RE: [biblicalapologetics] To Jimmy
Thanks, I will have a look.
From: email@example.com [mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org ] On Behalf Of Patrick Navas
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: [biblicalapologetics] To Jimmy
- Hi Patrick,
Still struggling for time to read more than a few pages at a time, but I like your approach to Matt 28:19-20 and the "name" issue.
Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wroteHere is the link to my site and bookThe first and sixth chapters can be read on the site. The 6th chapter is "The 'I am' statements of the Gospel of John."I have to get to bed soon. Stay in touch. And thank you for offering to let others know about the book.Best wishes,Patrick Navas
- Great, Paul.I look forward to more comments and constructive criticisms. Would you mind writing a review on Amazon.com? --if you have time and are so willing?Patrick
- Hi Patrick,I will let you know as I progress. Maybe after the first chapter or so I wil feel I have enough grasp of the work to write a review on Amazon.
Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:Great, Paul.I look forward to more comments and constructive criticisms. Would you mind writing a review on Amazon.com? --if you have time and are so willing?Patrick
- Great, Paul,I appreciate that.I don't think I ever answered your question about why I never joined JWs. The main reason was: I never became convinced that Jesus returned invisibly in the year 1914. There were just too many doubtful points and controversies surrounding the doctrine. Also, the Society has a long history of pointing to certain dates that all proved false. This made it difficult, for me, to think that the Society was still or ever was credible in the area of "date setting." This does not mean that I think JWs are not Christians. It just means I don't think that one has to be a member of the organization or believe in the doctrine of 1914 in order to have God's approval. At least, that is where my studies have led me.Best wishes,Patrick Navas
Solomon has posted this review. Thought you might like to know of it, if you weren't aware of it.He is obviously a faster reader than I.
I've finished reading the book, and I have a "mini-mini review" at Dave's Scriptural Discussion site, as follows:--------------------------
A Mini-mini Review of Divine Truth or Human Tradition?, by Patrick NavasI found this to be a fantastically useful book for any in-depth study of the fallacies of Trinitarian doctrine. The author has utilized an amazing plethora of scholarly, well-regarded resources to refute this theology, many of them are even Trinitarian, demonstrating that noted Trinitarian scholars themselves recognize some of the weaknesses of this doctrine (even while attempting to justify it in other ways).When examining Scriptural texts, Patrick Navas utilizes grammar, context, and common sense to arrive at the truth of matters, using above all, the touchstone of the whole body of Scripture and what they plainly outline as real divine truth. His reasoning is solid and sure, and his writing style is easy to follow, not overly "academic" nor bombastic. He honestly quotes his sources, and often presents both or several sides of an argument.What I appreciate above all is his no-nonsense appeal to the Scriptures rather than to human tradition, and his very skillful manner of cutting through the "hermeneutical gymnastics" of Trinitarian apologists, who base their doctrine on questionable exegesis or outright eisegesis (reading their own doctrines into the text). He very effectively tears down the pompous edifice of erroneous dogma that Trinitarian apologists have erected to support the doctrine of the Trinity.All-in-all, this book is a beneficial addition to the researcher's library.Note: Just to reiterate, as with the case of Jason BeDuhn and his book, Truth in Translation, Patrick Navas is not a Witness, and in the book's appendix are some personal thoughts of his that are not shared by Witnesses. BeDuhn disagreed that "Jehovah" should be in the New Testament; Navas feels that Christians need no other identifying name besides "Christian." Interestingly, he quotes a similar expression from Brother Russell from 1882. But such personal thoughts are relegated to the appendix, and do not take away from the fine work of either book in refuting the Trinity.