

 

[VCO]

What is your source about Heli being Mary's father and Joseph being given the title for inheriting his estate? If they followed the law and Mary died without brothers, actual land inheritance would have gone to the nearest male relative in the father's clan. I've heard the explanation about Heli being Mary's father, but it seems to be a way of dealing with a different geneology, rather than something from history.

The church tradition had to do with a Levrite marriage, where a woman married a man from the Solomon/Zerubabel lineage, he died, and she married a man from the David's son Nathan's lineage, Heli's lineage. Then it says the brother from the Solomon lineage died, and the son from Heli's lineage raised up seed unto his brother. (I hope I have which one married the other one right.) Eusebius' reported this as a church tradition. I think he cited Africanus as the source. I suppose it is possible the tradition was passed down from people who knew Joseph's family history, but we don't know.

If your theory about Heli's estate were true, it wouldn't mean the estate were large at all. But why believe a theory like that unless someone who lived way back then reported it as a fact.

I don't see strong evidence for education in in depth knowledge of Aramaic here. I'm not saying Jesus did not speak Aramaic. To what extent Hebrew was used and to what extent Aramaic was used is debated, but there is evidence for the use of Hebrew, probably more outside of Jerusalem. I have a friend who has a masters in a Hebrew-related field that he earned at a seminary in Jerusalem. He says that there is a story about a so-called 'rabbi' who could not think of a Hebrew word, so he asked his maid.

The poor 'people of the land' stuck around during the Babylonian captivity, speaking Hebrew. Some of them may have mixed with other inhabitants, but the surrounding nations spoke similar 'Hebrew languages.' The richer upper class went to Babylon and came back speaking Aramaic, and settled in Jerusalem. Up in Galilee, Jews might have spoken Hebrew.

But the Aramaic-speaking Jews, I've heard and read, memorized the Torah as part of their education growing up, learning Hebrew along the way. Leviticus is supposed to be a good book for learning Hebrew due to the repetition, and it was the first book they memorized. So they would have had some knowledge of Hebrew.

Edersheim's 'Life and Times...' says that some speakers in the synagogue might speak in Hebrew, and another person would translate into Aramaic.

Someone who spoke Hebrew pretty much all the time might have picked up a few words like Eloi and Rabonni. Personally, I think Jesus likely knew Aramaic, Hebrew, and quite possibly Greek.[/QUOTE]

Aramaic was the language of a lot of the common people in Israel, while Hebrew was the official language of the Temple, therefore anyone who could afford an education studied both languages; and most also studied Greek which was a fairly common language spoken in Israel, which was a leftover from when Alexander the Great ruled over Israel. My guess is that Alexander the Great, required that the countries he conquered teach there citizens to become fluent in Greek. It was also useful to merchants especially, so that they had a common language when negotiating Trade Deals.

WIKIPEDIA:
It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[SUP][1][/SUP] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[SUP][2]

Aramaic was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722–330 BC) and remained a common language of the region in the first century AD. In spite of the increasing importance of Greek, the use of Aramaic was also expanding, and it would eventually be dominant among Jews both in the Holy Land and elsewhere in the Middle East around 200 AD[SUP][3][/SUP] and would remain so until the Islamic conquests in the seventh century.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]
[/SUP]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

The Geneology question is answered here, but I got a LOT of the info that I read, came from Messianic Christian sites:

Luke’s Genealogy

When looking at Luke 3, the genealogical list is strictly men from Jesus to Adam, whereas in Matthew’s list, some women were included, such as Tamar, Ruth, and so on. So, if this were a genealogy of Mary, then she would be listed.

JOSEPH, WHEN HE MARRIED MARY, BECAME THE SON OF HELI ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES AND COULD LEGALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE GENEALOGY.​

Moreover, in the genealogy, Heli is listed as the father of Joseph, who had 2 daughters. The first is Mary, and the other was Zebedee’s unnamed wife (Matthew 27:56; John 19:25). When there were no sons to preserve the inheritance in accordance with the Law of Moses (Numbers 27:1–11; Numbers 36:1–12), the husband would become the son upon marriage to keep up the family name. Therefore, Joseph, when he married Mary, became the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and could legally be included in the genealogy.
Also, in Luke’s genealogy the form is different from that of Matthew’s. Matthew’s list gives the father and who they begot (Greek gennao).

In Luke the form is different, where X is the son of Y. But more precisely, the word son is absent in Greek, but only inserted into English so we can better understand it. The only place where son is used in the Greek is in verse 23 where Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, and so on.
Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s.
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/whats-in-a-fathers-name/

A lot of my info on this subject came from Jewish Christian sites. Do a search for "Mary the daughter of Heli - in the Talmud"; and you will find a bunch of them.

He part of a long post that I did on the subject a couple years ago:

Originally Posted by Becket

"Actually, I am sorry to correct you, but in Luke's Greek genealogical list, all the names are described as 'of' using the Greek equivalent of "of" which is using the Roman letters 'ton'. Even Adam is 'of' God (Lk 3v38). The genealogy in both Matthew and Luke depict an honest attempt by both men to given a genealogy of Jesus back to David and so back to Abraham. In Luke's case it ascends back not only to Adam but most specifically to God. He stresses this way Jesus is the Son of God through Adam. The two genealogies by Matthew and Luke cannot be argued to be the same. One is through the line of David and Solomon (Mt 1v6) and the other through David and Nathan (Lk 3v31), who never reigned but is named (2Sam 5v14). But that does not mean either man was wrong because they both gave correct renditions of Christ's genealogy. But the reasoning why they are different goes into understanding more about the times that they lived through. If you wish to know more then contact me."


Look again at Luke's genealogy, I am sure you will find the 'ton' missing in front of Joseph's name, which is how they identified a son-in-law who inherited for his wife, or a NAMED heir that was not offspring of the deceased.



Let me correct myself, it is not the missing "ton", it is the missing word "son" that flagged a son-in-law who inherited for his wife in a Jewish genealogy list:

Luke's qualification "as was supposed" (ἐνομίζετο) avoids stating that Jesus was actually a son of Joseph, since his virgin birth is affirmed in the same gospel. From as early asJohn of Damascus, the view of "as was supposed of Joseph" regards Luke as calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning that Heli (Ἠλί, Heli) was the maternal grandfather of Jesus, with Luke tracing the ancestry of Jesus through Mary.[SUP][23][/SUP] Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817),John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli". There are, however, other interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy. Some[SUP][24][/SUP] see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Here is a quote from the Jewish Tractate of Talmud that you should find VERY INTERESTING:

According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the

Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream,

"He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)

I even read an article where a Jewish Lawyer, explained a lot about Inheritance Laws. He verified that at the time of Christ, a daughter could not inherit property in Israel. Therefore her husband would receive the Title Son of Heli, so that the Property could claimed by him, because Heli had no male children. And if the father on his death bed wanted to give property to someone other than a family member, he could do so verbally. giving that person the Title Son of (whoever), and it was legally binding as long as you had two or three witnesses.

 

[presidente]

That point that I made about emptying every bed, was a reference to people knowing that if Peter's shadow fell on a sick person, they could be healed, even if they were so sick that they were unconscious. There is not a single indication that the sick had asked to be taken out to the road where Peter was going to pass by. NOR is there any indication that the sick even knew or believed Peter could heal them.

Acts 5:15 says,
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

If the sick did not not believe they could be healed, then those who brought them apparently had some faith because they intentionally tried to get them into Peter's shadow. The person with faith does not always have to be the one who is healed. When Jesus healed the man who was lowered through the roof, they had faith. Not just the man, but his friends. Jesus exhorted the man with the son with the demon in him that some of the apostles had not been able to cast out to have faith. He said, "Lord I believe. Help thou mine unbelief." Notice the father was to have faith. Jesus commended the Syrophoenecian woman for her faith. Notice someone else was being healed. There was a centurion who asked Jesus to speak the word only and his servant would be healed. He had faith, and his servant was the one healed.

Jesus said things like 'according to your faith be it unto you.'

Therefore the so-called Charismatic Faith Healers are just covering up their failures, by saying, "He was not healed because he did not have enough faith."

I've never heard a Pentecostal or Charismatic call himself or another person a 'faith healer.' Many of them emphasize that Jesus is the healer. There are some preachers who will try to put the onus for faith totally on the sick person. Others point out that the person doing the prayer, laying on of hands, etc. needs to have faith. When the elders lay hands on the sick, the prayer of faith shall save the sick.

But Jesus did encourage people wanting healing to have faith, too. So it is not wrong to do that.

Healing and miracles do function according to faith. So does prophesying. One has to have faith to operate in some of these gifts. Peter walked on water for a while. But he doubted and he was not able to do it anymore. The apostles had done miracles and healed before, but for some reason, the apostles prayed for God to stretch forth His hand to do signs and wonders in Acts 4.

And one should be careful at throwing rocks at an evangelist saying he doesn't have faith for others to be healed. The person throwing rocks usually doesn't have the faith for it, sometimes even less. Like if someone has a sick wife or mother, calls a preacher like this over to pray, and she doesn't get healed, and he says bad things about the preacher not having faith, when he was praying for her himself and she didn't get healed.

Also, if Faith Healer's of today was HOW GOD wanted us to get HEALED, then there would have been NO NEED FOR the verses you pointed out, that instruct us call the elders to Pray for a Healing, and/or fervently pray for a sick person to be Healed ourselves.

Why would you want to make one verse of scripture 'cancel' another verse when there is no indication that either verse is cancelled or invalid?

After saying to call for the elders of the church to pray, James says to confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that ye may be healed. Does that mean James was cancelling the instructions in the previous verses about calling for the elders of the church?

No, it means God can heal through the elders OR he can heal through others.

If we look at the Bible, we see that God can heal through the laying on of hands of the apostles. Then we read and we can see he can heal that way OR from the shadow of an apostle falling on them. Then we see that he can heal through one of the seven. Then we see he can heal through a brother/disciple (Ananias.) We also see all kinds of wonderful teachings on how God responds to prayers made in faith. So God can heal in response to prayer. God can heal in response to elders prayers. We also see that God can heal through the laying on of hands of 'them that believe.' God can heal through an individual with gifts of healing.

We should be look at these at the many ways God operations as demonstrated in scripture. One does not cancel out the others.

YES, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE GOD HEALS IN ANSWER TO PRAYER, and I have seen it many times. NO, I do not believe Charismatic Faith Healers have the power they claim to have.

I grew up in the Pentecostal movement and preachers I've heard who minister in healing typically encourage the people to believe God for healing. Maybe they aren't all like that, but the theme is to believe God, and many of them will say that Jesus is the healer, not themselves.

 

[presidente]

Aramaic was the language of a lot of the common people in Israel, while Hebrew was the official language of the Temple, therefore anyone who could afford an education studied both languages;

My friend with the masters degree, who is a Bible college instructor and who studies such things, says the scholarship shows that Hebrew was a living language. Hebrew was apparently the language of the people in certain Jewish regions outside Jerusalem, but in the holy land. Aramaic may have been the language of Jerusalem, with Hebrew was a religious language.

The Geneology question is answered here, but I got a LOT of the info that I read, came from Messianic Christian sites:

[/FONT]A lot of my info on this subject came from Jewish Christian sites. Do a search for "Mary the daughter of Heli - in the Talmud"; and you will find a bunch of them.

Now, that's interesting. I found a bunch of sites, but all with the same brief quote and no primary sources of the Talmud. I once had a source for the Talmud online. I'll have to see if I can dig it up. One site I went to argued that it referred to a Hasmonian royal family member.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that Mary was a very, very common name back then apparently. I don't know the stats. I'd imagine archeologists might have some based on grace inscriptions like they used for St. James/Yavok's ossuary. But how many Mary's were at the cross? Was it three or four? Miriam must have been a very common name back then.

(It's tough enough to give a baby girl a nice Bible name nowadays without calling her something obscure like Jemimah or Huldah. If they didn't have Elizabeth and Tabitha to choose from before they had the New Testament names, it must have been tough. )

He part of a long post that I did on the subject a couple years ago:

Look again at Luke's genealogy, I am sure you will find the 'ton' missing in front of Joseph's name, which is how they identified a son-in-law who inherited for his wife, or a NAMED heir that was not offspring of the deceased.

I'm trying to remember the Lavrite geneology tradition. But if Joseph were not either the legal son or the physical son of Heli, then they could say this. If I remember right, he was the legal son of the Jeconiah lineage. There was a prophecy that no offspring of Jeconiah (Jer. 22:30)would be king. But he was supposed to be the legal son through the Jeconiah lineage, but the physical son through the David/Nathan/Heli lineage in Luke.

Let me correct myself, it is not the missing "ton", it is the missing word "son" that flagged a son-in-law who inherited for his wife in a Jewish genealogy list:

Not following you here.

Here is a quote from the Jewish Tractate of Talmud that you should find VERY INTERESTING:
Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream,

"He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)

Yes, interesting, but we need to see more context in that quote. What did Lightfoot have to say?There were lots of Miriams and there may have been a Heli in a well-known defunct royal household.

I even read an article where a Jewish Lawyer, explained a lot about Inheritance Laws. He verified that at the time of Christ, a daughter could not inherit property in Israel. Therefore her husband would receive the Title Son of Heli, so that the Property could claimed by him, because Heli had no male children. And if the father on his death bed wanted to give property to someone other than a family member, he could do so verbally. giving that person the Title Son of (whoever), and it was legally binding as long as you had two or three witnesses.

A lawyer in modern western law, or do you mean one of the ones they call 'rabbi', (though Christ is the true Rabbi.) We can read the Bible and see women were not supposed to inherit real property in Israel unless they married into their father's clan. As far as the other stuff goes, did he have a source? How reliable of a Bible interpreter is he?

 

[notuptome]

If you read Luke's writings, being filled with the Spirit is related to prophesying, speaking in tongues, and doing supernatural acts. Zecharias is filled with the Spirit when he prophesied. Stephen is full of the Holy Ghost and does miracles. Paul is full of the Holy Ghost when he declares that Elymas will be blind. The way Luke writes about 'receiving' the Spirit also seems to refer to the same sort of thing.

Would we say that the Samaritan Christians who believed the Gospel and were baptized were not saved in Acts 8 before the apostles came? I wouldn't say that. But they received the Spirit through the laying on of the apostles hands. I believe this was referring to the work of the Spirit referred to in Acts 2.

Paul generally refers to the Spirit in reference to issues related to salvation and sanctification. He writes of the seal of the Spirit, the love of God being shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost.

Some evangelicals ignore these distinctions. Acts 8 should cause us to reconsider. Would the Samaritans be unsaved even if they had believed and accepted the Gospel. The typical Pentecostal understanding is that all believers receive the Spirit at salvation in the way Paul typically refers to it. But there is also empowerment for service. John the baptist spoke of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

But what of Paul's reference to being filled with the Spirit? We see this kind of terminology in Luke's writings, where he uses it in connection with empowerment and with the Spirit enabling someone to speak supernaturally (e.g. prophesy.) Where does Paul use the phrase to refer to sanctification?

Paul says to be filled with the Spirit and to speak to yourselves with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Luke tells of Zecharias being filled with the Spirit. Prophecies came out of his mouth when this happened. Paul was full of the Holy Ghost and declared that Elymas would be blind and it happen. Paul said to be filled with the Spirit and speak to yourselves with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. This seems similar to the way Luke uses the terminology.

Paul makes other references to the Spirit. He says if you are led by the Spirit, you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. That sounds like a reference to the spirit in relation to sanctification... or at least righteous living if sanctification is not the right category. A discussion on the definition of sanctification could go on another thread.

Well this is a matter we will not agree on as long as we are using different lexicons. You read and interpret the bible through the Pentecostal denominational lexicon. I believe in a non-denominational fundamentalist lexicon.

I have seen many long drawn out debates on CC with Roman Catholics where they rely on their ECF's to interpret the bible and make the bible conform to their church doctrine. I have seen others who have denominational beliefs on water baptism interpret water baptism to have merit for salvation that is not attributed to it in the scriptures.

If you and I read the exact same passage of scripture and arrive at conflicting positions what are we going to do? Do we read out of the scripture what God has written or do we read into scripture what we through our denominational teaching what we want to be there?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Placid]

Hi VCO,

Quote: If you are going to bring up what Jesus said from the Cross, and claim it was Tongues, you would be wrong.


Response: --- The Holy Spirit knows all languages and it was the Holy Spirit that gave the different languages to the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost, --- And they were known languages by the people that heard them. They said in Acts 2:
8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?

Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew and was the language of the common people including Jesus and the disciples. It was well known, but the inscription on the cross, was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, --- the well known languages, John 19:
19 Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

So to see the words from the cross, we will go to Matthew 27:
45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!”
48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
49 The rest said, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.”
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

--- Often Preachers today will say, He spoke in Aramaic." --- But that was the language of the people so everyone would have understood Him.
Notice the reaction of the learned Jews. --- They said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!”
If anyone could understand it, why would they say He was calling for Elijah?

Someone went to get give Him something to drink --- Notice these words:
“Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.”
So they waited to see if Elijah the Prophet of Miracles would come and save Him.

The question is, "Did anyone understand the words?" --- Obviously not, --- so Jesus spoke in an unknown language in the midst of the crowd.
--- I asked a linguist who knew many languages and he said the words are close to Aramaic, --- but there was a mystery to it.

In the Zondervan Bible Dictionary it says:
Quote: ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI is an English ransliteration of a Greek phrase, which in turn is a transliteration of the Hebrew or an Aramaic version of Psalm 22:1. The phrase as it appears in the best text of Matthew is closer to Aramaic. In Mark 15:34 it is closer to Hebrew. --- The fact that in both instances the words are first transliterated (written in another alphabet), shows the deep impression it made on some of the hearers. Conjecture has been made which would connect 'sabachthani' with an Aramaic verb meaning 'deliverer,' which would permit a rendering of "Fot this hast Thou spared me," which is inconsistent with the Evangelist's translation. --- End of quote.

I believe the translation given is right, --- but if it was in the natural language that they knew, --- then Matthew would no doubt have read like this:
45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
50 Then Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

You see now why it had to be a language that Jesus spoke to His heavenly Father, that was not understood by men?

 

[presidente]

Placid,

Why might the words on the cross not have been understood.
1. Jesus was being crucified.
2. He was exhausted.
3. His face had been beaten
4. He was thirsty.


He may not have spoken loudly or clearly enough to have been understood clearly by all. I believe the reason the text explains the Hebrew and Aramaic combination He spoke in was to explain how 'God' could be mistaken for 'Elijah.' If the text read 'Theos' how would that be mistaken for 'Elias'?

But if Jesus said 'Eloi 'Eloi, and some present misunderstood it a Eliyahu, that makes plenty of sense.

Jesus said the words from the opening of the 22nd Psalm, a Psalm which prophesies the crucifixion. But He said Eloi, rather than Eli, the Aramaic, rather than the Hebrew.

 

[presidente]

Well this is a matter we will not agree on as long as we are using different lexicons. You read and interpret the bible through the Pentecostal denominational lexicon. I believe in a non-denominational fundamentalist lexicon.

The interpretation system I use when reading the New Testament is to believe what it says. I don't have to have a preconcieved conclusion that filters out certain gifts like many cessationists. I do appreciate that you don't do away with gifts of healing or the working of miracles because you don't have a proof text for the idea.

 

[VCO]

Acts 5:15 says,
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

If the sick did not not believe they could be healed, then those who brought them apparently had some faith because they intentionally tried to get them into Peter's shadow. The person with faith does not always have to be the one who is healed. When Jesus healed the man who was lowered through the roof, they had faith. Not just the man, but his friends. Jesus exhorted the man with the son with the demon in him that some of the apostles had not been able to cast out to have faith. He said, "Lord I believe. Help thou mine unbelief." Notice the father was to have faith. Jesus commended the Syrophoenecian woman for her faith. Notice someone else was being healed. There was a centurion who asked Jesus to speak the word only and his servant would be healed. He had faith, and his servant was the one healed.

Jesus said things like 'according to your faith be it unto you.'



I've never heard a Pentecostal or Charismatic call himself or another person a 'faith healer.' Many of them emphasize that Jesus is the healer. There are some preachers who will try to put the onus for faith totally on the sick person. Others point out that the person doing the prayer, laying on of hands, etc. needs to have faith. When the elders lay hands on the sick, the prayer of faith shall save the sick.

But Jesus did encourage people wanting healing to have faith, too. So it is not wrong to do that.

Healing and miracles do function according to faith. So does prophesying. One has to have faith to operate in some of these gifts. Peter walked on water for a while. But he doubted and he was not able to do it anymore. The apostles had done miracles and healed before, but for some reason, the apostles prayed for God to stretch forth His hand to do signs and wonders in Acts 4.

And one should be careful at throwing rocks at an evangelist saying he doesn't have faith for others to be healed. The person throwing rocks usually doesn't have the faith for it, sometimes even less. Like if someone has a sick wife or mother, calls a preacher like this over to pray, and she doesn't get healed, and he says bad things about the preacher not having faith, when he was praying for her himself and she didn't get healed.



Why would you want to make one verse of scripture 'cancel' another verse when there is no indication that either verse is cancelled or invalid?

After saying to call for the elders of the church to pray, James says to confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that ye may be healed. Does that mean James was cancelling the instructions in the previous verses about calling for the elders of the church?

No, it means God can heal through the elders OR he can heal through others.

If we look at the Bible, we see that God can heal through the laying on of hands of the apostles. Then we read and we can see he can heal that way OR from the shadow of an apostle falling on them. Then we see that he can heal through one of the seven. Then we see he can heal through a brother/disciple (Ananias.) We also see all kinds of wonderful teachings on how God responds to prayers made in faith. So God can heal in response to prayer. God can heal in response to elders prayers. We also see that God can heal through the laying on of hands of 'them that believe.' God can heal through an individual with gifts of healing.

We should be look at these at the many ways God operations as demonstrated in scripture. One does not cancel out the others.




I grew up in the Pentecostal movement and preachers I've heard who minister in healing typically encourage the people to believe God for healing. Maybe they aren't all like that, but the theme is to believe God, and many of them will say that Jesus is the healer, not themselves.

Like I said before, we Evangelicals absolutely BELIEVE GOD HEALS in answer to pray. We do not believe those we see on TV have the APOSTOLIC GIFT of HEALING, as seen in this verse.

Acts 5:16 (NASB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed.


Luke 17:12-19 (ESV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance
[SUP]13 [/SUP] and lifted up their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.”
[SUP]14 [/SUP] When he saw them he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed.
[SUP]15 [/SUP] Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice;
[SUP]16 [/SUP] and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan.
[SUP]17 [/SUP] Then Jesus answered, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine?
[SUP]18 [/SUP] Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?”
[SUP]19 [/SUP] And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”


JESUS is not talking about the cleansing that HE did to all ten, in verse 19, HE is talking about spiritual cleansing from sin.

Jesus healed ten lepers. Only one of the ten, who was a Samaritan, returned to thank Jesus for what He had done. Jesus then did a second thing for him -- He forgave his sins. The other nine lepers were healed but were not saved. Thankfulness should be in the Christian's heart. Why do you go to church on Sunday? Do you go there to worship God and thank Him for all He has done for you? Part of your worship is to thank Him. About the only thing we can give to God is our thanksgiving. How wonderful it is just to thank Him. We are even to make our requests to God with thanksgiving. We ought to have a thankful heart toward Him.

Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee.

17:19 Turning to the Samaritan, the Lord Jesus said, "Arise, go your way. Your faith has made you well." Only the grateful ten percent inherit Christ's true riches. Jesus meets our turning back (v. 15) and our giving thanks (v. 16) with fresh blessings. "Your faith has made you well" suggests that whereas the nine were cleansed from leprosy, the tenth was also saved from sin! Luke 17, 18

Believer's Bible Commentary: A Thorough, Yet Easy-to-Read Bible Commentary That Turns Complicated Theology Into Practical Understanding.

All ten lepers are healed. But only one—the Samaritan who returns to acknowledge Jesus for who He is and thanks Him—is told, “Your faith has made you well” (17:19 NIV). Jesus’ comment suggests salvation in addition to physical healing.

Layman's Bible Commentary - Layman's Bible Commentary – Volume 9: Luke & John.

Preachers on TV and/or Radio, who claimed to be Faith Healers:

Peter Popoff

Benny Hinn

Rod Parsley

Kathryn Kuhlman

Robert Tilton

Nigerian minister Prophet Temitope Balogun

Todd Bentley

John Wimber

R.W. Shambach

Joyce Meyer

A.A. Allen

Aimee Semple McPherson

Jack Coe

John G. Lake

Gordon Linsey

E.W. Kenyon

Oral Roberts

And I am sure that there are LOT MORE who NEVER received enough popularity to be on Radio or TV.

Yes, I noticed that the majority on this list were connected to the Word of Faith Movement.


I have however met or heard of lots of Pentecostals who believe you are not saved until you speak in tongues, and even some who insist you cannot be saved until you climb into their Church's baptistry. So once more, I commend your Teachers for getting the truth that salvation is at moment we Believe, through to you early in life. It is the Sanctification that is a lifelong Struggle to become more and more like Christ.

 

[presidente]

Preachers on TV and/or Radio, who claimed to be Faith Healers:

Peter Popoff

Benny Hinn

Rod Parsley

Kathryn Kuhlman

Robert Tilton

Nigerian minister Prophet Temitope Balogun

Todd Bentley

John Wimber

R.W. Shambach

Joyce Meyer

A.A. Allen

Aimee Semple McPherson

Jack Coe

John G. Lake

Gordon Linsey

E.W. Kenyon

Oral Roberts

And I am sure that there are LOT MORE who NEVER received enough popularity to be on Radio or TV.

You might find one or two in the list, but honestly I doubt it. Can you show me a quote from one or more of these people where he or she ever called himself/herself a 'faith healer' or even used the term 'faith healer.'

Oral Roberts did use the term 'faith healer.' He spoke about 'divine healing.'

The media uses the term 'faith healer' and so do some critiques. I'm not saying the term isn't descriptive, since they emphasize the role of faith in healing, or many of them do or did, I suppose. Jesus did as well.

Would you say Jesus was a 'faith healer'? He said stuff like 'according to your faith be it unto you.

I have however met or heard of lots of Pentecostals who believe you are not saved until you speak in tongues, and even some who insist you cannot be saved until you climb into their Church's baptistry.

Those seem to be typical of Oneness Pentecostal beliefs in the US. The largest group is the United Pentecostal Church International. And there are smaller churches that go by 'Apostolic' in the US. Many years ago, I read they made up about 5% of those who call themselves Pentecostals. I haven't heard these beliefs among Trinitarians.

 

[Placid]

Hi Presidente,

Quote: He may not have spoken loudly or clearly enough to have been understood clearly by all.


Response: --- Obviously His voice was loud enough, but His words weren't understood by any.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice,

 

[garee]

The media uses the term 'faith healer' and so do some critiques. I'm not saying the term isn't descriptive, since they emphasize the role of faith in healing, or many of them do or did, I suppose. Jesus did as well.

No such thing as a sign gift. Signs are for those who believe not God. Prophecy for those who do believe God.

Those who look to a sign before they believe only show they have no assurance of having the Holy Spirit so they perform a work and make that work their own source of faith.

Would you say Jesus was a 'faith healer'? He said stuff like 'according to your faith be it unto you.

Faith is a work. They cannot be separated. By the faith of Christ, the work of God, He heals.

He is not worshiped by human hands. (Does not heal by human hands)

Would what you offered ... “according to your faith be it unto you”. Would that be according the work of Christ’s faith, of God that worked in them? Or was it of their own selves after the imagination of their own hearts that are desperately wicked and beyond repair, and they would have a reason to boast?

 

[notuptome]

The interpretation system I use when reading the New Testament is to believe what it says. I don't have to have a preconcieved conclusion that filters out certain gifts like many cessationists. I do appreciate that you don't do away with gifts of healing or the working of miracles because you don't have a proof text for the idea.

Which goes to the point that what you believe it says and what I believe it says are two different things. Proof texting is easy to deal with by applying context. That is the approved method of filtering out preconceived notions.

As long as we dance around we can feel like we are getting some where without ever going anywhere. Does God gift healing? Yes He does when someone is sick God gifts that person with healing. Does God do miracles? Yes some times the healing of a sick person is also a miracle.

Some of you folks are overly focused on gifts and not on Christ. When you go about talking about arms being regrown you take your credibility beyond belief. Raising people from the dead gets just as much over done publicity. What happens to all these people who were raised from the dead? Do they die again? Reading the word of God to suit pet doctrines engenders all kinds of issues.

This is a dead horse that just won't die.

How refreshing would it be to hear of souls coming to Christ and being added to the church. It would be so nice to hear of sinners getting so sick of their sin they would come to Christ confessing and repenting and being born again.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

Correction, as far as I know Oral Roberts did not use the term 'faith healer' or 'faith healing.' He said 'divine healing.'

 

[presidente]

No such thing as a sign gift. Signs are for those who believe not God. Prophecy for those who do believe God.

Signs are also for those who believe God. The disciples asked Jesus for the signs of His coming and He answered their question. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, though he was justified by faith.

Those who look to a sign before they believe only show they have no assurance of having the Holy Spirit so they perform a work and make that work their own source of faith.

More bizaare pronouncements. Did Thomas make a work for the source of his faith? You really just shouldn't make up stuff like this.

Faith is a work.

You seem very confused. Paul said if salvation was by faith it was not by works. So you contradict what Paul wrote in the Bible.

He is not worshiped by human hands. (Does not heal by human hands)

The Bible says that God does not dwell in temples built by human hands. It does not say that God is not worshipped by human hands. The Bible shows examples of and directly teaches healing through human hands.

Would what you offered ... “according to your faith be it unto you”. Would that be according the work of Christ’s faith, of God that worked in them? Or was it of their own selves after the imagination of their own hearts that are desperately wicked and beyond repair, and they would have a reason to boast?

I was quoting Christ from Matthew 9:29.

 

[notuptome]

Correction, as far as I know Oral Roberts did not use the term 'faith healer' or 'faith healing.' He said 'divine healing.'

Well that certainly makes all the difference in the world.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[shittim]

Every gift Jesus manifested is available to every believer, He was the model of how we are to relate to the Father.
Denying this will not change what the Father wants to do to redeem mankind to Him.
He is going to redeem mankind to Him and He gives us the opportunity to be a
part as we live according to His ways in relationship with Him, not in religion about Him.
Thus we all need to be conformed to the image of His only begotten Son.
Tongues, miracles, words of knowledge, dreams, visions, etc. His ways are not our ways.
We each have a complete plan He has laid out for our lives, most don't look for it. Many here on this thread would rather
argue about Him than seek His Face and direction in relationship with Him.
Thank you Heavenly Father for knocking on the door of each persons heart.
Best wishes

 

[VCO]

Correction, as far as I know Oral Roberts did not use the term 'faith healer' or 'faith healing.' He said 'divine healing.'

Wikipedia and Time Magazine, will disagree with you:



[SUP]

WIKIPEDIA - Oral Roberts:

[/SUP]

In 1938, he married a preacher's daughter, Evelyn Lutman Fahnestock.[SUP][13][/SUP]
Roberts became a traveling faith healer after ending his college studies without a degree. According to a TIME Magazine profile of 1972, Roberts originally made a name for himself with a large mobile tent "that sat 3,000 on metal folding chairs".[SUP][14]
. . .
[/SUP]
There were also two instances of healing, which Roberts would later look back on as his first realization "that I was approaching 'my hour'."[SUP][15][/SUP]
1947 was a turning point. Up until that time, Roberts struggled as a part-time preacher in Oklahoma. But at the age of 29 Roberts picked up his Bible and it fell open at the Third Epistle of John where verse two read: "I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." The next day, he said, he bought a Buick and God appeared, directing him to heal the sick.[SUP][16]
. . .
[/SUP]Even though Roberts was often associated with the prosperity gospel and the faith movement because of his close doctrinal and personal ties with Word-Faith teachers, his abundant life teachings did not fully identify him with that movement.[SUP][32][/SUP]
In 1977, Roberts claimed to have had a vision from a 900-foot-tall Jesus who told him to build City of Faith Medical and Research Center, and the hospital would be a success.[SUP][33][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP] In 1980, Roberts said he had a vision which encouraged him to continue the construction of his City of Faith Medical and Research Center in Oklahoma, which opened in 1981. At the time, it was among the largest health facilities of its kind in the world and was intended to merge prayer and medicine in the healing process. The City of Faith operated for only eight years before closing in late 1989,
. . .
In 1987, Time stated that he was "re-emphasizing faith healing and [is] reaching for his old-time constituency."[SUP][41][/SUP] However, the income of his organization continued to decrease (from $88 million in 1980 to $55 million in 1986, according to the Tulsa Tribune) and his largely vacant City of Faith Medical Center continued to lose money.[SUP][41] [/SUP]. . .

 

[presidente]

VCO,

No, I said that, as far as I know, Oral Roberts, and probably no other Pentecostal or Charismatic who ever performed, tried to perform or even pretended to perform a healing by the power of God called himself a 'faith healer.'

I said that the media and others call them 'faith healers.' Oral Roberts called it 'divine healing' and not 'faith healing.' He had a show on TV when I was rather young that came on after Rex Humbart. It seems like I remember the TV being on and him saying that, either when that show was on or some other time, that he called it divine healing rather than faith healing which put the emphasis on God. And he would emphasize that Jesus is the healer.

Clearly, the media and people like yourself use the term 'faith healer.' Pentecostals typically do not use the term to describe themselves or other preachers.

 

[VCO]

My friend with the masters degree, who is a Bible college instructor and who studies such things, says the scholarship shows that Hebrew was a living language. Hebrew was apparently the language of the people in certain Jewish regions outside Jerusalem, but in the holy land. Aramaic may have been the language of Jerusalem, with Hebrew was a religious language.



Now, that's interesting. I found a bunch of sites, but all with the same brief quote and no primary sources of the Talmud. I once had a source for the Talmud online. I'll have to see if I can dig it up. One site I went to argued that it referred to a Hasmonian royal family member.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that Mary was a very, very common name back then apparently. I don't know the stats. I'd imagine archeologists might have some based on grace inscriptions like they used for St. James/Yavok's ossuary. But how many Mary's were at the cross? Was it three or four? Miriam must have been a very common name back then.

(It's tough enough to give a baby girl a nice Bible name nowadays without calling her something obscure like Jemimah or Huldah. If they didn't have Elizabeth and Tabitha to choose from before they had the New Testament names, it must have been tough. )

He part of a long post that I did on the subject a couple years ago:
[/SIZE][/FONT]


I'm trying to remember the Lavrite geneology tradition. But if Joseph were not either the legal son or the physical son of Heli, then they could say this. If I remember right, he was the legal son of the Jeconiah lineage. There was a prophecy that no offspring of Jeconiah (Jer. 22:30)would be king. But he was supposed to be the legal son through the Jeconiah lineage, but the physical son through the David/Nathan/Heli lineage in Luke.


Not following you here.



Yes, interesting, but we need to see more context in that quote. What did Lightfoot have to say?There were lots of Miriams and there may have been a Heli in a well-known defunct royal household.


A lawyer in modern western law, or do you mean one of the ones they call 'rabbi', (though Christ is the true Rabbi.) We can read the Bible and see women were not supposed to inherit real property in Israel unless they married into their father's clan. As far as the other stuff goes, did he have a source? How reliable of a Bible interpreter is he?

Here are the quotes, the book name, chapter, and the page number of that the specific quote and who it comes from. That book by John Lightfoot was a Talmudical Exercitations, (exact publishing date unknown, but he died in 1675), which I assume is like a Christian commentary on the Talmud and the teachings of St. Luke. In that commentary they were quoting R. Lazar ben Josah and I could find no mention of the publishing of R. Lazar ben Josah's writings either. With that name, he may have been a early Jewish Christian commentator, or even an author of the Talmud. Honest, I tried hard to find out who that guy was, and why there is so little information about that author, and I came up with a blank.

HORAE Hebraicae & Talmudicae,
OR, HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL EXERCITATIONS
upon the Evangelist St. LUKE.
CHAP. III.

PAGE 400

. . .
There is a discourse of a certain person, who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected, if under a mistake. He saw Mary the Daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar ben Josah saith
. . .
If this be the true rendring of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far at least it agrees with our Evangelist, that Mary was the Daughter of Heli; and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the Mother of our Lord: whom they often vilifie elsewhere under the name of Sardah.

The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume