That is possible if the soul has not detached from the body yet. It can be days. But it also depends on how badly damaged the body is. If they have vital organs seriously damaged then the body won’t work enough to have consciousness in the physical as in physical experience.
Depends on the miracle type. I believe all miracles concerning events related to what we saw with the laying on of the apostles hands have ceased. Also in the Bible it never stated people had to believe to be blessed by the laying on of hands. For a fact, miracles were often done as a way to convince people of the truth.
I’m a cessationist through and through.
So I don’t believe speaking in tongues, raising the dead or healing the sick instantaneously exists anymore. I don’t believe there is a theological reason to still assume it and I don’t believe any scientific evidence actually exists that shows unexplainable healing of positively identified damage or death. Same as I don’t believe handling deadly venomous snakes exists anymore as a sign to unbelievers.
Could this be interpreted as "each of us is born with the potential of becoming true ‘Images of God’ but only Jesua achieved this goal?
Al Leo
That’s not what it sounds like to me. Being a representative of God is not at all the same thing as being God.
1 Like
That is why I have some difficulty with the idea of theosis and its practice, but I haven’t studied, for all intents and purposes.
Where do you think the Bible teaches that?
And what would it take to convince you that miracles, speaking in tongues, and such things still exist?
1 Like
At this moment I don’t have time to go through it. If you google cessationist you may find some blogs on it from a theological angle.
Nothing will convince me of it because I know scripturally it’s ceased. I know people can’t just lay their hands on someone and raise them from the dead, heal them of a cure , and so on. If anyone can, and they won’t to convince me, all they have to do is go to anyone of them thousands of hospitals and heal everyone. Someone that can be proven to have been hurt. Like after the next mass shooting. They just need to head there and place their hands on them and heal and raise them all. Then I’ll accept they did it and then we can debate it through scriptures and see if they can state theologically it was from God.
I think I may have actually made a post at some point about it in here that listed a dozen or so verses and explaining the context of why they ceased.
Part of the way unbelievers knew the christians were true was because of the miracles.
Sometime later on if I did not already I’ll make a post going in depth why I believe what I believe.
I see part of the problem is that you have a view of healing and miracles that is inconsistent with scripture.
Healing and other miracles are done at the prompting of the Holy Spirit; God doesn’t give anyone a magic wand to use as he pleases.
Even Jesus could do no deed of power in his hometown, as Mark records.
6 He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary[a] and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense[b] at him. 4 Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” 5 And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6 And he was amazed at their unbelief.
1 Like
I understand it really well. I even did a paper years ago in every single miracle in the Torah and New Testament was over 100 pages long. Nothing in those verses you posted stated that Jesus was prohibited from doing them. It was the fact almost none came to him because as stated, a prophet is without honor in his home town”. Those people thought it was impossible for Jesus to be anything more than a bastard from the sticks. So they did not come.
Again, when I have time. I’m hash it out with you. We can go text by text and make comparisons on what was done and what was not done and dig into laying on of hands , apostleship, and so on. I just don’t have time now. So don’t take my silence coming up as being baffled. I’m just busy. I’ll try to engage a little a bit. Here is a good place to start.
So I already know all of these answers but I’m curious what you believe.
-
Is Philip there the evangelist or the apostle? How do we know?
-
We see Philip carrying out the great commission (acts 2:37-38) and he baptized those that believed. But despite believing, repentance, and being baptized they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Why is that?
-
If in acts 2:38 it says when we repent and are baptized into Christ we receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But here in acts 8 they did those things and yet the apostles in Jerusalem had to come down to give them the Holy Spirit. Why is that?
-
Is there a difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and power of the Holy Spirit?
-
Simon the witch saw that Philip was preforming miracles. Yet the apostles had to be sent down to Samaria to those who believed and were baptized so that the apostles could lay hands on them and they receive the Holy Spirit. What were the apostles needed?
All of those questions tie directly into laying on of hands which is a aspect of miracles.
I look forward to it, as I have seen nothing in scripture which teaches cessation of miracles.
As for your questions:
- Offhand, I don’t know which Philip it is, and I don’t think it matters.
- Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. He opened the church to the Jews at Pentecost. His endorsement was needed in Acts 8 to open the church to the Samaritans. Peter also opened the church to the Gentiles with Cornelius. These three openings were important.
- You have misstated Acts 2:38. It doesn’t say “we…”. This is Peter speaking to the Jews.
- Power and indwelling are certainly different things.
- The church had not been unlocked for the Samaritans by the one Jesus had given the keys. Peter had to go to legitimize the mission and the inclusion of the Samaritans, just as he had to go to Cornelius and unlock the church for the Gentiles.
And, note, Peter didn’t understand that the church was to be opened to the Gentiles. He had to be given the vision three times.
Also note that miracles do not require a laying on of hands. Many miracles occurred without that.
Nothing in scripture says miracles ceased. When specifically do you think they did cease?
1 Like
I liked Eric Metaxas’ book, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (but I dislike his politics), so I read his book Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life, where he interviews people he had personal reasons to trust about miracles that had occurred in their lives. Having had miracles of God’s providence in my own life, I had no reason to distrust the accounts he relates in the book. It’s been several years ago since I’ve read it, but at least one is a miracle of healing.
1 Like
I think I can loan it to you on Kindle, if you’re interested. The loan is only good for two weeks, if I remember correctly – I looked into it for someone a year or two ago, but, (if I remember correcty 
) it’s a pretty quick read (way quicker than the unabridged Bonhoeffer ).
Nuts. Belay that. That title is not available for loan, but I can recommend it to you. 
-
Actually it matters a lot. That’s why I said it takes a lot of time to work through why I believe it. It will take me hours to systematically work though it and guide you. Hours of work that I don’t have time to go through. Within that chapter, if someone is interested, it lays out which Philip it is.
-
Again. Not at all. A lot more can be said about the keys also. Catholics have really painted a picture of it that’s not actually there. But that’s not actually what it is about. The reason why Peter, and John, was sent was because an apostle was necessary to be there.
-
Your statement here makes no sense. It seems more like a emotional toss than anything even remotely attempting to be reason. I’m not quoting acts. I stating the doctrine taught there.
Acts 2:37-38. NASB
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The we, is everyone. It’s the great commission after all being carried out from Matthew 28. Teach them to believe and be baptized… Water baptism, baptism of fire, baptism of the spirit, and power of the Holy Spirit all tie into this. You can’t actually understand the power of the spirit of you don’t understand the others. It’s a foundation.
Yes the indwelling is the Holy Spirit is very different from the power of the Holy Spirit. Can you explain the differences?
Had nothing to do with peter having keys. It required an apostle. We see the same thing from Paul to Timothy when he was among the elders.
1 Timothy 4:14
New American Standard Bible
14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
2 Timothy 1:6
New American Standard Bible
6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
At first it seems like a contradiction. But greek clears it up. In 1T4:14 the word with is meta and means among some when we place the stories together we see this. The elders were there with Paul and Paul places his hands on Timothy to give him the spiritual gift known as the power of the spirit. At this time Timothy was already a Christian. No keys was needed. But an apostle was.
Another major theme to understanding this as mentioned is what is the baptism of fire. Many confuse the baptism of fire with a spiritual blessing or something with the tongues of fire in acts 2. But it’s not. Being baptized with fire is being destroyed in the lake of fire.
Matthew 3:7-12
New American Standard Bible
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 10 The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “As for me, Ibaptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
The entire verse is linking fire as punishment for the chaff.
It’s midnight here and I’m about to go to bed. In the next few weeks I’ll make posts about the various baptisms , and how it all converges on laying on of hands. Outside of the gospels, and after the promise in acts 1 in how the apostles were to await in Jerusalem for the promise which played out in acts 2.
I will place it on my back burner. I’ve read a lot on this. Ultimately what guides my doctrine on this is theology. Theology is how I know that unbelievers were led to Christ by the proof the apostles did.
I used to be a cessationist, and I understand its theological and exegetical underpinnings, but I am not convinced it matches reality. (I certainly don’t think miracles are as common as some make them out to be – God is not a vending machine that we can plug our prayer and faith coins into and expect the desired product.)
I do. Theologically it lines up. Then additionally, no one on this planet can walk into the emergency room and begin to heal the sick and resurrect the dead by laying their hands on them. No instant healings. At best we can pray, and hope it works out if it’s in his will over time. After all, We are all social distancing and wearing masks and not just curing everyone. Or even a fraction of them.
I agree with the bulk of that content, but not the second sentence. I will not say dogmatically that there cannot be instant healings, nowhere, never. The one Metaxas relates pretty much was. And God can work differently in different cultures, too. I understand that more than one Muslim’s first introduction to Jesus was in a [miraculous] dream or vision.
As time permits I’ll flesh out theologically why I’m so certain.
As for the rest there is nothing that can be done. If you believe it, you believe it. I don’t. I don’t believe the Muslim had a dream any more divine than the dreams I’ve had. There are people who sincerely believe that the dead reached out to them in dreams and believe that aliens have contacted them and that they can astral project and talk to beings in Other dimensions and people who believe cards tell the future and live their life off of it and so on.
I’ve watched crippled kids and adults who truly believed in miracles stand face to face with pastors who claimed to have cured others and they never stood up. I’ve watched people who wanted to believe it was real see the same girl get prayed over and healed only to die from the same disease weeks later. I know people who are good people, honest people, and don’t so drugs or have mental disorders and function perfectly fine in life who swear fairies are real and that elves are real and that they’ve seen them and talked with them in dreams and so on. Then the next day they go to the tree in the dream they had and find $100 bill and swear the fairy guided them to it. So a personals understanding of a event only carries so much weight.
1 Like