3 Minute Academic Soundbites: The absurdity of the Trinity explained in 6 propositions.


i) Christ must be his own Father and his own son;
ii) The Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son yet he is both;
iii) The Son was begotten by the Father but existed before he was begotten;
iv) Christ is as old as his Father;
v) The Father is as young as his son;
vi) The Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son but he is as old as his ‘parents’.

Islam as Political Religion The future of an imperial faith by Dr Shabbir Akhtar, page 163.

Categories: 3 Minute Academic Soundbites, Christianity, Christology, Dr Shabbir Akhtar, God, Islam, Jesus, Theology, Thomas Aquinas, Trinity

Tags: , , ,

45 replies

  1. “incoherence of the doctrine of the Trinity”

    Take some advice from your fellow-Brit, a great man – C. S. Lewis

    “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.”

    C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 145. (MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc. New York, 1943, 1945, 1952. (Originally in Beyond Personality: The Christian Idea of God, 1944, p. 19)


    “The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by followers of Jesus Christ to safeguard the good news that in Jesus Christ we encounter God face to face. It was not devised to make God less understandable [“incoherent”, as Muslims and other Unitarians charge], or to make God so mysterious that the common people have to depend on clergy and theologians to understand it for them, as the JWs [Jehovah’s Witnesses] charge. Instead, the doctrine of the Trinity was developed out of respect for God’s revelation of Himself. [the Scriptures, OT and NT] The Witnesses’ doctrines about God, Christ, and “holy spirit”, on the other hand, were developed not in order to represent the bible’s teaching more faithfully, but to make God understandable and comprehensible. “

    “The choice is therefore between believing in the true God as he has revealed himself, mystery and all, or believing in a God that is relatively simple to understand but bears little resemblance to the true God. Trinitarians are willing to live with a God they cannot fully comprehend.”

    Robert Bowman, “Why You Should Believe in the Trinity”, page 138-139 [with my comments in brackets]

    • @Ken Temple

      So just to be clear, you admit the trinity is incoherent?

      • No, but that is the charge being made by Muslims and other Unitarians like Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Modalists / Sabellians / United Oneness Pentecostals.

        After all Scripture is studied properly, at some point there is mystery. (like the way you keep asking questions about nature and person, etc.)

        Also, God the Father & the Holy Spirit has to enlighten the mind and heart to see the truth. (of the atonement, justification, grace, and the Deity of Christ and the Trinity)

        2 Corinthians 4:6

        Acts 16:14

        John 6:44

      • Could you kindly translate this into Farsi, as this is the Muslim’s primary language.

      • LOL

        seeking to distract ?

      • Not at all. I am supporting your good efforts to write in Farsi whenever addressing Muslims. It shows a sophisticated missionary understanding of the world’s muslims. Keep it up!

      • I only do that when it comes from an Arabic root, which shows it’s connection to the original Islamic vocabulary, thought, and meaning.

        Like Jesus Al Masih is the Kalimat’Allah (Word of God)

        عیسی المسیح کلمه الله

        and, Actually, Al Masih المسیح is Arabic, as Masih in Farsi does not have definite articles – we just say Masih (the article is built into the word) – مسیح

        and most Iranians don’t even use the word Allah for God, they use their own heart language word for God, Khoda خدا

        But you need the Holy Spirit روح القدس in order to grasp spiritually these truths.

      • Very helpful. As all Muslims are primarily Farsi speakers (me included) we really appreciate your efforts to reach out to us.

      • But you can see the Arabic roots. Just as the video you posted by Timothy Winter – (and many Muslims do this) – he constantly breaks into the Arabic text in the middle of his English sentences; as many Muslims constantly do this. (but English speakers who don’t know Arabic don’t know what he saying)

      • I agree. Please continue to translate all Arabic or English words into Farsi. This way you reach the entire ummah. Farsi is the Lingua franca of the Muslim world.

      • I will do some, if the idea or word is relevant to the debate issue – to show the similarity and connection back to the Arabic original. The Arabs did their Jihads and subjugation of the Persians and it took about 300 years – they changed their “Pahlavi” script to the Arabic script and Farsi / Persian has today 40 % Arabic words and roots. (as does Turkish)
        The fact that I can confirm the words in the Qur’an and Islamic texts and meanings is useful.

      • Even the word “Farsi” came about because the Arabs could not pronounce “Parsi”, since they did not have the “p” sound in their language. “Persian” comes from “Pars” and “Parsi”, now used also for the Zoroastrians who fled the unjust Islamic Jihads – they fled to India and today the descendents of these Persians who fled the unjust Islamic Jihads / Harb / Qatal (killing, slaying, fight to the death or surrender) are the Parsees in Mumbai.

    • @Ken Temple

      Also complexity doesn’t automatically mean more truthful. By that logic Hinduism is more true than Christianity by having a more complex plurality in their godhead.

      • Except it is a false religion and polytheism and contradicts the NT, so we can up front reject the argument as false.

      • @ Vaqas

        Exactly lol.

        “Hey, our doctrine is contradictory and pure nonsense with no basis in our text so that means it must be true!”

        What kills me about this “point” is it is actually wrong according to logic and violates Occam’s Razor which is “the simplest answer is usually the correct one”.

        The simple answer is there is One God who sent a prophet (like He ALWAYS has done) later people who were pagans who never met him and turned everybody into a god (as the text they believe in testifies to like Acts 14:15 or the fact that their authors call ALOT of people “god”) came and took said prophet above his station. They then debated about it for several centuries finally coming up with a doctrine that was begrudging excepted but still a hot mess that can’t be explained and so after a few more centuries to make themselves feel better they come up with more bs that because it’s illogical it must be true.

      • @ Ken

        Actually, they aren’t polytheists according to your logic. They have One God named Brahman who manifests Himself in different ways in order to teach humanity. But all of their gods are just manifestations of their godhead. And they’ll argue the same crap you do that “God can do anything”.

        This is just more of your Christian…hey what you call it Paul “cognitive dissonance”? If THEY are pagans (which I accept) then YOU are pagans as they just had a longer time to develop their godhead.

    • Temple: If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier.

      Not really. Just look at the smartphone industry. Compared to the mobile phones of the past, you can do a lot more today with the average smartphone.

      Competition is about standing out/being different, and the Trinity is what makes Christianity stand out among the Abrahamic faiths.

    • @Ken Temple

      Stew already put it best but i’ll add on to it. Calling Hinduism polytheism is one interpretation (not to mention ironic) but there are others .(disclaimer the hindu religion is incredibly complex and has a variety of interpretations)

      ” Why are there so many Hindu Gods?
      Hindus actually only believe in one God, Brahman, the eternal origin who is the cause and foundation of all existence. The gods of the Hindu faith represent different forms of Brahman. These gods are sent to help people find the universal God (Brahman).

      Most Hindus have a personal god or godess such as Shiva, Krishna or Lakshmi to whom they pray regularly.”


      “A: Hindus all believe in one Supreme God who created the universe. He is all-pervasive. He created many Gods, highly advanced spiritual beings, to be His helpers.”



      So question for you ken, since a “monotheistic” interpretation can achieved by having a plurality in the godhead for hindus and you just called them polytheists whats the difference between their plural godhead and yours?

      • Yes, I know that about what Hindus call “philosophical Hinduism” – that the Brahman is the original source – an impersonal force or essence or “God” or “ground of all being”, that eventually everything melts back into, etc. If I was a missionary to Hindus I might have spend time studying it more.

      • @ Vaqas

        Ken: “Well that’s easy…uh…they don’t have the Bible spoken in English…to OUR manifestation of the godhead…that’s…what…makes them pagans…”

    • @Ken Temple

      Just so we’re clear, since Hinduism is FAR more complex religious tradition and even has a “monotheist” interpretation, will you recant you’re argument that more complexity means more truthfulness?

      • @ Ken

        Also, I’m going to add a tad bit more since you commonly claim earlier is better as well, Hinduism is 4,000+ years old which is about 2,000+ years before your religion came along so can we conclude that you’re a heresy of the true “godhead” as well?

      • No, because that was not the precise argument – you need to read the whole article.

        Also, we have revelation from the one true God that reveals the truth. (OT and NT)

      • The Bible as such does not claim to be revelation. It’s a library of books put together by the Greek Fathers over the centuries.

      • @ Ken

        So your answer is you have no answer got it. Furthermore, as I now read your quote:

        “It was not devised to make God less understandable [“incoherent”, as Muslims and other Unitarians charge] ”

        We have NEVER argued this. We said:
        1. It is a contradictory mess born from philosophy, not your religious text
        2. It was devised as a way to make polytheism born from extremism and exaltation “more logical”

    • @Ken Temple

      “Jehovah’s Witnesses (Arianism) and Islam are similar in that they reject the doctrine of the Trinity; which demonstrate that they are man made religions, among other problems of many false doctrines. Making God easier to understand demonstrates that these (both Islam and Jehovah’s Witnesses) are man-made religions.”

      sure sounds like you’re argument is that more complexity means more truthfulness…

      maybe you could explain what i’m not seeing here?

    • @Ken Temple

      So the answer is no, you don’t see the inconsistency…

    • @Ken Temple

      Thank you Ken for the clarification but i think i’ll have to disagree with you a little. the argument that the trinity is supported by scripture( which i also obviously disagree with) is a separate argument to the one I was tackling. You seem to keep making the arguments that trinitarianism is superior to unitarianism with its complexity and age. implying complexity and age equals truthfulness. I countered that showing that hinduism is both older and more complex yet you still reject it. Proving that age and complexity are not defining factors for a religions truthfulness.

      • You are jumping to compare Hinduism.

        The point is within arguments dealing with Islam vs. Christianity.

        You are mixing categories, like apples and oranges. Different, since Islam is claiming to be a 3rd in the chain of Judaism / OT to Injeel / Christianity / NT to Islam.

      • @ Ken

        To begin we do NOT claim to be “third in the chain” you’re both heresies of us and you are being called to follow the religion of Abraham(as).

        Next, your argument is “because the Trinity doesn’t make any sense it is true as we don’t try to make it understandable (other than all those “councils of insert random city)”

        By this logic, Hinduism which also has a “godhead” and can claim monotheism according to your definition AND is older AND is more complex you don’t say it is true.

    • @Ken Temple

      It’s not ‘jumping’ Ken its the natural progression to the arguments you initially posed. especially as Hinduism also believes in a plurality in the godhead while claiming (at least to some) to be monotheist

  2. Hinduism is not older than the truth of Genesis chapters 1-3, the Creator, creation, Monotheism, monogamy, proper marriage = one man and one woman”, humans created in the image of God; etc.

    Christianity (the NT, doctrine of the Trinity) is the proper understanding of the OT revelation.

    • @ Ken

      Yeah, and they say their religion goes back to the beginning, and?

    • @Ken Temple

      …Do you really not see the flaws in you’re argument? Don’t you see the inconsistency of holding to the belief that “Hinduism is not older than the truth of Genesis chapters 1-3” while criticizing Islam and the quran for being “too late”?

      • within Monotheism, Islam is 600 years late and false, since it denies the content and meaning of the previous revelations, and yet at the same, claims to affirm them. (Surah 5:47; 10:94; 5:68; 3:3; 2:136)

    • @Ken Temple

      whoops i commented on the wrong chain. i’ll just type it here again.

      So the answer is no, you don’t see the inconsistency…

      • @ Ken

        According to your beliefs, Hinduism is monotheism so your entire argument is illogical and using your same premise about 2000+ years after “revelation” of the “true godhead”.

    • “Hinduism is not older than the truth of Genesis chapters 1-3”

      LOL, yes it. Hinduism goes back 5,000 years whereas the events of Genesis go back a mere 4,000 years. Ironically, you just proved again why the Bible is not reliable and is a man-made book of fiction. The world is a lot older than the total 6,000 year timeline your Bible suggests.

  3. Kennywise keeps embarrassing himself with his incoherent defense of the pagan trinity. It’s no wonder he keeps running away from answering important questions. It’s also rather ironic that he is criticizing Hinduism, yet he cannot explain how his pagan worship is any different from that of Hinduism.


    • You need to update the article with Ken’s new robust arguments 🙂

      1. Trinity is true because it is more complex.
      2. Hinduism is not older than the truth of Genesis
      3. Trinity doctrine is based on a systematic and harmonious study of ALL of written Scripture.

  4. apologetic ignorance as always not academic

Leave a Reply