ECT A must watch from the UN stage
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
nikolai_42
Well-known member
I wasn't going to respond, but it seems like claims like this can be damaging to the truth. I have no doubt that the Lord healed this man (or that he believes the Lord healed him) but his testimony stretches credulity and brings disrepute on whatever testimony he may have otherwise. Healings are not (that I've ever seen or heard in scripture or out) things that bring men to faith. When the Lord heals, it confirms the faith of the one who received that gift. And the Lord never healed with fanfare. So when I heard this man's testimony, a couple of things jumped out at me :
1. The support for his claims is tenuous at best. His claims to being dead are not officially supported. Rather, he was in a grave situation and he survived. This is emphatically NOT the same as being raised from the dead. To claim that when it is not true is very damaging.
2. He made another claim that he was told that after his heart attack, the Lord removed the gene marker for heart disease - that there was no trace of it in any cell of his body. Since he'd never had any DNA testing done before, there was no way he could know that he had it in the first place (heart disease and heart attacks are not the same thing). And the kicker? Apparently he had a quadruple bypass in the last couple of years.
At best, these are dubious claims made by someone with no medical training or understanding (the "official" medical report referred to him as "Brother Stoneking" and it doesn't appear that the one who he refers to in the report is even a physician...just a nurse). He is claiming to have been dead and resurrected when there is ample evidence to suggest he never died - just had a bad heart attack which the Lord raised him up from.
At worst, he is just trying to trump up publicity for a miracle (for either personal or ministry reasons).
Either way, this seems an ill-advised approach. Much better had he claimed the Lord healed him from a heart attack and praise the doctors and EMT's for doing such a great job. Unfortunately, that doesn't garner much publicity...
1. The support for his claims is tenuous at best. His claims to being dead are not officially supported. Rather, he was in a grave situation and he survived. This is emphatically NOT the same as being raised from the dead. To claim that when it is not true is very damaging.
2. He made another claim that he was told that after his heart attack, the Lord removed the gene marker for heart disease - that there was no trace of it in any cell of his body. Since he'd never had any DNA testing done before, there was no way he could know that he had it in the first place (heart disease and heart attacks are not the same thing). And the kicker? Apparently he had a quadruple bypass in the last couple of years.
At best, these are dubious claims made by someone with no medical training or understanding (the "official" medical report referred to him as "Brother Stoneking" and it doesn't appear that the one who he refers to in the report is even a physician...just a nurse). He is claiming to have been dead and resurrected when there is ample evidence to suggest he never died - just had a bad heart attack which the Lord raised him up from.
At worst, he is just trying to trump up publicity for a miracle (for either personal or ministry reasons).
Either way, this seems an ill-advised approach. Much better had he claimed the Lord healed him from a heart attack and praise the doctors and EMT's for doing such a great job. Unfortunately, that doesn't garner much publicity...
Cross Reference
New member
I didn't make it past your first paragraph that speaks of gross unbelief from the gitgo. Why read further of more of the same. Unbelief, that has been conceived by the taking into yourself a man's false religion and birthing it from your heart.
I don't believe the man who testified of his supernatural healing, something BTW God performs anytime He wishes, was anything less than a minister of the Gospel when it took place. He was addressed by the doctor who substantiated everything back in the US hospital as, "Reverend".
Why not start from that premise and give it another it another try? OMT with regards to Jesus healing without fanfare: The raising of Lazarus totally comes against your unlearned opinion.
You people make me sick. You ask for proof only to ridicule it even when presented as infallible.
You, friend, are no Christian! Why not stick to what you know maybe like, bottle washing.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
The point was not whether this man was healed or not (I believe he was - and I said so), rather that trying to make it into something it is (verifiably) not doesn't do anyone any service. By using medical terminology to make a claim that he is not qualified to make (and using questionable sources on his own site to try and justify the claim) he has invited justified scrutiny. Instead of saying the Lord healed him from his heart attack, he said the Lord raised him from the dead - "clinically dead" were his words. If he doesn't provide evidence of this, to what end is the claim? For whom? Those who already believe or those who don't (or are skeptical)? Who substantiated his claims?
As to Lazarus, the miracle itself needs no "hyping". That he was up and walking around after 3 days in the graves (and stinking) left no doubt. That is not the same thing as using a medical term to assert possibly being dead for less than an hour (when it is even dubious whether he even met that definition) and trying to pass it off as a clear miracle - using a doubtful report. Lazarus and all who saw him were his own testimony. That was not hype. By hype I mean Jesus should have told people who were healed to spread the word. By hype I mean He should have been speaking in a loud voice so all around could hear and be attracted to this great miracle He was about to do. By hype I mean there should have been flash and attraction to the miracle as it was being done. There was never any of that. And the miracle never created faith - it only confirmed it in the one healed. Nothing has changed. Such miracles will never create faith.
Now, whenever people hear his message at the UN, all they will hear is that Jesus raises men from the dead (physically) but the evidence isn't irrefutable. Believers will believe he was healed (though resurrected...maybe or maybe not). Unbelievers will simply try to prove him wrong. What benefit is this to his testimony?
Cross Reference
New member
Nothing dubious about of what happened to the "Reverend" that was not completely verified. So, get lost. I'm not interested in anything further you have to say. Take your pitch pipe elsewhere..
nikolai_42
Well-known member
You seem to be looking for offense. I've told you I don't dispute his healing. But his framing of it is such that he has set himself up for attack and justified questions. The truth thrives in the face of the false so questioning the true should be welcomed by those wanting to establish what is true. And again, I don't believe he's lying (whether to gain attention or whatever), but out of the mouths of two or three witnesses let all things be established.
Cross Reference
New member
They were established.. .That's the point of the offense. You called the man dishonest and a liar. You still do.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Established by whom? Everything is written by this one man on his website. It seems pretty clear he had a heart attack and was in serious condition. But some of the things he has asserted (medically) raise questions (like shocking the heart 10 times - as I understand, that's only done when there actually is cardiac signs of some sort of electrical activity present, which would mean he wasn't clinically dead...and the idea he didn't have oxygen to his brain for the whole time - he wasn't breathing on his own, but he was intubated). Not that he wasn't going through all this and the Lord didn't heal him, but all the substantiation of the claims - unless I've missed something - is his own assertion on his own site.
Cross Reference
New member
"So shall He startle and sprinkle many nations, and kings shall shut their mouths because of Him; for that which has not been told them shall they see, and that which they have not heard shall they consider and understand."
Isaiah 52:15 (AMP)
Isaiah 52:15 (AMP)