TEC, if you're going to be a believer, then you need to learn the concepts at work, and draw a more-careful distinction between the concepts of
1) forgiveness of sins, and,
2) the RESULT: healing.
In Judeo-Christianity, granting forgiveness is ONLY the right and within the domain of God, BUT a third-party (i.e. a Temple priest, or the long-promised Jewish Messiah) supposedly could intervene to 'plead the case' before God as if they were a court-appointed public defender, arguing the sinner's case before God on his behalf.
The roots of this concept are found back in Genesis, where Abraham pled directly to God on behalf of the unknown righteous men of Sodom: Abraham acted as a mediator on their behalf, and the role was considered very honorable; his concern for justice and empathy for others he didn't even know was partly WHY Abraham was considered "righteous". More cynically, it's also allowing a power structure to be established, since it created the concept of someone who's on your side, and has some sway with the powerful and vengeful source of life and death. In modern parlance, the mediator is playing the "good cop", and Jehovah is playing the "bad cop". However, both are actually on the same team.
In the parts of the books of prophecy (Nevi'im) that developed into the Jewish messiah prophecy, Jehovah is recorded as saying how he longed for some mortal who could act as a mediator between himself and his chosen mortals, the Jews. That's the entire BASIS of the messiah concept, an intermediary who ALSO was able to intercede and deliver God's message of forgiveness to humans (as a high priest, except the Jewish messiah was also considered the ruler of the land, and in charge of the military forces).
That's the basis underlying Jesus' warning those who'd deny him before other mortals could expect Jesus to deny knowing them when standing before God: Jesus wouldn't intervene on their behalf, and let them hang out to dry. However, that seems rather petty, doesn't it? It's not exactly consistent with Jesus' advice to 'turn the other cheek' when standing before one's enemies? Hold a grudge much, Jesus?
(And note that's (yet) another example of the contradictory words and actions of Jesus, who was talking out of both sides of his mouth, where believers are free to unconsciously rely on their ability to cherry-pick scriptures in order to justify their position on a particular issue.)
Once forgiven by a mediator, God's Holy Spirit causes the person's healing.
And whether God's Holy Spirit acts through the physical body of Jesus is missing the broader message that the source of healing power ultimately is NOT Jesus or the mediator, but from God. Yes, there's that passage of the menstruating women who was cured of her bleeding by touching Jesus' garment, and Jesus immediately sensed the energy drain. That account is mentioned, specifically to demonstrate that Jesus was not in control of the power of healing, since the woman bypassed him and yet was healed. That passage reinforces the concept that Jesus wasn't healing by some intrinsic power, but due to the power of Jehovah, acting via Holy Spirit. In ALL cases, the decision to heal is made by God, who causes the cure by the action of the Holy Spirit.
Do I believe it? Hell, no. But if you're going to believe, you should at least clearly understand how the belief developed from antecedent concepts (ironically, beliefs evolve: evolution is not just for animals).
Tammy, I don't want to dig for it now but you said on a thread a week or so ago that the penalty for Adam and Eve sinning against god was NOT death (you were at that time defending that god was not malicious) but that the consequences of sin was growing old, getting sick and dying. (which is kind of the same thing - but nevermind that) So why is it such a stretch for you that sin is purported to be the reason behind maladies - and Jesus forgiving sins results in healing?
Interesting point, Zounds, since TEC was claiming that death wasn't a punishment for Adam's sin of eating the fruit, but merely a 'natural consequence'.
That idea is completely inconsistent with the entire Xian concept of Jesus offering a 'perfect sacrifice' to atone for the first perfect man's 'sin', for how could mankind be alleviated from the sin of Adam that resulted in death for all, if God didn't have the power and control over death?
God sentenced Adam to die, and sure enough, he died (God cut off access to the Tree of Life). In Hebrew beliefs, that idea didn't raise an eyebrow: that was the explanation for why people died, but unlike the later Xians, they didn't question it being any other way, i.e. they didn't conceive of "eternal life", or resurrection from death (that was a concept that developed much later, with exposure to Zoroasterian beliefs of an afterlife, Hell, etc). The early Jewish believed people lived and died, and fini, that's it, folks. Game over.
Xianity developed, and of course introduced concepts of after-life (via religious syncretism with 'pagan' religions, etc), and Jesus supposedly raised people from the dead using the POWER of God, who supposedly possesses power and control over life and death. But again: if God supposedly controls the life/death cycle of humans, it's ludicrious to suggest he didn't possess it over Adam, being unable to prevent his death.
TEC said- Zound... because it IS an extrapolation; an interpretation. Because it ignores the many statements Christ made as to people being healed by their faith, and the statement he made about having felt power go out of Him.
See the post a few pages ago, where faith of the person who was healed was NOT a condition of healing. You're ignoring the many examples given in the Bible where someone interceded on behalf of another person (even a sick daughter who was far away, at home).
(I explained the power bit above)
TEC said- And because Adamah uses his statement to try and prove that Christ was ignorant of germs, etc. If forgiving sins is what healed people, then would that not mean then, that those who get sick (genetic diseases or otherwise) are not forgiven their sins? Because is that not an implication also?
Jesus WAS ignorant of pathogens, medical physiology and human anatomy, etc. That takes us back to this:
TEC said- No, he did not poo=poo handwashing. The Pharisess were finding fault with Christ and his disciples by asking why they forego the traditions of the elders by not giving their hands CEREMONIAL washing. Hence ceremonially 'unclean' hands. Christ pointed out their hypocrisy. The whole cleaning the outside of the cup (or vessel, that is us)... but inside the cup (or vessel) is unclean.
TEC, that argument is absurd, if you think bacteria or viruses give a hoot about the difference between the beliefs of handwasher, or their intent (ceremonial or non-ceremonial handwashing)? Hell, no! They respond EXACTLY the same way to hand-washing: they get washed off, which is important esp before eating, since many pathogens are transmitted to the mouth by eating with unwashed hands (esp for those individuals who are in frequent contact with the sick and ill, like Jesus and his disciples).
TEC said- So those accounts have nothing to do with ignorance of germs; there was another lesson at play, the one on hypocrisy, the one on what is unclean. (meaning what is in the heart: and that what comes out of the heart is what makes a man unclean, like evil thoughts, greed, malice, jealousy, etc)
Off ALL the Pharisee's 'man-made' rules to pick on, Jesus had to pick the ONE that WAS later confirmed by medical scientists, since we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that "handwashing is the single-most important means of preventing disease transmission in humans". If Jesus HAD known it and still said what he did, then he looks absolutely evil for talking down a life-saving simple procedure on the basis of venting over Pharisees and their "burdensome" rules. Jesus was WRONG, and even reinforced the meme of "sin is what makes one unclean", since that was the basis of his cure: forgiveness of sins, where evil thoughts in the heart (actually the brain: Jesus was wrong on that, too!) cause sin, which causes disease.
TEC, have you ever been in a public restroom at a restaurant? If so, you've see signs like these in EVERY State, since handwashing is required by law for restaurant employees, as a public-health measure:
TEC said- You sure about that, Adamah? What about how he could not heal or peform miracles many miracles among those with no faith?
YES, I am.
And you? Again, see above: Jesus supposedly healed those who didn't personally possess faith. Reread the site I linked to, since maybe you'll accept the word from a fellow believer who's studied the Bible and says something like only half of the accounts of healing involved faith of the one who was cured. There's only 10 examples (IIRC) of those showing faith as a condition of healing.
TEC said- Are there some scriptures that you can show that demonstrates that people were healed when Christ forgave them their sins? DS211 makes a good point above as well, that Christ forgave those who sinned against him and executed him... did they all suddenly become free of illness at that time?
He appealed on their behalf, asking for his Father to forgive them ("for they know not what they do"). Once again, you're blending TWO separate concepts (forgiveness AND healing) into a single bloody mess.... It's NOT that hard if you try to learn your own Holy Book, and get over your Jesus worship.
(And it's kinda ironic that an hard-core life-long atheist needs to teach the believers their own beliefs, in order to show them how 'their' beliefs developed, in the first place....)