Response to James White on the Trinity and His Debate with Patrick Navas

On November 29th, 2011, James White responded on his show The Dividing Line to my comments on his debate with Patrick Navas on the Trinity. This is my response.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• James White
• Patrick Navas
• Bible
• Trinity
• Christology
• Trinitarianism

[scripturaltruths]

@DoctrinesofGraceBapt Again, 53:1 fully accounts for tauta. You really need to listen again to the first part of my discussion.

[scripturaltruths]

@DoctrinesofGraceBapt It is not accounted for and you well know it, for neither the speaking about him our the seeing his glory were dependencies for receiving the command. Unitarianism has nothing to do with this.

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

@scripturaltruths

Sir, the only justifications you give in your video to talk exclusively about Isaiah 53 and reject Isaiah 6 is because Isaiah 53 is the main passage and you can't see how ὅτε can be explain. I answer: And? ταῦτα refers to Isaiah 53:1 and Isaiah 6:10, therefore you must find some way to connect it, and you didn't. You're ignoring the plain implications of ταῦτα because ______. You have no answer. I say it's because your presupposing of unitarianism.

God Bless

[CristoYcruz]

@DoctrinesofGraceBapt Amen, "The name of God speaks to his nature, which is eternal." Which simply means the one who has the Name of God, YHWH, is eternal. Therefore, Jesus who is YHWH is ETERNAL. This really isn't rocket science.

Rev 14:1 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

@scripturaltruths

Sir, ὅτε is accounted for. Isaiah said it because He saw YHWH and YHWH told him too. This is perfectly in line with Isaiah saying it because he saw YHWH's Glory and spoke of YHWH. The only problem is when I sub in the name Jesus your presupposition of unitarianism jumps in and stops you from accepting it because it's ramifications are too high.

God Bless.

[scripturaltruths]

@DoctrinesofGraceBapt Somehow my response to this post went to another... Anyway, you really beef to listen to the video again.

[scripturaltruths]

@DoctrinesofGraceBapt You clearly did not listen to the video very carefully.

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

@scripturaltruths

Example: You reject that ταῦτα refers to Isaiah 53:1 and Isaiah 6:10, and prefer to assume that it only refers to Isaiah 53:1 because otherwise Trinitarians would have seraphim singing "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is YHWH of HOSTS" to JESUS CHRIST; which is far too close to crushing your presuppostion that damands that Jesus isn't fully divine. You claim it's because there is no way to correlate those "causes", but there clearly is for all with eyes to see.

God Bless.

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

@scripturaltruths

Amen, "The name of God speaks to his nature, which is eternal." Which simply means the one who has the Name of God, YHWH, is eternal. Therefore, Jesus who is YHWH is ETERNAL. This really isn't rocket science.

And, you have no reason to believe language in General, and the Hebrew language in particular, is eternal. Since human language's purpose is to allow humans to communcate, and humans were create, then one must assume that language itself was created in time.

God Bless

[scripturaltruths]

@DoctrinesofGraceBapt It is you who needs to read better. I said you hadn't given a single example, not that your said so for everything.