You make assertions that are not supported by scripture.
Luke’s “profession” is mentioned in one verse, in a salutation by Paul, and there is no evidence that Luke ever practiced the pharmakea, which were pagan practices. Its far more likely that Paul was giving recognition to Lukes spiritual gifts.
Prior to the release of the spiritual gifts by Christ, the only recourse to healing that was spiritually permissible was the Levite priest.
All secular “medical technology” was pagan idolatry; why do you defend it? Its no different today; reliance on doctors is still idolatry.
>> “Pffft!! Why stop at man’s medicine??
The bible has nothing good to say about man’s automobiles, man’s mobile phones, man’s indoor plumbing, man’s electrical grid, man’s petroleum industry, man’s food supply chain, or man’s computers; are you going to quit using all of these things simply because they are not lauded in Scripture??” <<
.
You’re joking, I hope. Do you include ox carts and chariots?
God doesn’t denounce these because they are not idolatry; “medicine” definitely is.
Asa’s diabetic condition was not beyond the legitimate arts of the Levite priest, nor was the issue of blood of the woman. Do you consider Mark to be less inspired of the Holy Spirit for speaking ill of the pagan priests that the woman had turned to?
Salvation includes your health when your trust is completely in the Lord and his word.
Certainly much of ancient medicine was little more than shamanism, but among the ritual were practical means of promoting healing, and mankind long ago began to sift out the idolatrous pagan elements, and excise them from medical practice. We dispensed with the incantations and feather waving, but kept the practical things; splinting broken bones, for instance. We found that splints promote correct alignment and healing of the bones even if you don't intone the magic words or burn the incense. So, we keep the splints, and ditch the rest. There has been this centuries long filtering taking place that you simply dismiss as if it hasn't happened at all; as if modern medical practice still included all of the ancient mumbling of incantations, waving of feathers, and blowing of smoke at the ill and injured. What rot! That's like saying an F1 racing car is just a hopped up ox cart from 3000BC. That's ludicrous on its very face, and isn't supported by empirical evidence, much less by Scripture.
You make assertions that are not supported by scripture.
To the exact contrary, it is I — NOT you — who have presented the exact Scriptural text in support of the points that I have made. You have quoted no passage verbatim, nor have you expounded upon any, nor have you given a clear exegesis of any, nor have you answered ANY of the expositions that I laid out. You insist that your view is correct, but make zero effort to show where I have misread the texts that you yourself mentioned; no effort to point out where my exposition of them may be flawed. All you have done is skirt my points with a dismissive wave of the hand, and come back at me with your original "medicine is evil" mantra time and again.
And in the face of that you accuse me of making scripturally unsupported assertions... You HAVE got gall, I'll most definitely grant you that.
Fish or cut bait. Defeat my arguments legitimately, clearly, in plain language, from the biblical text. I will concede to nothing less. You believe that you are right; make your case exclusively from the biblical text.
Nor is there clear evidence that Luke had not practiced the pharmakea, nor is there evidence what medical practices he did perform. All we do know is that Luke was a physician, everything about what he actually did in the practice of medicine is PURE CONJECTURE, and scripturally unsupportable.
So, then, you follow-on assertion that "Paul was giving recognition to Lukes spiritual gifts" is also conjectural. Paul MAY have been thinking of Luke's spiritual gifting, but that is mere conjecture, all we can be certain of is that the plain text conveys a clear acknowledgement of Luke's profession as a physician.
Prior to the release of the spiritual gifts by Christ, the only recourse to healing that was spiritually permissible was the Levite priest.
I expect that you make an exception for the acts of the prophets;l for the healing and resurrections they performed? Certainly these were spiritually permissible. Were the prophets from among the Levites only? Clarification is needed, at this point.
Do you consider Mark to be less inspired of the Holy Spirit for speaking ill of the pagan priests that the woman had turned to?
I do not read that Mark condemns those doctors; he merely makes the point that the woman went to many, that she spent a great deal of money going to see them, and that none of them could help the woman. That is not the same as condemning them for trying to help her, far less for being doctors. And Mark most certainly does not consider the doctors to be pagan priests else he would have written "pagan priests." Especially seeing as his writing is an inspired gospel, if it were the perspective of God that the "doctors" were "pagan priests" the Spirit of God would have had Mark write "pagan priests" and not "doctors" so that the church would have clarity on that point. God is a God of order, not of confusion.
Do you include ox carts and chariots?
Absolutely. If God can miraculously, instantly heal anything and everything that is messed up with my body — and He certainly CAN — then, if trusting in a physician to heal me is idolatry, it is also idolatry to trust an ox cart to move me and my load from Point A to Point B. For the same God who can miraculously heal me, could as easily levitate the whole kit and kaboodle from Point A to Point B.
Woe is me, for I am undone! For I see, now, that it must be an egregious idolatry for me to trust in the image wrought by Chevrolet by which I came to work, today. I now see that The LORD would rather that I trust in Him to do for me as He did for Philip, and miraculously transport me from home to work and back every day. I must repent of this damnable idolatry of trusting in Chevrolet! Please pray for me, for I am backslidden!
And — yes — I AM using absurdity to illustrate the absurd.