A case in the Bible, where a person received healing and then lost it

34 Comments

• 

  Reply December 5, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  Good discussion by Daniel Rushing and @pack rat

• 

  Reply December 5, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Jesus cautioned them against receiving an even worse thing.
  John 5:12-14
  Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

• 

  Reply December 5, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  Since some sickness is caused by demons does this mean that a demon could return back in a person healed by the Lord? Robert Borders

• 

  Reply December 5, 2016

  Robert Borders

  The same people including pastors went through weekly deliverance at Win Worley’s church and barfed up demons into paper sacks.

• 

  Reply December 5, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Depends on what Jesus ment by “a worse thing”.

• 

  Reply December 5, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Also, maybe why Jesus said this,
  Mark 9:25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

• 

  Reply December 5, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  So which one of all these may be(s) it is?

• 

  Reply December 5, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Troy Day
  Each situation is different.
  I do not deal in maybe(s).

  Have you dealt with any that were possessed (truly possessed)?

  So which maybe would it be?

• 

  Reply December 6, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  David Lewayne Porter seems like there’s no case in the Bible, where a person received healing and then lost it?

• 

  Reply December 6, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Troy
  Here is one for you,
  Are you ready?
  Saul persecuted the church.
  He was blinded by Jesus with Him being brighter than the noonday sun.
  Ananias prayed for him and as it were scales fell from his eyes.
  And then yet Paul says this later,
  Galatians 4:13-15
  Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.

  So then what think ye?

• 

  Reply December 6, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  Did Saul had a demon? – a messenger from Satan?

• 

  Reply December 6, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  You jump to the conclusion others do that the messenger of satan, the thorn in his flesh was his eyes.

  We do know that the thorn was a messenger of satan (no more, no less).
  I guess with all of his visions and spiritual enlightenment he would have known if it was a demon.

  He never called it a demon or devil, nor did any of his contemporaries?

• 

  Reply December 6, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  A messenger of Satan in the eyes? Do you mean in his physical body because that sure sounds like a demon entering the body of a Spirit filled believer Robert Borders

• 

  Reply December 6, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  There we go again jumping to conclusions that the messenger of satan, the thorn in the flesh was his eyes.

  So Troy
  Are you playing on words?
  Is it sicknesses in the body, or possessing the person’s spirit?

  You need to research,
  (s)pirit – lower case s
  infirmity
  sickness
  verses
  devil (s)
  Possessed
  Casted out

  When dealing with spirits of sickness or infirmities within the body (bodily) it does not control them to the place or level of making them do things against their will.
  Now devils the like of legion (that controls the person and has them do its bidding against their will) which is a spiritual issue.

  The two are not the same.
  Notice the command of power usage Jesus gave to the disciples and the charge of how to use it;
  Matthew 10:1
  And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
  Matthew 10:8
  Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
  Luke 13:32
  And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

• 

  Reply December 6, 2016

  Jim Price

  Unless we think of Lazarus who was healed from death and the later died.

• 

  Reply December 7, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  Lazarus’ sickness was not unto death

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  But it was a sickness, was it not?

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  But not unto death – makes whole lots of difference

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Did he die?
  Did Jesus say
  John 11:14
  Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

  ?
  He was not to stay dead inorder to show Christ had power over death.
  But he did die.
  It was sickness.
  It require the attention, touch, and power of Jesus.

  Your (makes a whole of difference) only in your theology.

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  LoL,
  Not the first time. ..
  Is Lazarus still walking around with us in his fleshly body?

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  Some say Lazarus and John were one and the same

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Some are crazy.
  Sounds like the fellow trying to say Michael the arch angel is Jesus.

  You gonna believe a man?

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Were Mary and Martha Johns sisters?

  Was John from bethany?
  Did it not say the disciples were with Jesus?
  Did Jesus call John forth from the tomb/grave?

  I will trust the scriptures.

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  Was Lazarus or John whom Jesus loved?
  Was Lazarus or John whom Jesus resurrected and wanted him to remain alive until His return in John 21:22?

  Read more:

  The biblical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt John was not the “other disciple” because:

  The gospel writers treated them like different people. The first three gospels totally omit the one whom “Jesus loved”, but they often refer to John by name – and yet all of those events where John was referenced by name in the first three gospels are missing from the book that the one whom “Jesus loved” wrote.

  The one whom “Jesus loved” wrote his gospel without identifying himself by name, but there is no evidence John ever avoided using his own name. In fact, John identified himself by name repeatedly in the Book of Revelation, and this difference in behavior argues against the idea that the same man wrote both books.

  “The disciple whom Jesus loved” enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This can’t be said of John, and the three times that Jesus took John aside with Peter and James do not single John out as having that relationship.

  On the night that Jesus was arrested, John and the “other disciple” behaved differently. John let Jesus down by falling asleep three times. In contrast, the “other disciple” went into the palace of the high priest with Jesus, and we only see him leave at a time well into the next day, when Jesus reassigned him.

  The idea that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John relies on the false assumption that this author was one of “the twelve”. Paintings of “the twelve” alone with Jesus at the supper promote this error. But the details in scripture show Jesus and “the twelve” were not alone at that event, like the fact they were guests in someone’s home. Besides this, the phrase “other disciple” itself indicates he was not one of “the twelve” but, rather, he was one of the additional loyal disciples who also followed Jesus. (See Appendix for more proof he was not one of “the twelve”.)

  If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” joined Jesus and “the twelve” after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet this is just what is indicated by the author’s own record of events at that Passover – which skips the Lord’s Table and opens with the foot washing, after which Jesus sat down “again”.

  The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus, and he was known to the high priest. But John was not known to the high priest. It was only after Pentecost that the high priest first became acquainted with John.

  The author’s anonymity argues against the John idea. At the end of this author’s gospel, he listed “the sons of Zebedee” at the same time that he listed two “other” disciples and called himself the one whom “Jesus loved”. He grouped John in with the apostles but he referred to himself anonymously at that point.

  A preponderance of the evidence in scripture indicates Lazarus was the “other disciple” because:

  They had the identical relationship with Jesus. “Jesus loved” the one “whom Jesus loved” and “Jesus loved” Lazarus – and they were unique in this regard. They were the only men who associated with Jesus during his ministry that were also singled out in scripture as being “loved” by Jesus (the key relationship).

  The other three gospel writers treat these two alike. They do not tell us that Lazarus was a friend of Jesus, or that Lazarus had supper with Jesus, or even that Lazarus was raised from the dead! Likewise, they never mention “the other disciple, whom Jesus loved”, and they totally ignore his unique role in the key events of the closing days of Jesus’ life.

  The anonymous author treats Lazarus and himself in a parallel manner in his gospel. Lazarus suddenly appears late in the text and he is only referenced a few times. In a highly similar way, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” also suddenly appears late in the gospel and he too is only referenced a few times.

  One seems to replace the other in the gospel. The last mention of Lazarus occurs before the first mention of the one whom “Jesus loved”. The author ceased all references to Lazarus in the text and it was only after he did so that the author began referring to himself as the one whom “Jesus loved”.

  The suddenly famous one disappears, and then the anonymous one suddenly appears. Right after the public’s desire to see Lazarus is recounted, a transition occurs: he vanishes from the text and the term “Jesus loved”, which had only been used regarding Lazarus, then begins to be used by the author in anonymous references to himself – “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved”, etc.

  The experiences of Lazarus would produce the behavior exhibited by “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Jesus gave a one-of-a-kind gift to Lazarus when he raised him from the dead. After that, Lazarus was different from the rest of Jesus’ followers, and he would have been different from the man that he had been prior to that miracle. Jesus’ relationship to the one whom “Jesus loved” and the behavior of this “other disciple” befit what one would expect if he was the raised-from-the-dead Lazarus.

  The Bible reveals that both sat with Jesus. The last time Lazarus is seen in the Bible he is sitting with Jesus at a table. Similarly, the first time the one whom “Jesus loved” is seen he is leaning on Jesus at a table.

  When confronted with the “linen” evidence, the “other disciple” became the first one who “believed”. This reaction befits Lazarus – the one person in scripture who was most likely to be profoundly moved by the sight of the “linen clothes” and the “napkin”, since he had been wearing similar wrappings for four days at the time he was raised from the dead.

  The “not die” rumor about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” points to Lazarus. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Jesus said, “whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” just prior to raising him. Knowing either fact might cause a rush to judgment about Jesus’ words, “If I will that he tarry till I come” and result in the rumor that was inferred from them (especially if it was known he “believed” first).

  The “other disciple” was anonymous and Lazarus had a motive to become anonymous. When the people came “not for Jesus’ sake only” but to “see Lazarus also”, surely Lazarus knew that the focus belonged on Jesus and not on him. Likewise, the author’s intent was to lead people to Jesus and he concealed his identity, thus, he apparently felt this was needed in order to achieve that objective.

  When Peter’s death was foretold he turned to “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. This could be because he associated “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with the issue of death, a topic that would undeniably be forever associated with Lazarus by all those who knew him.

  The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus and was known to the high priest; both fit Lazarus. He was a “friend” of Jesus and the apostles. Upon his death “many of the Jews” turned out, some still weeping four days later. When Lazarus was raised the “chief priests” sought to kill Jesus but thereafter many Jews “came not for Jesus sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also”. So the “chief priests” conspired to kill Lazarus too because “by reason of him many of the Jews” believed on Jesus.

• 

  Reply December 8, 2016

  Tony Conger

  everyone eventually loses their healing

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  John 21:22
  You miss understood what you read.
  John 21:23
  Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die:
  yet Jesus said NOT unto him, *He shall not die*;
  but, If I will that he tarry till I come,
  what is that to thee?

  Jesus said that to say (end of verse 23) what business is it of yours..
  Not that he would live until Jesus came back.

  As far as Jesus loving Lazarus or John;
  How about “Jesus loved them both”.
  Did you not read what is said about Jesus,
  John 13:1
  Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world,
  He *loved them* unto the end.

  Responding to you by point::;

  The biblical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt John was not the “other disciple” because:
  * Reasonable doubt – then why did you say, “Troy Day Some say Lazarus and John were one and the same”
  You did not say all, so there is still doubt because only some say it).
  You may believe that, or just be trolling but there is still doubt that is more than reasonable.

  The gospel writers treated them like different people. The first three gospels totally omit the one whom “Jesus loved”, but they often refer to John by name – and yet all of those events where John was referenced by name in the first three gospels are missing from the book that the one whom “Jesus loved” wrote.
  * The 4 gospels were written by 4 different men to show 4 different sides of Christ;
  Matthew = Christ as King
  Mark (the Gospel of Peter, written by Mark his sidekick) = Christ the Devine
  Luke = Christ the Messiah/Saviour (kind to the weak and suffering
  John = Christ the Son of God.

  The one whom “Jesus loved” wrote his gospel without identifying himself by name, but there is no evidence John ever avoided using his own name. In fact, John identified himself by name repeatedly in the Book of Revelation, and this difference in behavior argues against the idea that the same man wrote both books.
  * You seem to overlook that the Gospel of John is written in 3rd person and ends this way;
  John 21:24
  This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true
  Revelation is written in 1st person.
  That is a simple lesson in basic English.

  “The disciple whom Jesus loved” enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This can’t be said of John, and the three times that Jesus took John aside with Peter and James do not single John out as having that relationship.
  * Peter was also one that laid on Jesus breasts at the last supper John 13:24&25. That in addition to him be taken as part of the there shows he was also of a special bond. Show where Jesus took any one disciple a side separately on a regular basis.

  On the night that Jesus was arrested, John and the “other disciple” behaved differently. John let Jesus down by falling asleep three times. In contrast, the “other disciple” went into the palace of the high priest with Jesus, and we only see him leave at a time well into the next day, when Jesus reassigned him.
  * The other disciple – the high priest wanted to kill Lazarus – does not make much since for him to go before the high priest during Jesus’ mock trial. John 12:10-11
  But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

  The idea that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John relies on the false assumption that this author was one of “the twelve”. Paintings of “the twelve” alone with Jesus at the supper promote this error. But the details in scripture show Jesus and “the twelve” were not alone at that event, like the fact they were guests in someone’s home. Besides this, the phrase “other disciple” itself indicates he was not one of “the twelve” but, rather, he was one of the additional loyal disciples who also followed Jesus. (See Appendix for more proof he was not one of “the twelve”.)
  * did Lazarus have a brother named James?… Matt 17:1
  It is not recorded as James`, Mary’s, and Martha’s house when Jesus would frequent their home.
  Was Lazarus the son of Zebedee?
  Yes Jesus had more than 12, still weak to try to make Lazarus the beloved.

  If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” joined Jesus and “the twelve” after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet this is just what is indicated by the author’s own record of events at that Passover – which skips the Lord’s Table and opens with the foot washing, after which Jesus sat down “again”.
  * you use if as a base for your presumption – that shows your doubt.
  The difference of the Lord’s supper narrative is easily explained the same as any two witnesses at the same accident gives differing accounts due to their stations and vantage point.

  The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus, and he was known to the high priest. But John was not known to the high priest. It was only after Pentecost that the high priest first became acquainted with John.
  * so the other disciple was known to the high priest
  Again, Lazarus could not have entered the high priest area during the mock trial
  John 12:10-11
  But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

  The author’s anonymity argues against the John idea. At the end of this author’s gospel, he listed “the sons of Zebedee” at the same time that he listed two “other” disciples and called himself the one whom “Jesus loved”. He grouped John in with the apostles but he referred to himself anonymously at that point.
  * again, 3rd person, a simple literary style used by many writers.

  A preponderance of the evidence in scripture indicates Lazarus was the “other disciple” because:
  * you used a lot of “ifs” for it to be so clear cut.
  And you did say “some” say this, not all.
  Indicates doubt.

  They had the identical relationship with Jesus. “Jesus loved” the one “whom Jesus loved” and “Jesus loved” Lazarus – and they were unique in this regard. They were the only men who associated with Jesus during his ministry that were also singled out in scripture as being “loved” by Jesus (the key relationship).
  * again, Jesus loved them all – John 13:1.

  * There are many things in one or two gospels, but not in all;
  Parables in Matthew are omitted from Mark and Luke, miracles also.

  I believe I leave you with more to examine due to doubt and (if), and only “some” saying it.

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  I had more but Facebook limited me to 8,000 words.

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  What exactly do you mean?

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Are you saying the you personally believe Lazarus and John are the same people?

  If so, I’ll just let you read and concentrate on my replies until they sink in.

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  There’s a valid study that the beloved disciple and author of the 4th Gospel is indeed Lazarus. Have you not read about that in your studies?

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  That was not my question.
  Do you believe it?

  I do not ascribe to that thought.
  I also do not just accept just any person and their thoughts on scripture.

  Must people can’t rightly divide the Word (of Truth).

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  It’s normal I dont believe things like you do or feel things like Ricky Grimsley feels. But we simply look at the Biblical evidence and there is indeed compelling Biblical and historic evidence

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  David Lewayne Porter

  Compelling, hardly.
  Worth looking at , maybe, but far from convincing.

• 

  Reply December 9, 2016

  Varnel Watson

  What are the implications, if any, if Ἀλφαῖος and Κλωπᾶς are indeed the same individual?