Adamah, you are the one who takes a mishmash of various theological interpretations, and calls them true.
I asked you to back up what you say from scripture... not theology. But you are not even consistent in that... or please provide a link to any theologian that asserts otherwise about... not handwashing... but CEREMONIAL handwashing. Do the accounts mention the lay people ceremonially washing their hands, btw... or just the priests/pharisees/teachers of the law? But besides all that... does dipping your hands in water (that others have also dipped their hands in) equal handwashing? We're not talking about soap here, or even hot water.
Because a quick google on to what other theologians state about that passage reveals some of what I shared, and some of what is written here. Yet, you call it absurd.
And for the second time, I never said that His power to heal did not come from God. So I do not know why you continue to go on about it. Christ never took credit for that. "Go and tell the priests how much God has done for you" Or "Go, your faith has healed you."
Here is another passage that perhaps you overlook. Where healing had nothing to do with forgiving sins, because there was no sin TO forgive:
"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said 'Jesus', "but this happened so that he work of God might be displayed in his life."
Or this from Peter (regarding a man crippled from birth):
Acts 3:16
By faith in the name of Jesus*, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus'* name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.
says something like only half of the accounts of healing involved faith of the one who was cured
Again, I did not say faith 'of the one who was cured'. Like I previously told you that I did not say 'patient'. It was not a matter of semantics. Obviously, the faith of the Centurion allowed his servant to be healed. The faith of the phonecian woman allowed her daughter to be healed. (mind you, none of that means the patient did not also have faith, but perhaps were unable to ask themselves, and so another came in their stead)
So what do we have from what is written?
In ALL instances it is the power that was in Christ (given to Him by God, having come from God) that healed people.
In most instances, it is written that it was someone's faith that allowed healing (or a miracle) and a lack of faith that prevented healing or a miracle.
Did Christ also forgive sins? Of course He did!
I believe that you are saying that his forgiveness of sins allowed some to be clean so that they COULD be healed? If that were true... by being part of the process in some instances (and i would still like you to put forth the scriptural backing for this claim)... faith still came first, so that according to Christ's own words... their faith had healed them.
Because what of the blind man from birth or the cripple from birth or the woman who was bleeding and who was healed without Christ even knowing who she was, so as to forgive her sins first?
However, consider what is also written about the process:
Matthew 8:17
This was to fulfill what was written by the prophet Isaiah:
"He took up our infirmities (sicknesses) and bore (carried) our diseases."
Something for you to consider perhaps.
Peace to you,
tammy
*Jesus not being the name the Peter used; but rather Jaheshua (pronounced like Yeshua), the one who came in the name of Jah.