John MacArthur Didn't like to speak in tongues.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

"'Investigative atonement' or more commonly known as the Investigative Judgment is a doctrine primarily held by Seventh-day Adventists, which describes a phase in heaven after Christ's ascension where the sins of believers are reviewed to determine their fitness for eternal life, analogous to the cleansing of the ancient Israelite sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. This judgment is not by works but a validation of faith in Christ, demonstrating that believers are truly united with Him and will receive the promised kingdom."


Ron Wyatt made up the the 24 Chromosome Jesus' blood dripping through an earthquake crack and falling on the Mercy Seat. He made it up because of his belief of the "Investigative Judgement" Where Jesus began a new phase of ministry in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844. The SDA sees Daniel 8:14, which speaks of the "cleansing of the sanctuary" after 2,300 days, as their proof text.

Ron Wyatt like many others see Jesus having to physically apply His blood to the Mercy Seat in order to gain salvation for the people. With the Catholic story of Longinus, the soldier who pierced Jesus' side. The blood and water came out and sprayed in Longinus' eyes. He was near sighted, far sighted, had some issues with his eyes, but the blood of Jesus healed him. Roman Catholics believed that body parts of Roman Catholic saints, and the utensils, had healing properties. Therefore Ron Wyatt used the story of the blood dripping on the Mercy Seat as part of his grift.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Ron Wyatt like many others see Jesus having to physically apply His blood to the Mercy Seat in order to gain salvation for the people. With the Catholic story of Longinus, the soldier who pierced Jesus' side. The blood and water came out and sprayed in Longinus' eyes. He was near sighted, far sighted, had some issues with his eyes, but the blood of Jesus healed him. Roman Catholics believed that body parts of Roman Catholic saints, and the utensils, had healing properties. Therefore Ron Wyatt used the story of the blood dripping on the Mercy Seat as part of his grift.

Well...they DO have healing properties. Was not Elisha a Saint? Not saying we need to parcel Sis Betty to the highest paying tithers or anything...but there is presidence for miracles happening in situations where people come in contact with living/dead Saints or clothes they have worn.

Are you saying that blood didnt spray into his eyes healing him? Do they have actual testimony of this happening or was it just props they claimed to have that seemingly backed up their claims?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Are you saying that blood didnt spray into his eyes healing him? Do they have actual testimony of this happening or was it just props they claimed to have that seemingly backed up their claims?

I don’t think this healing is in the early accounts, like the Gosoel of Nicodemus. It shows up after AD 1000. Thus, it lacks some pizazz (if my memory is correct.)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Well...they DO have healing properties. Was not Elisha a Saint? Not saying we need to parcel Sis Betty to the highest paying tithers or anything...but there is presidence for miracles happening in situations where people come in contact with living/dead Saints or clothes they have worn.

Are you saying that blood didnt spray into his eyes healing him? Do they have actual testimony of this happening or was it just props they claimed to have that seemingly backed up their claims?

Elisha was a one shot event, and wasn't supposed to be considered as New Testament doctrine. Jesus' spit was also used quite a bit in healing. Yet, we don't see the Apostle Paul or Peter spitting on people for healing. I remember a female preacher who use to use her own sweat to anoint people in the prayer line. Good thing I don't advocate women preachers. You are asking me if I believe the Roman soldier had Jesus' blood spray him in his eyes? Bro, I don't believe their ever was a Roman soldier named Longinus. I believe what the Gospel says about a Roman soldier piercing the side of Christ. But there is zero mention of some bloney about healing blood going into the eyes of anyone.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Elisha was a one shot event, and wasn't supposed to be considered as New Testament doctrine. Jesus' spit was also used quite a bit in healing. Yet, we don't see the Apostle Paul or Peter spitting on people for healing. I remember a female preacher who use to use her own sweat to anoint people in the prayer line. Good thing I don't advocate women preachers. You are asking me if I believe the Roman soldier had Jesus' blood spray him in his eyes? Bro, I don't believe their ever was a Roman soldier named Longinus. I believe what the Gospel says about a Roman soldier piercing the side of Christ. But there is zero mention of some bloney about healing blood going into the eyes of anyone.

Yet, pastors hand out prayer napkins.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Yet, pastors hand out prayer napkins.

Yet, don’t do the same with their shadows?

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yet, don’t do the same with their shadows?

Good point!

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Yet, pastors hand out prayer napkins.

EB,

I was agreeing with you, by the way.

Many things were a one time event, yet people will say, “If He diD it THEN, He can DO IT- - - TO-DAAAY! Hallelujah!”

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Good point!

Originally Posted by diakonos

EB,

I was agreeing with you, by the way.

Many things were a one time event, yet people will say, “If He diD it THEN, He can DO IT- - - TO-DAAAY! Hallelujah!”

Amen, people get off track and create their own religious traditions. Prayer clothes were sent through the mail during the 60s and the 80s. It's simple and easy to do. Travels well in a manilla envelope. Shadows, spittle mud eyeballs for the blind not so much. Do I believe in the miraculous? Most certainly, it is one of the prime indicators of the Kingdom. But, certain Biblical events happened for a reason at that moment in time. Can a minister have an Ananias and Sapphira moment? Could a minister call down actual fire from heaven and wipe out the Baptist church up the block? If I say yes to one, wouldn't the latter also be possible? Of course. I truly believe it is possible to manifest signs and wonders, in healing, or retribution. Still it is totally up to Jesus, and who He would choose for that specific event. The Baptist church up the block could use a few miracles instead of a stream of lava, and Brother and Sister Foofoonick could use a little counseling concerning fear and doubt. Instead of passing away on the church carpet in the foyer. Events in the Bible had reasons for those events to take place. They weren't meant to be the standard on how to conduct New Testament ministry.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yet, we don't see the Apostle Paul or Peter spitting on people for healing.

We do have:

Acts 19:10-12 (AV)
And this continued by the space of two years;
so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus,
both Jews and Greeks.
And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons,
and the diseases departed from them,
and the evil spirits went out of them.