I called Dr. James White last Thursday to get his take on John 5:26 and 6:57, since Mr. Gregg Stafford presented the following verses in his closing statements and which has also come up in previous debates and discussions.
He was nice enough to take my call and then post the segment on his website. Here is the following link to those interested in listening.
In Him
Christopher
Hi Christopher,
I listened to the audio. It didn't seem like he really answered the question. He seemed to just talk about other passages without saying really addressing that specific passage. At least that's how I saw it.
i wanted to follow up with a particular point, but did not have an opportunity considering it was the end of the program and would liked to of pressed the question a bit further, but his reflections on the divine persons were in the same vein as my own in respects to Christ having life in himself and the oneness of God in general. (john1:4,5:26). He uses the other verses so that the context can be grasped, instead of isolating the text itself. After his response, I have payed more attention to the overwhelming amount of refrences that Christ uses to himself and the Father and unity that exists between them. He parallels himself in a way that would be considered blaphemous if he didn't hold to equlaity with God. Which, was what the jews were partly accusing him of in vs 18. But, I must admit that I have alot of studying and reflection to do as well. I'm not as thorough as I would like to be. And grapple with certain issues, which is good for me because it pushes me to study and press into the Word of God :-)
they don't really answer questions they just talk most of the time. i've listened enough to scratch my head at times.
Yea.. I think it really is better for them to just say "I don't know" than to jump all over scripture and not really say anything at all.
I listened to the audio. It didn't seem like he really answered the question. He seemed to just talk about other passages without saying really addressing that specific passage. At least that's how I saw it.
I don't know. It seemed to make sense to me. Maybe I didn't understand the question though.
I don't know. It seemed to make sense to me. Maybe I didn't understand the question though.
If I may ask...what did you understand his explination to be?
This discussion is locked.
