CORONAVIRUS PROVES THAT “FAITH HEALERS” ARE FAKES

CORONAVIRUS PROVES THAT “FAITH HEALERS” ARE FAKES

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, accurately predicted that many would claim that they had done many “miracles”, including divine healings, when he said:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers!'”—-Matthew 7:21-23 NIV

Some Christians have been claiming to perform these healing miracles all through the ages, ever since genuine healings were actually performed, as recorded in God’s written word, the Bible. Even though some “false teachers”, “in their greed”, have recently claimed they could “heal” people so that they won’t even get the Coronavirus, so as to “exploit you with counterfeit stories” (2 Peter 2:1-3 NIV), there is zero evidence that they are effective with any of their claims.

Therefore, the Coronavirus Pandemic stands as a powerful witness against these modern-day “faith-healing” charlatans. For more information directly related to this issue, please see the following articles on this website:

Articles about Healing:

    “Healing Miracles—What Does the Bible Say?”

    “Are People Divinely Healed Today?”

“Healings—For Christians or Non-Christians?”

Articles about Using Mark 16:17,18 to Support Claims of Healing 

“How Do We Know Mark Ends at 16:8, and Not 16:20?”

“The Ending of Mark”

9 thoughts on “CORONAVIRUS PROVES THAT “FAITH HEALERS” ARE FAKES

  1. Ross, you said “Some Christians have been claiming to perform these healing miracles all through the ages, ever since genuine healings were actually performed, as recorded in God’s written word, the Bible.”

    The evidence that Jesus or anyone else has performed “genuine” miraculous healings is extremely weak and insufficient for rational belief. Also, the Bible is not the written word of God. It is the written word of many men, each sharing their religious speculations. The Bible is full of falsehoods, contradictions, inconsistencies, and immoral teachings. If God did exist, he would think the Bible is an abomination.

  2. Gary, as this article and the other cited related articles brought out, genuine healings did indeed take place by genuine Christians during the lifetime of Christ’s apostles (1st century CE). After that, such genuine healings “ceased”, along with other miraculous gifts of God’s holy spirit (1 Corinthians 13:8-11). As Jesus and the apostles accurately predicted, counterfeit “healers” have appeared on the scene, and we should beware (Matthew 7:15-23; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).
    The Bible has infinitely greater authenticity than any other work from ancient times, as many articles on this site, and elsewhere, attest to (2 Peter 1:23-25).

  3. RT2: Gary, as this article and the other cited related articles brought out, genuine healings did indeed take place by genuine Christians during the lifetime of Christ’s apostles (1st century CE).

    GW2: Those articles are just making the same unfounded claim you are. This is not relevant evidence. It is poor and insufficient to warrant rational belief. We would need first-person eyewitness reports for the same incident. There is nothing close to this for the alleged healings.

    RT2: After that, such genuine healings “ceased”, along with other miraculous gifts of God’s holy spirit (1 Corinthians 13:8-11).

    GW2: This makes no sense. If God existed, he would cause miraculous healings today as well as in ancient times. It appears that none has occurred.

    RT2: As Jesus and the apostles accurately predicted, counterfeit “healers” have appeared on the scene, and we should beware (Matthew 7:15-23; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

    GW2: All those who have ever claimed to heal outside of standard medicine by performing miracles through the power of God are almost certainly counterfeit.

    RT2: The Bible has infinitely greater authenticity than any other work from ancient times, as many articles on this site, and elsewhere, attest to (2 Peter 1:23-25).

    GW2: We have none of the original texts of the Bible, but authenticity is not the issue here anyway. The issue is that you do have insufficient quantity and quality of evidence to support the claim you are making. You don’t have a single first-person eyewitness report of any specific event occurring in the life of Jesus.

  4. Matthew was an eyewitness to much of what he wrote (Matthew 9:9). John testifies that he actually saw much of what he wrote (John 19:35). Luke interviewed and recorded testimony from “eyewitnesses” of Jesus (Luke 1:1-3 NIV). Peter says that he was an ‘eyewitness’ of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16 NIV), and his associate Mark recorded Peter’s accounts of Jesus (1 Peter 5:13) in Mark.

  5. RT3: Matthew was an eyewitness to much of what he wrote (Matthew 9:9).

    GW3: No, he wasn’t! The author of the Gospel attributed to Matthew does not clearly identify himself and he does not write in the first person. Also, the eminent scholar Bart Ehrman says that none of the Gospels was written by an eye witness to the events they describe.

    RT3: John testifies that he actually saw much of what he wrote (John 19:35).

    GW3: No, he doesn’t! We’ve discussed this before, maybe twice. You are confusing the character of the beloved disciple with the author of the Gospel. The author of the Gospel attributed to John does not clearly identify himself and he does not write in the first person. Also, the eminent scholar Bart Ehrman says that none of the Gospels was written by an eye witness to the events they describe.

    RT3: Luke interviewed and recorded testimony from “eyewitnesses” of Jesus (Luke 1:1-3 NIV).

    GW3: So, you do admit that the author of the Gospel of Luke was not an eyewitness! You agree with Ehrman on that one. Also, Luke never quotes from an interview with an eye witness. So, your claim of second hand knowledge is unfounded.

    RT3: Peter says that he was an `eyewitness’ of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16 NIV), and his associate Mark recorded Peter’s accounts of Jesus (1 Peter 5:13) in Mark.

    GW3: Peter never wrote a Gospel. There are only four. So, you admit that the author of the Gospel of Mark was not an eyewitness! Again, you agree with Ehrman on that one. In the Gospel of Mark, the author never quotes from an interview with an eye witness. So, your claim of second hand knowledge is unfounded.

    GW3: Most people don’t realize that in these Gospel stories which we have, no character observes a dead Jesus rising up from his slab in the tomb and walking out. Jesus is PRESUMED or INFERRED to have come back to life, but he is not OBSERVED to have come back to life. There are several good naturalistic explanations of the stories which do not involve the ridiculous idea that a man came back to life. Besides, if Jesus had come back to life, then he would be alive today, and he would meet with you and me and some of our friends. But that hasn’t happen and never will. You know that. If Jesus ever lived, then he died and he never came back to life and never will. I trust in reason, not in faith.

  6. Ehrman’s assertions are a little off-base. We need to put ourselves mentally back into the 1st century for a moment. No modern highway system, no phones, no electricity, no fast transport, no printing presses, no computers, no internet, etc. Talk about snail mail! Letters could take months to be delivered to various parts of the Roman Empire. And yet, within 30 years of Christ’s death, Paul obviously uses hyperbole in his letter from Rome to the Colossian Christians in Asia Minor, when he says: “This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul have become a servant” (Colossians 1:23 NIV). The Gospel had been proclaimed all over the entire empire. If Ehrman’s assertion were true, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the original penmen of the 4 Gospels, and their authorship is indeed only legendary, how is it that 100% of the Greek manuscripts attribute authorship to these 4 men? If these widely scattered congregations simply tacked names onto these supposedly “anonymous” writings, there would have some variation as to the names. Others of the original 12 apostles would be likely choices, such as Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon and Judas son of James. Surely these names would have showed up as composers of some of these Gospels. But, no, we have 100% consistency in the names of the authors in 100% of the extant Greek manuscripts. The probability of every early church choosing these 4 men as Gospel writers is zero.
    As far as eyewitnesses are concerned—How do you know that you were born? Do you recall that event? Witnesses, such as mother and Father, doctor, nurses, etc. Have any of them ever lied? How do you know they’re not lying about your supposed birth? Oh, you have a birth certificate? Well, documents can be forged, can’t they? You have photos? How can you be sure the newborn in the photo is actually you right after birth? Many babies look quite alike, don’t they? How do you really know that you weren’t mistakenly switched at birth? How do you really know that aliens from another planet didn’t somehow sneak you in?
    The point is that you cannot absolutely prove any distant past event actually occurred. There are forgeries, lies, mistakes, the inability to replicate in a laboratory, etc. Using your type of reasoning about the Bible, when applied to anything else, would create serious doubt that anything ever happened.

  7. RT4: Ehrman’s assertions are a little off-base.

    GW4: No, they are not. I trust his research and scholarship more than I do yours. He has studied the New Testament for his entire career and is well regarded by experts and lay persons. Your own experience and education in this area doesn’t even come close to Ehrman’s.

    RT4: We need to put ourselves mentally back into the 1st century for a moment.

    GW4: Ok, let’s use our imaginations for a little while.

    RT4: No modern highway system, no phones, no electricity, no fast transport, no printing presses, no computers, no internet, etc. Talk about snail mail! Letters could take months to be delivered to various parts of the Roman Empire.

    GW4: I agree with you on those points.

    RT4: And yet, within 30 years of Christ’s death, Paul obviously uses hyperbole in his letter from Rome to the Colossian Christians in Asia Minor, when he says: “This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul have become a servant” (Colossians 1:23 NIV).

    GW4: First, I object to your use of the term “Christ” to refer to the man Jesus. When you use that term are making a theological claim rather than describing a historical fact. Let’s avoid that problem and just call the man “Jesus” or “Jesus of Nazareth.” Second, I agree with you that Paul is using hyperbole in his statement here.

    RT4: The Gospel had been proclaimed all over the entire empire.

    GW4: That is probably false. The empire was large. Let’s assume for the sake of our discussion that it had been proclaimed to 60% of the empire at that time of Paul’s statement. That would be generous.

    RT4: If Ehrman’s assertion were true, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the original penmen of the 4 Gospels, and their authorship is indeed only legendary, how is it that 100% of the Greek manuscripts attribute authorship to these 4 men?

    GW4: First, you have already agreed with me and Bart that the Gospels of Luke and Mark were not written by eyewitnesses to Jesus, so please stop bringing up those two. Secondly, according to most scholars the original Gospel manuscripts did not have titles of attribution. These were added years after they were written. They are based on somebody’s speculation (unproven) on authorship. So it is not surprising that the Greek manuscripts have author names. Thirdly, “Mark” and “Luke” are not names of any of the disciples.

    RT4: If these widely scattered congregations simply tacked names onto these supposedly “anonymous” writings, there would have some variation as to the names.

    GW4: The better hypothesis is: The original Gospels were written without names, later somebody attributed names to them, then the convention stabilized, and then later congregations read them.

    RT4: Others of the original 12 apostles would be likely choices, such as Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon and Judas son of James. Surely these names would have showed up as composers of some of these Gospels.

    GW4: If the alleged miraculous events of the life of Jesus had actually occurred, then we would expect to have first-hand eyewitness reports from some of the 12, including the seven you listed here. Furthermore, the names “Matthew” and “John” probably refer to persons who were not of the 12. Again, Ehrman unequivocally says that none of the Gospels was written by an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, period.

    RT4: But, no, we have 100% consistency in the names of the authors in 100% of the extant Greek manuscripts. The probability of every early church choosing these 4 men as Gospel writers is zero.

    GW4: That is total nonsense. The probability of this happening is very high after one or more persons attached names to the Gospels.

    RT4: As far as eyewitnesses are concerned-How do you know that you were born? Do you recall that event? Witnesses, such as mother and Father, doctor, nurses, etc. Have any of them ever lied? How do you know they’re not lying about your supposed birth? Oh, you have a birth certificate? Well, documents can be forged, can’t they? You have photos? How can you be sure the newborn in the photo is actually you right after birth? Many babies look quite alike, don’t they? How do you really know that you weren’t mistakenly switched at birth? How do you really know that aliens from another planet didn’t somehow sneak you in?

    GW4: Your speculations are funny. First-hand eyewitness reports are a necessary starting point for claims of events in the past, especially the distant past, as we are talking about here. If other evidence can be added, e.g. audio-video recordings, physical evidence, etc., then that increases our confidence in the claims. You don’t even have the necessary evidence to support your claims of the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus and its aftermath. If you had such reports, then we could question their validity, but “your plane can’t even get off the ground.”

    RT4: The point is that you cannot absolutely prove any distant past event actually occurred.

    GW4: That may be true, but the other point which you are ignoring is that you cannot show that any distant past event likely occurred without first-hand eyewitness reports. With respect to Jesus you have NONE! All you have are some stories.

    RT4: There are forgeries, lies, mistakes, the inability to replicate in a laboratory, etc. Using your type of reasoning about the Bible, when applied to anything else, would create serious doubt that anything ever happened.

    GW4: As far as I know there are only three types of evidence which can be used to support the claim of the occurrence of a past event – first-person eyewitness reports, physical evidence, and audio/visual recordings. You have NONE of these to support any of your claims about events which occurred in the life of Jesus and its aftermath. Therefore, nobody should believe any of your claims in this regard.

    GW4: Also, you keep ignoring my other point: If Jesus lived, died, and came back to life, then he is alive today. When I asked you to do so, you should have arranged for Jesus, you, me, and a group of our friends to meet together and discuss the life of Jesus with him. You claim that you and Jesus are friends. And yet you failed to arrange such a meeting. Why not?

  8. Even those who are considered to be experts in their fields can be biased, and/or mistaken. No, I don’t have all the credentials that Ehrman does, but that in itself doesn’t mean his views are guaranteed accurate, and mine are not. The authors of scrolls back then had their names and/or titles to their works sewn on via tags, which over a period of time through usage and handling often wore off. Both Mark and Luke are named in the Bible as 1st century disciples of Christ, although they were not Apostles. Testimony from early church writers is unanimous that the 4 Gospels were written by Mark recording for eyewitness Apostle Peter, and eyewitness Apostles Matthew and John, while Luke researched and interviewed eyewitnesses of the events in his Gospel. There were numerous first person eyewitnesses, and recorded physical evidence, to Jesus’ death, burial, and his post resurrection appearances. NT documents that record this have never been successfully challenged. Jesus said that no sign would be given except for the “sign of Jonah the prophet” (Matthew 12:38-40), so no modern day meeting will take place.

  9. RT5: Even those who are considered to be experts in their fields can be biased, and/or mistaken.

    GW5: Of course they can, but experts are less likely to be biased and/or mistaken than lay persons on the same topic and Ehrman is less likely to be biased and/or mistaken than other experts in the New Testament. Rational thinking requires the proper assessment of PROBABILITIES.

    RT5: No, I don’t have all the credentials that Ehrman does, but that in itself doesn’t mean his views are guaranteed accurate, and mine are not.

    GW5: There are no guarantees, but there are probabilities. It is much more probable that on any biblical issue Ehrman is more accurate than you are. He has great credentials. Besides, he previously mostly agreed with your position and then after years of proper study and research he changed his mind.

    RT5: The authors of scrolls back then had their names and/or titles to their works sewn on via tags, which over a period of time through usage and handling often wore off.

    GW5: I think that is possible, but according to Ehrman the original Gospel manuscripts most likely had no names on them; the attribution came later. But more importantly, the authors do not identify themselves within the body of the texts! For example, an author does not say “I am Jesus of Nazareth, the author of this manuscript. My mother was Mary and my father was God. I am the person who has been traveling throughout the country speaking the word of my Father.” There is nothing like this in any of the Gospels.

    RT5: Both Mark and Luke are named in the Bible as 1st century disciples of Christ, although they were not Apostles.

    GW5: To believe this claim I’d have to see relevant quotes, citations, and links.

    GW5: But we haven’t been talking about these persons. Instead, we have been talking about members of the Twelve who could have been eye witnesses to Jesus just before and after the crucifixion. None of them wrote a Gospel!

    RT5: Testimony from early church writers is unanimous that the 4 Gospels were written by Mark recording for eyewitness Apostle Peter, and eyewitness Apostles Matthew and John, while Luke researched and interviewed eyewitnesses of the events in his Gospel.

    GW5: According to the best modern scholarship, the early church writers were just mistaken on this point! Once again you agree with me and Bart that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were NOT written by eyewitnesses. You disagree with me and Bart about Matthew and John, and I’m going to side with Bart. Of course, you must surely know that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template, and the author of Mark was not an eyewitness. Furthermore, the authors of Luke and John neither identify their respective sources nor quote them. (The lone exception may be that the author of Gospel of John may quote a mysterious “beloved disciple” who is not corroborated in the other Gospels. This character was probably fabricated to convey a particular theological position.)

    RT5: There were numerous first person eyewitnesses,…to Jesus’ death, burial, and his post resurrection appearances.

    GW5: According to the stories there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. You know this but continue to ignore it. If the alleged events before and after the alleged crucifixion did occur, of course there would have been eyewitnesses. But the point is that NO first-person eyewitness reports have been found. As I mentioned in the last round, this kind of evidence is a minimum for supporting the claim about any ancient event.

    RT5: …and recorded physical evidence, to Jesus’ death, burial, and his post resurrection appearances.

    GW5: You are misunderstanding the kinds of relevant evidence. Physical evidence would be things like surviving DNA, fingerprints, physical objects, etc. This kind of evidence isn’t “recorded.” It is touchable and transferable by hand.

    RT5: NT documents that record this have never been successfully challenged.

    GW5: That is pure nonsense! NT documents pertaining to the life of Jesus have been successfully challenged by Bart Ehrman and hundreds of other scholars.

    RT4: Jesus said that no sign would be given except for the “sign of Jonah the prophet” (Matthew 12:38-40), so no modern day meeting will take place.

    GW4: You don’t know that Jesus said this. You are just speculating. If Jesus were alive, you would be able to arrange the meeting I described. You claim to be a friend of Jesus. If Jesus were alive, he would be ethical and loyal, and thus he would come to a meeting if you, his friend, asked him to come. You are afraid to ask because you know that the meeting will not occur because Jesus is dead! You should come to a Freethinkers’ Forum meeting (after the virus subsides) and publicly call down Jesus to meet with us. Let all see the results!

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com