Cross-Examination of Dr. James White (Dr. Oakley1689) by Greg Stafford
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2021
- #GregStafford
#DrJamesWhite
#DrOakley1689
Here is the complete cross-examination of Dr. James White by Greg Stafford during their 2003 debate. There are many notable points from this exchange, not the least of which is Dr. White's views as expressed in this debate about "eternality" in John 1:1.
Notice how from my question about THEOS as a count noun in John 1:1c at 1:46 to the end of Dr. White's answer at 2:41, Dr. White relies on an incorrect and assumed understanding of the context which to him reveals the Word "in eternity," even though it is explicitly "in the beginning"! Dr. White even uses HN ("was") to try and support his view, when all HN does is reveal when the Word "was," again, "in the beginning, which is not the same as "in eternity." "In the beginning" refers directly to Genesis 1:1 and the sequences of time involved with physical creation, during which times the "sons of God" were also present (Job 38:7). Were they "in eternity" as well? Of course not. But they were, like the Word, also "in the beginning."
Further, in John 1:10 we read, ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν. Note the use of HN with a prepositional phrase ("in the world") just like in John 1:1. Does that mean the Word "was" eternally “in the world”? Again, of course not. Neither does HN mean the Word "was" eternally “in the beginning.” Both uses of HN in John Chapter 1, within a few verses of each other, and each with a prepositional phrase in the dative, simply describe the past, non-eternal existence in or at a location or time or both.
Eternality has to be read into the text, which White and other Trinitarians regularly do, and which he does in this cross-examination, because otherwise he would have to admit THEOS in John 1:1c. is a count noun and so also "a god" in light of the non-eternal context where the Word is "with God," just like the other "sons of God" (Job 38:7). All of this is discussed in detail in my Jehovah's Witnesses Defended books, in the Chapters on John 1:1.
To watch Greg Stafford's 2003 debate with Robert M. Bowman, Jr., see here:
• Is Jesus God? A Debate...
To listen to Greg Stafford's 2006 radio debate with Dr. Robert Morey, see here:
• Dr. Robert Morey v. Gr...
To watch videos in "The Bible and the Trinity in Conflict" series, see here: • The Bible and the Trin...
To watch videos providing clear evidence from the Bible that Jesus is the "beginning of God's creation" (Revelation 3:14), and his real Firstborn Son (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:6; compare Deuteronomy 21:17), see this playlist: • “Begotten” or “Created...
CWJ Facebook page:
/ cwjah
Order books and videos by Greg Stafford:
www.elihubooks.com
Articles by Greg Stafford on "Watching the Ministry" Blog:
elihubooks.blogspot.com/
Follow Greg Stafford on Twitter:
/ thegreatmessage
Christian Witnesses of Jah Discussion Forum:
christianwjah.proboards.com
There are many notable points from this exchange, not the least of which is Dr. White's views as expressed in this debate about "eternality" in John 1:1. Notice how from my question about THEOS as a count noun in John 1:1c at 1:46 to the end of Dr. White's answer at 2:41, Dr. White relies on an incorrect and assumed understanding of the context which to him reveals the Word "in eternity," even though it is explicitly "in the beginning"! Dr. White even uses HN ("was") to try and support his view, when all HN does is reveal when the Word "was," again, "in the beginning, which is not the same as "in eternity." "In the beginning" refers directly to Genesis 1:1 and the sequences of time involved with physical creation, during which times the "sons of God" were also present (Job 38:7). Were they "in eternity" as well? Of course not. But they were, like the Word, also "in the beginning."
Further, in John 1:10 we read, ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν. Note the use of HN with a prepositional phrase ("in the world") just like in John 1:1. Does that mean the Word "was" eternally “in the world”? Again, of course not. Neither does HN mean the Word "was" eternally “in the beginning.” Both uses of HN in John Chapter 1, within a few verses of each other, and each with a prepositional phrase in the dative, simply describe the past, non-eternal existence in or at a location or time or both. Eternality has to be read into the text, which White and other Trinitarians regularly do, and which he does in this cross-examination, because otherwise he would have to admit THEOS in John 1:1c. is a count noun and so also "a god" in light of the non-eternal context where the Word is "with God," just like the other "sons of God" (Job 38:7).
All of this is discussed in detail in my Jehovah's Witnesses Defended books, in the Chapters on John 1:1.
I think a think the question should of been directed to 1:1a and the the word beginning before we get to the grammatical argument of 1:1b. I believe it helps understand the rest of the prologue
I've been watching this debates since my college days.. Taking on Dr. James White, you certainly nailed it.
I enjoyed this cross-examination Gregg.. You asked only 3 questions, but you clearly gave him a hard time. You did well on asking about John 1:1, asserting the rules of grammar, an area where he is suppose to be very comfortable. He's answer on John 1:1 issue made it more clear how trinitarians reads it in their OWN way, adding more meaning on a very simple statement by John and not trying to discuss the matter directly.
He certainly didn't expect your assertiveness on John 17:3, trying to use verse 5 as an escape route you are very quick on your feet like Dr. Morey used to say about you during your radio debate. Discussing verse 5 and getting back right away to John 17:3, to point out Jesus clear statement of God's (his father) position as the only true God, White certainly tried to run around the bush, I like the part where you said if God is called the only true God by Jesus, and someone identify him as God, then what kind of God is Jesus as the questions go along he's respond starts to become weaker, he even said that if we also read verse 5 we don't know who is the only true God. It's like he's initial answer to the question is "YES" the Father is the only trued God but on verse 5 no he's "NOT"anymore. I know he doesn't mean that way but it sounded that way.
Lastly, I hoped you had more time asking your 3rd question, about Jesus having a Name that is above every other name, here another trinitarian assumption has been exposed by how James White respond to an honest question.
First you asked, what is the Name given to Jesus
James answered: the name Jesus
you asked the same question but this time qualifying he's answer: Is Jesus above every name even Yahweh?
James answered: To confess Jesus is to confess Yahweh we are doing BOTH YES,
here its not just Jesus name anymore, your next question becomes more interesting when you asked Jesus name is equivalent to Yahweh
James answered: only in the SENSE that if we accept the incarnation of Yahweh (This statement is pure trinitarian, theres no way you can find this thought in Bible)
From here on out James, bring up Jesus obedient that he had to gave he's station to become God's man and eventually exalted.
Again your question quick to point out how he got exalted, if he's God you cannot exalt him on a position that he already has so you point out is it he's humanity that got exalted, and here it's alot confusing because Jesus is one person by accomplishing he's mission he's given the name, but it's not clear how he was given the name.
He is certainly twitching while answering the last question, however he got saved when the time ends. I didn't even hear him discuss this clearly on his closing statements, to make his position clear since you pointed out so many loopholes on this matter.
Would really appreciate if you can discuss the last question you had with Dr. White if you had more time Greg.
Thank you, Henry. See my response to David Bannister in these comments for more on my last question to Dr. White. He never did properly explain who is exalted in Philippians 2:9-11. He just resorted to a post-biblical teaching about the God-man which splits Jesus up into two people, which is what he accused me of doing. They cannot have him exalted to the position of God/Jehovah and still remain a man, since only the man could be exalted, since according to them he always was God. It's all contradictory nonsense based on post-biblical traditions.
I was blown away that you had did a debate with James white I had watch many debates between him with Muslims and others I saw this debate a long time ago and not knowing that it's you I had seen debateing 🤯man I'm getting old blind and dum all at the same time 🤣when I first saw this I was literally jumping up and down and screaming at James white and saying take that this was such an awesome debate I don't jump all over the place as much now but hearing you be so calm cool and collective and tare into his hinakin with truth puts a grin 😁 on my face thank you for this video
Your questions expose the weaknesses inherent in Trinity
You can see defeat in James White's body language...he keeps fumbling with stuff on the table, picking up stuff and sitting it back down...a clear sign that he is shook...😂😂😂
He was moving table items around a lot...
Congrats on the 1k subscribers, Jah willing the message will reach many more.
Excellent job, thanks for sharing!
White, cannot answer any questions proper, and plain.And his is boiling under the pressure, that Greg puts on him..
Also, when James is getting hammered, he starts to be condescending and petty.
Doesnt Jesus state himself in prov ch8 that he was Gods first creation
Hello, I recently discovered you and I am new. I have a question have you done a topic about the "apocrypha books" and if they are scripture?
Hello! Glad to have you with us.
I talk about them in a few videos. There are couple videos on the Assumption of Moses and the books of Enoch in this playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLpGn2SXupSYOgD21REByai0UYIh3zxhXH
I also talk about other Christian books like 1 Clement here: ruclips.net/video/0SdNhyOHKd0/видео.html
And I talk about the Bible "canon" and how we determine what books are reliable in the first part of this video: ruclips.net/video/Yp1cT8R949k/видео.html
I'll probably discuss more of the "apocrypha" soon.
@@CWJahTube Thank you😁
You destoryed him with John 17 : 3
Greg you are clever 😍
Hi Greg. I would like to know how would you respond the following objection:
In Revelation 22:6 (from NWT) we are told that the angel is "sent" by Jehovah, but if we see below in the verse 16, is Jesus who "sent" the angel. Therefore, Jesus is Jehovah (?)
Revelation 1:1 says God gave Jesus the revelation, and Jesus in turn sent the revelation through angels to John. So Jesus is God's angel who sent the revelation to his angels, since Jesus as the archangel also has "his angels (Revelation 12:7). That is why both Jesus and other angels deliver their God's messages (Revelation 3:2, 12). These angels are only "God" when they speak for God, just like the angels spoke for God and were therefore seen as God when Moses received the Law and when God spoke by means of angels through the burning bush (Acts 7:38, 53). Jesus teaches this explicitly in John 14:9-11, showing that it is the Father working through him that we really see, even though we are looking directly at and hearing Jesus. Same with the angels who serve God, like the texts in Acts and in Revelation show.
It's all really, really simple stuff when you use the Bible to interpret itself, rather than made-up traditions which invalidate God's word.
Jesus refers to the Father as his God in Rev 3:12 - can't be clearer than that, and this after his resurrection .
James, in John 1:1, he could not possibly read it any other way (he loves his catch phrase "we have a fundamental difference, meaning, I'm right and your wrong), and suddenly he is not able to figure out if this is a noun or not. But he will vomit Greek everywhere else. I've known many intelligent people and, "be careful, you are so smart you can convince yourself of anything" James falls in that category. James, Christianity, does not hang on John 1:1, concede the point and move on. By the way, nothing in John 1:1 is speaking about Jesus. I think JW's should change their thinking on this verse to Wisdom theology as an alternative reading and would make better headway with people. Mr. Stafford is pretty impressive. Warning, you would be accused of being a unitarian.
Classic.
What gets me is that if John is really trying to express sole qualitative-ness at verse 1:1c as Trinitarians insist. And White cites "theotetos" at Col. 2:9 as an example.
Then why doesn't John simply say it then by using the nominative form of theotetos at Jn. 1:1c instead of theos?
That is "the Word was " 'theotes?' "
Or perhaps "the Word was ' "theiotes' " like at Ro. 1:20, both of which are fully qualitative mass nouns?
So White kept asking "are you saying that the Greek cannot express only a qualitative reference to Christ's Deity at Jn. 1:1c?"
And the answer is, "No, not using theos as the predicate noun it can't, which is always a singular count noun in scripture. But with other terms that are always qualitative mass nouns, yes, the Greek certainly can if John had wanted to communicate that. ...
Which he didn't of course .....
And even if he did, such a quality wouldn't be as defined by later Trinitarian theology. ...
I think I was at this debate in la mirada at the holiday inn? This must have been in the early 2000s or so.
That was the Bowman debate in early 2003. You can watch it in the debate playlist.
@@CWJahTube Oh ya that’s right, lots of memories. I had a few interactions with Rob back in the day on the old Greek theology forums. What ever happenedr to that old crew, Wes, Heinz, Barry, and I think Edgar from Glasgow. You may have been on there not too sure, I know Rolf and Jason where on there and the Hebrew groups. The good old days. Got a lot of content to go over on your Channel.
Dr White or Dr Oakley whatever name you like to go by these days
Greg I wish you debated people in-person like this more, but I think they're afraid 😂
pointless debates 1 Timothy 2:8, 1 Timothy 6:4 & 2 Timothy 2:23
There certainly was a point (many, in fact) to this debate! Sorry you missed them...
The scriptures do not state Jesus has two natures. Dr. White is the one making that erroneous assumption about Jesus thereby corrupting all his related beliefs and theology.
The Apostle Paul stated clearly that Jesus is a man…not a “god-man” that Dr. White keeps saying.
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
1 Timothy 2:5
Here is how Dr. White’s version of this same scripture would need to be understood by trinitarian doctrine;
‘For the is one ‘three persons as one what (god) and one mediator between ‘three persons as one what’ (god) and man__the man Christ Jesus.’
How logically can Jesus be in the one god and also be the man as mediator between God and man?
Good question. He can't.--Galatians 3:20.
islam is the only true religion accepted by God .
Without Christianity, there would be no Islam. Without Islam, there is still Christianity. Explain this...
@@CWJahTube actually islam came to correct christianity and judaism.. moreoever the concept of islam was before christianity & judaism.. because islam literally means the submission to the will of one God.. by this definition noah,abraham,moses,jesus were all muslims because they all worshiped and pray to one God who is the father.. so the concept of islam was way before christianity wich came 3 centuries after jesus .
@iliaschannel3646 Even if we accept this, the biblical people you listed called upon Yaho, not Allah. So then, why do you not worship Yaho?
@@CWJahTube actually jesus called his God in Matthew 27:46v " Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani" which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
does Eli Eli sounds like yaho yaho or like Allah Allah ? moreover as i said previously islam came to correct the jews who denied jesus christ and pushed him to be allegedly crucified .. and also to correct christians for puting jesus as God beside the holly spirit and beside the father.
in Sum islam came to call the biblical people to worshipe one God and to believe and follow all the prophets from Adam to moses to jesus to Muhammed peace be upon them all.
@@NickWilliam91 because of your comment i noticed that the owner of the video replied to me one month ago.. so thank you for that.. concerning the content of your comment.. well you wish it will happend.
James white destroyer Jehovah witness in Jesus name
His Trinity defense got destroyed here in Jesus name, also acknowledging his Fathers name, properly!
James White has much to learn about Jesus not being the Father, he sure cant defend his assertions.
I don’t think james did he dosent understood the scriptures sadly he needs to stop teaching the trinity cult it’s just very sad as he costing peoples life’s as if he read the scriptures just on revelation 3 v 14 he wud relized that Jesus is saying he’s the faithfull and true witness the beginning of the creation of God now because trinitians carnt handle it they changed it to try and say it means ruler or origin but there to mutch everdance to say it is the beginning of the creation of God ?