Brewing a miracle.

[Drich]

I think it would do you a lot of good to really be able to define what he meant by 'healing'.

I left a definition and commentary.
Healing means to make well. The how one is made well is of little consequence. Christ did it miraculously we do it conventionally.

If we're going to get so vague that saying I was healed of the flu over a week as counting as a miracle, then to me that is mere superstition.

Again Healing is the care for, or service to the sick (by conventional means.) The word therapeuō speaks to the outcome (being made well) and can include but not limited any number of possible ways to make that happen.

A better 'superstition' here is the one where I go to the doctor and I get given pills that do the job in less time.

Which is still considered a form of therapeuō

Good on them, but I don't see the same sort of thing happening anymore, especially ever since scientists observe that energy can't be created or destroyed.

This was not something passed on to the disciples. Christ was the only one able to manifest items like loaves and fishes.

I think it's more plausible to say that he made everyone's generous side come out.

Because apparently you do not want to acknowledge what you can not account for.

Ok.. Well I wasn't in some sort of hip Christian movement that seeks to keep up with pop culture. My church is known for having members that go out on the streets to pray for healing. They do the exact opposite of trying to fit in with the world.

Pop Christianity does not blend in with the world. It is a subculture that holds certain aspects of Christianity over and above scriptural constraints. For instance you told us that your church tells you that "all who believe Get certain powers of Healing." The Bible contradicts that message. Yet it is taught anyway, even to the despondency and detriment of members who can not "heal" in a way they are told they should be able to heal. In a sense they champion the "power/gift" of Healing over and above of the people who are honest enough not to claim this gift, which again goes against What Paul told us in 1 Cor 12.

This is why I said pop Christianity is much worse than simple disbelief. It gives the illusion of faith and unity with Christ, and follows the bible close enough to substitute the gospel with a more popular easier to accept doctrine. Leading people (no matter how good the intentions of the members of the church) away from Christ and not to Him. Your Screen Name is evidence of that. Worse because you honestly think you gave your all to a sanctioned biblical effort to God and in the end you found nothing. When in reality you gave your all to a toxic faith and found exactly what toxic faiths produce. I am suggesting you put down your current understanding of Church and God and start again by reading and following your bible. When you do you will see promises. Take God up on those promises and you will receive what your earnestly ask, seek and knock for.

Interesting you mention that. This is exactly what destroyed my faith, through seeking the tangible historical Jesus that visited us so many moons ago. I was so certain it was the truth that I began to look for undeniable and tangible proof that I thought lied embedded in human history.

Do you know how, where, and why all of the information about Christ is stored?

Education is powerful stuff, and not always on your side.

It depends on who's education you are willing to accept as your own.

I beg to differ. It is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that man becomes one with Christ. The steps that follow are outlined throughout Romans.

This is what I am talking about. Christ Himself tells us in at least two different ways how and why your sins will not be forgiven, even if you claim Christianity and get dunked in water. Mat 18 21 through the end of the chapter Christ tells a parable of a servant (In this context a believer who has gone through the rights of belief) who has his status with his master taken away, all because He could not Forgive as He has been forgiven. The other place is in the Lord's Prayer we are told to ask "That our sins be forgiven (only if) we forgive those who have sinned against us." Again a condition of salvation not generally taught in pop Christian doctrine.

My point here is we must strive to look past what is taught by others and learn to read and incorporate the bible as a whole and not just piece verses together to say what we want to hear. The only way to do that is to start over and ask/learn to read everything again with a fresh perspective. Then and only then will you get to see the Hand of God.

I'm perfectly fine with most of the theological aspects of things,

Apparently not. For your last couple of threads have centered around not being able to understand or see God in your life.

Could you elaborate please?

This is one example. If you take the King James version and look at the 10 commandments the 7th is thou shalt not Kill. For the longest time our oldest manuscript used the generic term "kill." This was a problem because in the Hebrew there are 4 (if memory serves) different words for different types of Killing, and the word used encapsulated all of them. Upon translating the Dead sea scrolls we know have and verified with other Genesis manuscripts that The word used translates into Murder Changing the 7th command to You shall not murder. Meaning an unauthorized or Passionately angry taking of life. This is an example of God changing His word. Isaha 53 is an example of God preserving His word. For hundreds of years the oldest manuscript of Isaha 53 was only about 1200 years old. Which like with the passage you like to call into question with Mark 16:9 and forward it cause a lot of controversy. Many said it was compiled around the 12th century and was not an original OT book. Then when the scrolls were found the book was verified.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_masorite.html

Given that Mark doesn't have a birth story either, I'm inclined to believe that Matthew and Luke (yes, I know we have our differences about when Luke was written) had to add to their own something to fill the void. I think the resurrection accounts are no different and it would make sense that 16:9 onwards were added on after Matthew and Luke were written because that makes Mark line up better.

Which you must admit is just empty speculation. Because if there were any evidence one way or another this conversation would be a moot point.

Secular evidence could have gone a long way though

Again do you know why there isn't any "secular" evidence of Christ?

Do a search on first century record keeping and note who had control of the "scriptorium" needs to preserve and maintain a written record. Then research what those two organizations put into their scriptoriums. Then find out if anything Christ did or say would fall into those categories.

Or you can simply take my word that It wasn't till the late 2nd century that the church began to compile writings of their own. When they did everything that was written about Christ (even if not from a disciple) became a "religious work" simply because the church preserved the work in question. Leaving the secular world with nothing. which wasn't an issue till around the 18th and 19th centuries. Long after everyone seem to have forgotten where and how records were kept and preserved before that point in time.