Dr. James White - The Preeminence of Christ

[@sierragrey7910]

Wow. I'm knocked over. Stricken down. And given new hope and life. And if any of our responses are about anything else after listening to this sermon, we didn’t truly hear it.

[@eagle7757]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 KJV, Jesus Christ is the only way.............

[@martinpaul5232]

He’s right. Th battle is not the intellect but the heart.

[@nisbenyricardo533]

Jesus be praised

[@misganakassa6913]

100% jesus is GOD

[@sinnersaved1033]

Good response to Col 1:15 brother White! I'm going to have to answer this verse on Saturday when the jws come for a follow up book study with me. If Jesus was literally the first born of all creation then where is his mother? This question should get the jws to see that the term firstborn is not literal. There are Two ways of understanding this verse and one of them doesn't include the context. He created all things. The word [other] is in the kingdom Interlinear and then put in the NWT without brackets. the word [other] ruins the context and is only ever used for Jesus but not YHWH even if it's quoting YHWH and applying it to Jesus.

[@haroldturner9917]

It seems to me that James has lost his first Love

[@haroldturner9917]

Kip Small he is thinking too Match with his head and not enough with hi

[@lukeassande7792]

Harold Turner we are commanded to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind. James is an intellectual person, so he has a bigger capacity to love God with his mind :) nothing wrong with that. that being said, none of us love God enough and we need to strive to love him more

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

At verse 18, Paul immediately tells us what he is talking about in verse 15. He is the first of all creation to rise from the dead, the firstborn out of the dead. Firstborn of all creation.... firstborn out of the dead. This is a no-brainer. White won't be explain why Jesus needed to come to be first in all things (v18). Why would the Creator need to come to be pre-eminent over his own creation? One simple question refutes everything in this video. Was that Jesus Christ's God speakiing at Isaiah 44:24? If not his God, what God?

[@misganakassa6913]

GOD IS ONE ,,,HE MANFEST HIM SELF IN THREE DEVIN PERSON

[@TheCaledonianBoy]

@@misganakassa6913 God is one. Jesus tells us who the one God is. In praying to his Father Jesus said at John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." If Jesus said that the Father is the "only true God", then he is. At 1 Cor 8:6, Paul said, "yet for us, there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." If Paul said that we have "one God" and He is the Father, then He is. You are saying that the "one God" is made up of three persons and that the Father is only one of them in complete opposition to the words of Jesus and Paul. Are they not being entirely truthful with us?

[@23193jordan]

@@TheCaledonianBoy Dr. White has spoken on John 17, specifically addressing your point about 17:3 on more than one occasion. I will link you such a discussion that is in the context of responding to INC. I encourage you to listen to this to gain an understanding of how Dr White, and other trinitarians, have no issue with John 17:3 and hold it to affirm the doctrine of the trinity, not deny it. Here is the link: www.aomin.org/aoblog/uncategorized/program-inc-john-11-173-biblical-issues-post-debate/ May God lead both you and I to know and love Him. Take care.

[@TheCaledonianBoy]

@@23193jordan That was an interesting video by Dr. White. I agree with much of what he said when he was addressing specific points to do with the beliefs of the INC. However, I do not need to understand Greek to know that Dr. White is being a bit cavalier with his interpretation of scripture. My point was not the Greek "ho theos" of John 17:3 compared to John 1:1b. It seems to berate anyone who "assumes Unitarianism" but has no issues with "assuming trinitarianism" himself. His conclusion that Jesus is eternal based on John 1:1 is flawed and he seems to ignore what "beginning" John was referring to. His understanding of "and the Word was God" meaning deity I agree with until he said "deity" means "true God". He seemed to have plucked that one out of the air. To explain what Jesus meant at John 17:3 by calling the Father the "only true God" he attempts to show that only a deep understanding of Johns gospel can we understand that Jesus did not actually mean the Father is "the only true God" Dr. White had a debate with a Jehovah's Witness a number of years back and he did not fare as well as many would have expected. At one point the JW correct his Greek of Revelation chapter 4 Thank you for directing me to this video as I did learn a few things from Dr. White Peace

[@23193jordan]

@@TheCaledonianBoy Hey! Can you give me your reason(s) as to why you think that Dr. White's conclusion that Jesus is eternal based on John 1:1 is flawed? To me, his position based upon the imperfect tense of the verb eimi in that verse seemed to make sense. Secondly, I am wondering what you understand "deity" to mean, if not "true God."

[@norulshahlamjohn1140]

know that explanation is not evidence.. u can have long and beautiful explanation but it doesnt prove anything if u dont provide evidence..

[@kevinjeffries5233]

Silly goose this isnt a debate

[@norulshahlamjohn1140]

@@kevinjeffries5233 did anyone says that lil chicken?

[@AveChristusRex]

Dr. White says the Council of Nicaea was held by "the church", and yet he is not Catholic. He has read the church fathers (the earliest Christians) and knows they were all Catholic. But Just. Doesn't. Care. And is just Calvinist instead. Those Christians that died in droves under Roman persecution were Catholic, Dr. White. There were no Calvinists running around, and no canon of the Scriptures yet. It's a shame, this talk is great.

[@Chirhopher]

that was kind of a weird critíc, friend. Maybe you should take a Church history course of his, or contact him, and you can engage him. lol He is a great Brother.

[@JQHNDi]

There is no evidence that the early church fathers were anything close to what the Catholic church claims they were. The dogma they hold, the traditions they have made, all formed over time and much MUCH later. The early church fathers were christians and Id argue they were closer to the reformed position than to the Catholic church. Ave Christus Rex. Heres a question for you. Why did none of the letters written by any of the early church fathers mention a pope, or single bishops until later on as church leadership started to reshape and form different political systems? And dont say its cause they just didnt mention them because they discuss leadership, elders, presbyters, and many other things plenty. Yet nothing of single bishops until later and nothing about a succession of pope until much MUCH later.

[@a-borgia4993]

Just claims, no evidence. (No idea why YT put this in my feed). and he calls himself "Dr"...

[@theocratickingdom30]

You aren't the intended audience. Seems you aren't able to understand that.