Even Jesus couldn't heal everyone

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

What part of the "fullness of the Godhead dwelt IN HIM bodily: do you not get?

Notice it never says HE WAS THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD but rather.. IN HIM...... dwelt the fullness... the fullness of the Godhead was also IN THE ARK OF THE COVENANT... but the ARK WAS NOT GOD.. the ARK was the HOUSE OF GOD... JESUS tells us that he is the DOOR to GOD.. and that no man can get TO GOD without coming through him.....

You cannot have ONE GOD praying to ANOTHER GOD in Gethsemanie it just will not dovetail with the scriptures.... You have a man praying to GOd his Father.. ad yet at the same time THAT MAN has yielded himself so completely until the FULNESS OF GOD dwells within him... and on Calvary you can watch that fulness of God.. LEAVE and FORSAKE HIM

It also does not say the fullness of the Godhead dwelt IN HIS BODY.

But there are plenty of other verses that point to him being God and not merely being a man that God was inside of.

It's like saying in you dwells the mind of a Doctor

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

As clearly as I know how... Jesus was not the Person of the one true God... he was the SON OF GOD... by virtue of being God son he would be divine... but he would not be the very person of Yahweh, Jehovah, El Shaddi, Elohim....

No, I am not Trinitarian, nor am I Oneness because I do not believe JEsus was his own Father...

I prefer no title but rather simply stating what scripture states.. there is ONE GOD and ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST his Son

Yup...not modalism...not Oneness...Unitarian.

Almost Arian too since he is saying Jesus is divine (not with a capital D) and is someone other than God (Yahweh)...which is close to Arianism. The difference is Dr V did not say Jesus used to be Michael the ark angel

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yup...not modalism...not Oneness...Unitarian.

Almost Arian too since he is saying Jesus is divine (not with a capital D) and is someone other than God (Yahweh)...which is close to Arianism. The difference is Dr V did not say Jesus used to be Michael the ark angel

Thanks, Prax. I don't know much about the different flavors of Godhead beliefs.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

John 11:4 - When Jesus heard [that], he said, This sickness is not unto death

and yet Lazarus died... or if he didnt really die then he wasnt really ressurected

I think you're taking His statement way too literally.

John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

The context reads more about the purpose of Lazarus' death, not the reality of it.

He died, but Jesus resurrected Him, therefore His sickness as a means to an end was not to death, but to present an opportunity for God to be glorified. That's how I understand it, anyway.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think you're taking His statement way too literally.

John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

The context reads more about the purpose of Lazarus' death, not the reality of it.

He died, but Jesus resurrected Him, therefore His sickness as a means to an end was not to death, but to present an opportunity for God to be glorified. That's how I understand it, anyway.

Brat, according to him, it was impossible for Jesus to heal Lazarus because Jesus isn't fully God.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Brat, according to him, it was impossible for Jesus to heal Lazarus because Jesus isn't fully God.

Heal or resurrect? We know that Jesus healed others....so the "impossibility...because Jesus isn't fully God" would have to apply to more than just Lazarus.

John 12:1 "Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead."

I think people forget sometimes that Jesus was sharp-witted, and often spoke in riddles, with sarcasm, or was rather patronizing to those who questioned Him or doubted Him. Not every scriptural quote of His words can be taken literally.

In the story of the ruler's daughter, the men state that she is dead and the he (the ruler) shouldn't "bother the Master", but when Jesus arrived, He told the mourners that she was only asleep. They laughed, but He raised her up anyway. Now, are we to conclude that she wasn't really dead to begin with? And that He went all the way to the house to rouse her out of a nice nap? Or was He chiding these people to quit doubting Him, because as far as her state was relative to HIS power, she was only sleeping?

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Heal or resurrect? We know that Jesus healed others....so the "impossibility...because Jesus isn't fully God" would have to apply to more than just Lazarus.

Both. He doesn't credit Jesus for raising Lazarus, but God, who worked through Jesus....he implied that it wasn't much different than God working through any of us.

John 12:1 "Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead."

I think people forget sometimes that Jesus was sharp-witted, and often spoke in riddles, with sarcasm, or was rather patronizing to those who questioned Him or doubted Him. Not every scriptural quote of His words can be taken literally.

In the story of the ruler's daughter, the men state that she is dead and the he (the ruler) shouldn't "bother the Master", but when Jesus arrived, He told the mourners that she was only asleep. They laughed, but He raised her up anyway. Now, are we to conclude that she wasn't really dead to begin with? And that He went all the way to the house to rouse her out of a nice nap? Or was He chiding these people to quit doubting Him, because as far as her state was relative to HIS power, she was only sleeping?

I agree. Read my sig line....it's his exact quotes in regard to Jesus being God. Weird...I've never heard anyone consider Jesus to be a God Jr. of sorts...

But I like the way you put your last paragraph concerning the words of Jesus, and I agree. He even said that Lazarus was sleeping too, then had to plainly tell Mary (or Martha, can't remember now) that he was dead when they insisted he was.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Thanks, Prax. I don't know much about the different flavors of Godhead beliefs.

Well I see Dr V has dropped off the face of the planet.

Anyways, as much as I think he gave me a bum rap I hope he does not stay away. But I will say that I disagree with him and I will continue to refute his doctrine, his accusations against Oneness Pentecostals and point out that his posting styles are often no different than the ones he complains about (oh can you feel the love you voodoo wanna be Pentecostals?)

But I have to say this upon reading his words that he is NOT Oneness, not even Modalist. His view of the godhead is closer to Arianism or Unitarianism. Jesus is NOT Divine but divine. He is not Fully God but god it seems.

Nor is he Pentecostal, which historically is a group that taught and practiced that tongues in Acts is evidence of the initial baptism of the Spirit and not merely one of several gifts one can have. Simply saying "I speak in tongues" does not mean anything.

Charismatics spoke in tongues too, but they had a different doctrinal position on what and why and how etc etc.

Dr V also claims every service in the bible lacked worship and other Pentecostal features....he claims there were many such instances yet he only points to one instance. Can he find more? I doubt it. Then he claims by an argument from silence that since Luke does not record anything else happening that nothing else happened. If you were to use the same sort of logic Dr V would have pointed it out to you so I am wondering why he does. IN fact several times I pointed this out and without any personal attack he ignored each post. That is fine too since my post stands unrefuted.

What Dr V is doing is a circular argument. He starts with his assertion that church services lack these other things we do and uses that unproven assertion as the basis of making his argument that when the church gathered to pray or do other things that those were in fact NOT "Church services"....according to HIS defintion.

This is a form of logical fallacy called Circular reasoning
1. Begging the Question ( petitio principii ) / Circular Reasoning
DEFINITION: The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion. Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
EXAMPLE: "Since Picard is a better captain than Kirk, Kirk is not the superior captain."
PROOF: Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true.

most of the time Dr V starts off with his assertion stated as a fact that we all agree on. This is fallacious

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Well I see Dr V has dropped off the face of the planet.

Anyways, as much as I think he gave me a bum rap I hope he does not stay away. But I will say that I disagree with him and I will continue to refute his doctrine, his accusations against Oneness Pentecostals and point out that his posting styles are often no different than the ones he complains about (oh can you feel the love you voodoo wanna be Pentecostals?)

But I have to say this upon reading his words that he is NOT Oneness, not even Modalist. His view of the godhead is closer to Arianism or Unitarianism. Jesus is NOT Divine but divine. He is not Fully God but god it seems.

Nor is he Pentecostal, which historically is a group that taught and practiced that tongues in Acts is evidence of the initial baptism of the Spirit and not merely one of several gifts one can have. Simply saying "I speak in tongues" does not mean anything.

Charismatics spoke in tongues too, but they had a different doctrinal position on what and why and how etc etc.

Dr V also claims every service in the bible lacked worship and other Pentecostal features....he claims there were many such instances yet he only points to one instance. Can he find more? I doubt it. Then he claims by an argument from silence that since Luke does not record anything else happening that nothing else happened. If you were to use the same sort of logic Dr V would have pointed it out to you so I am wondering why he does. IN fact several times I pointed this out and without any personal attack he ignored each post. That is fine too since my post stands unrefuted.

What Dr V is doing is a circular argument. He starts with his assertion that church services lack these other things we do and uses that unproven assertion as the basis of making his argument that when the church gathered to pray or do other things that those were in fact NOT "Church services"....according to HIS defintion.

This is a form of logical fallacy called Circular reasoning
1. Begging the Question ( petitio principii ) / Circular Reasoning
DEFINITION: The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion. Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
EXAMPLE: "Since Picard is a better captain than Kirk, Kirk is not the superior captain."
PROOF: Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true.

most of the time Dr V starts off with his assertion stated as a fact that we all agree on. This is fallacious

Great points. Now I understand better why I shouldn't spar with you...LOL!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Great points. Now I understand better why I shouldn't spar with you...LOL!

lol