Second Response to Anthony Buzzard

Let's get to this first. There is a response by Anthony buzzard, it's seven minutes long

I'm not sure when you get to all that but like I didn't get a chance to edit it. So I guess I have to And YouTube doesn't like starting and stopping real well.

I'm a little worried about this. We're gonna do the best we can But let's let's do that.

And then there's something else we need to look at and then we'll dive into the radio free Geneva Material from that point.

Let's let's dive into it and There is a opening thing here.

Here we go. I'm thrilled that Dr. White agrees that the Septuagint was the

Bible of the New Testament. That's wonderful It's not even a disputed fact and I appeal therefore to the

Shema Which James White really didn't deal with in any detail except to say that it developed finally into a sort of modified

Shema It became something different in 1st Corinthians 8 where Paul speaks of one God the father and one

Lord Jesus Christ No, actually what I said, of course In fact, I did deal with it very in -depth and I directed people to the very in -depth discussion of that very issue

On the blog and in the dividing lines that followed after the Unitarian debate that I did with somebody else back in December I believe of 2010 if I recall correct, maybe 2011

I don't remember which I think is 2011 December of 2011 Which we have gone into depth on and we did point out that in the

Greek Septuagint the very language I mean people as widely divergent in their views as N .T.

Wright have written on this very subject I think Richard Balcombe has written on this very subject I am

NOT the only one to be making this assertion by any stretch of the imagination And that is that the language from which the

Apostle Paul draws in 1st Corinthians chapter 8 When he talks about for us there is but one

God the father for us there is but one Lord Jesus Christ and then Discusses both of their roles in creation

That cannot be said of a mere creature and let me again emphasize When I say mere creature

Jehovah's Witnesses Anthony Anthony buzzard everybody else up. He's not just a mere he's an exalted creature

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant You're either on the uncreated side or the created side there is an infinite chasm between the created and the uncreated and So you can talk about the most exalted creature you want

It's still on the wrong side of the chasm. This goes back to Arius. This goes back to Nicaea This has been what has defined the

Christian faith in the beginning Do you really believe that Jesus Christ is who the Bible says? Anthony buzzard is not he does not believe that Jesus Christ is who the

Bible says he is. Look at his amazing Amazingly facile attempt to get around John 20 20.

It's not possible to do So when I say mere creature, I'm not just saying well, he's just like any other human being

I'm saying that in comparison to the Creator. He is a mere creature He is on the wrong side of the

Creator creation chasm to be worshipped To receive honor that is given to him by all of creation in Revelation chapter 4, etc, etc, etc.

I Want to take that point very seriously. I Thought dr. James White that you were rather quick in dismissing mark 1229.

I wonder exactly I've never dismissed mark 1229 Where is this coming from? I have never dismissed mark 1229

Jesus repeats the Shema. He says the greatest commandment is the love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind

I've preached on this. This is this is Again, the only thing I dismiss is the facile assertion

That this is a Unitarian creed that this demands Unitarianism That is what

Anthony buzzard has never even attempted to prove. He just asserts it. Well, it's um It's because of of singular pronouns and and and all the rest of that stuff because he will not listen

To what we are saying his arguments against Trinitarianism remain extremely simplistic and just don't hit the mark he doesn't seem to understand that but Again, I've not dismissed anything

Is that a Trinitarian or Unitarian proposition that Jesus makes in agreement with the

Jew you weren't clear You didn't is it a trinity? What what are you asking as?

I said that statement that there is one God is Absolutely true, but that does not follow that the nature of Jehovah the being of Jehovah is

Unitarian It's just not there You can't take one verse the Bible plug your belief into it and then demand everything else in the

Bible fit with your assertion The question is when we look at what the Bible says

About Jehovah's own self -revelation. It reveals the father as Jehovah the son as Jehovah You cannot refute that the

Spirit is the Spirit of Jehovah. And as I've said that is a further revelation Muslims Anthony buzzard

Jehovah's Witnesses all say look you've got to stick with Once God has revealed himself at all.

He can't reveal anything more than that. That's it. No progressive revelation No, no, it doesn't doesn't matter that there's an incarnation all the rest of stuff.

You just can't do that You can't go there just can't do it. That's we're being told and get my historical point that Jews have always been

Unitarians Not Trinitarians based on their Shema. Well, you know Jesus repeated that Shema.

It's a historical point Are you really saying that Jews were Trinitarians without knowing it or by misunderstanding their own

Shema? What is your point? I don't know how he can't get this My you know the kids in in Sunday school can get this

What did I say in the last video that he hasn't heard? It's rather obvious what did

I say the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity takes place in the Incarnation of the

Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. How many times have I said that is that in my book? Which was written 1998 which he says he's read was that in the debate that we did

Yes, is there a veil over the mind that does not allow someone to understand Evidently on that issue.

That's critical The Shema I would say is a Unitarian Creed and guess what

Jesus our rabbi the one whom we are Bidden by New Testament verses over and over again to listen to carefully recites the

Shema Repeats it agrees with an enthusiastic Jew and says that the Lord our

God is One Lord Kyrgios of Yosemite Kyrgios East a steel

I'm using the modern Greek pronunciation Which they're doing incidentally at Harvard to because it's a fine beautiful language

The Lord our God is one Lord. That's very clear But you move very quickly from that you made no further comment

I had pointed out that in your book in the text index You don't even refer to it You think you'd start the discussion of the

Trinity by discussing what Jesus himself the historical Jesus said? No, actually

I started discussions of Trinity with all of the massive amount of information from the Old Testament demonstrating monotheism

That's why I started out There's an entire chapter on monotheism because I've debated so many Mormons in the past who deny that belief

And it is a given that everyone in the New Testament believed in the Shema I asserted that it is your inappropriate insertion of the concept of Unitarianism Into the

Shema which is the problem And it has been refuted by Paul's own usage in first Corinthians chapter 8 if you can't respond to that just admit it and say

I just don't believe it. I will not allow that into my philosophy or whatever. There's no need for me to follow your erroneous insertion of external ideas into those texts

Then there is a pause. How do you move down the first Corinthians 8? Let's go there Paul says there are many gods and many

Lords in the world But to us Christians in first Corinthians 8 there is one God the father and no other

God But he doesn't that sound awfully like what Jesus said in agreement with the scribe come on Listen again.

It is amazing Everyone I I Rich is doing the other room. It is amazing the blindness of tradition can bring upon people it truly is there is one

God and One Lord, so if you're gonna say oh, oh one God, that's it.

Don't worry about the rest of it. There it is There's Unitarianism and Then look at the term courteous ago.

This is exalted man, but yeah, yeah that that Lord part, which is actually rendering

Yahweh Doesn't really matter. Yeah, let's not worry about that It's amazing

To see him as excited as I am and yet Missing the entire point the entire point that everybody else can see very very clearly

Well, I guess I shouldn't say there's there's obviously people who just agree with with him There's as I said that the question is well

We'll find out someday where the where the veil lies and carefully that's exactly a repeat

Of what is said by Jesus to the ship in regard to the Shema in Mark 12 29

So Paul is repeating that there's only one God the father Can you hear this he didn't say there's only one

God father son and Holy Spirit No text ever says that Now, of course

We would never say that there was text said that but again Paul takes the very language of the

Shema and He applies the us Elohim to the father and he applies

Yahweh to the Sun and here Anthony buzzard stares into camera and says was just what

Jesus said to the Jewish guy Can't you see that and you just go? Really Wow Amazing what does it mean and one

Lord Jesus Christ he Again, I'm hearing this for the first time. I want to hear what does he do with the fact that here kudios direct?

Correlative to Yahweh is applied to Jesus Through whom all things are made and we through him when he says

Jesus is a creation Let's let's see if we get an explanation The singular personal pronouns you have not been brave enough to say it mean a single person

No brave enough to say I deny it I'm not gonna say it when

I deny it. I In the

Old Testament Where plural pronouns are used or there are places where singulars are used of cities and and things like that That is irrelevant if that's all you've got

There's there's no reason to even bother continuing. It's it's a waste of time You clearly are not allowing the revelation of the text to speak for itself.

You're not looking allowing the text before that Let's let's let's keep going Because if that's it if that's all we have in first Corinthians 8 if there's no discussion of kudios here

Wow That is a complete complete face plant, but there must be there that there's there's still there's still five minutes to go here

There's there's got to be a full discussion of that I'm asking you now to provide the biblical words for being as the same from person.

They don't exist You're using a language which is post biblical many scholars know this. Ah It's a post biblical.

Don't you dare use post biblical language while I ask post biblical questions. I'm a unitary. Oops That's a post biblical term too, isn't it?

Ah, I just love that I love when people want to ask post biblical questions, but if you use post biblical language, oh, you're bad

Such inconsistency is amazing to me again Sir, Anthony cannot discuss his own

Existence as a human being in differentiation from others without making the very differentiation that we're using here

It is basic to human language It is basic to human categories and it's basic to an understanding what the scriptures are saying.

That's not even issue Let's hope we get back to kudios here fine to discuss the

Trinity in terms of the church fathers But if this is a biblical discussion, you must locate your language in the biblical language to make sense to us at all

Now I directly address that in the forgotten Trinity Find that excellent quotation from BB Warfield where he addresses this very issue of people who want to say well, we'll ask you questions

But you can only use biblical language to answer them now, we don't have to limit ourselves to biblical language to ask the questions and But but you're just limited in in that way

And that's the assertion that's being made. There's no Explanation as to why that is

I could ask him all sorts of questions Where he could not simply limit himself to well, okay.

Is that word in the Bible that well, no, that's not the word I can't use that one Hmm. How am I gonna answer this question?

Because you know, I What are you sir? Anthony? Well, I'm a unit. Oh, I don't even know if the unit

Terms not there. No, you can't use that Well a biblical monitor, well, what does that mean you see there's the problem is

You have to be able to find what you mean by things and to artificially limit yourself in that way is not an appropriate thing

Oh, but you say there that Paul says The Shema includes now

Jesus. Yes, that's just wrong. Oh Jesus didn't say that in Mark 12.

He went on to explain that he was Not the Yahweh of Psalm 110 one and Paul says exactly the same thing in 1st

Corinthians 8 4 to 6 having said There's no other God but one God the Father. That's what he says there for us

Christians. That's strictly a Unitarian statement So half of a sentence is a Unitarian statement.

There you go This is the exegesis Unitarians are reduced to Half of the sentence supports my position just not the whole sentence now

It sounds like we're about to get the amazing Denigration of Kurios to something other than what it is in Deuteronomy 6 4 and 5

It is is that what's coming? again, I I Didn't have the opportunity to listen to this but but remember, let's let's look

Let's look at Deuteronomy 6 4 Oh Akua Israel Kurios hatheos haimon

Kurios haiseston the actual assertion of haise

The oneness is of Kurios Yahweh not Elohim Not theos

It's of Yahweh The key term in the Shema is Kurios in the

Greek sub -digit It's Yahweh in the Hebrew. Yes Shema Israel Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh.

What's repeated twice and what's repeated only what's said only once? Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh Echad So in first Corinthians 8 the key

Identifying word for the God of Israel is applied to Jesus Through whom were all things and we through him.

That's Paul's use. That's Paul's use. That is amazing Utterly unacceptable to the

Unitarian is that what's coming? I well, let's let's let's see if that's what ends up Lord Messiah Hmm.

I don't see Lord Messiah there. I Wonder if I wonder if he's using a different translation or a different Greek text

Lord Messiah I have Kai heist Kurios Jesus Christ. Oh, there's Messiah.

I suppose Jesus Christ if you want to do Christos is Messiah. So that would but that would be

Lord Jesus Messiah Not Lord Messiah But of course

Jesus Christ us at this point is a is an established name heist

Kurios Does anyone think I'm missing something here

All hey mean heist the oz hop I tear Kai heist

Kurios Jesus Christ Direct parallel one

God one Lord Are we gonna be given any basis for Saying yeah

The God part Yeah, that goes the shema, but the the

Lord part know that in fact, the God part is actually Yahweh, but Jesus isn't

Yahweh, so Let's see if that's let's see if that's substantiated here. Oh Messiah was born in Bethlehem.

Nobody in those days thought that God was getting born much less that God could die and in Luke 2 26

Luke the very notice we have Completely left Paul we we're off someplace else now we're going well, you know in those days

They didn't expect this as if we know everything the Jews expected There were all sorts of expectations for the

Messiah most of which were wrong by the way, which is what inflicted the Apostles But we've we've we've left

Paul here if we don't get back to Paul Well, that's gonna be a real good indication of what's going on historical theological writer says that The Lord's Messiah Yahweh's Messiah is the

Lord Messiah who got born so the distinction made by Luke There is exactly the distinction made by Jesus in Mark 12 28 following and by Paul in 1st

Corinthians 8 and Following there because it's absolutely clear that the Lord God is not the

Lord Messiah There's only one Lord God Yahweh is one person that catch that Assuming assuming assuming

Unitarianism. He never proves it He can't he can't even begin to critically analyze the fact he just assumes and cannot prove

It's his starting assumption and all the evidence in the world Will not stop him from simply repeating the same and it happened in the debate, too

I mean how many times do we have to go over the same things upon thousands of times with a singular personal program? There you go.

I simply do not understand how you say that the Shema is somehow Added to sort of fulfilled in some vague way.

You don't tell us where this happens except that you say it happened in Paul Then was

Jesus not aware of this Trinitarian creed that you're so keen on that's the question I would ask you to deal with head -on

Then you asked me what pages do you say that God can mean all? That's it.

He left it left it Absolutely failed to even begin to deal with first Corinthians a failed total face plant

Wow Heist they asked hop a tear heist courios

Jesus Christus It is right there It's right in front and he has to run off to Luke trying to say well, you know

There's the you know, you're always just one person. Jesus can't be that and Yet here the

Apostle applies the very Greek term that is translating the tetragrammaton from the

Hebrew into Greek of Jesus says we are through him all things are through him a

Clear description of Yahweh in the Old Testament applied to Jesus Christ Can't see it because his eyes are closed.

We'll not hear what we're saying cannot hear it. We're saying can I hear? Huh? I'll listen to the rest of it later on because I need to get something else.

But there you go Amazing absolutely amazing.

So it's sad to me. It really is sad to see that But it's not it doesn't surprise me

Because that's exactly what we saw in the program no matter how clearly I or Michael Brown laid out the texts