The Trinity is Incoherent by Dr Timothy Winter – part 2


Subject: The Biblical witness.
Is the Trinity taught in the Bible? Dr Winter says No: “God’s only number is one. The idea of a perichoretic union of self-awareness hypostases, each of which was entirely God, came later.” page 349.



Categories: 3 Minute Academic Soundbites, Bible, Christianity, Christology, Creeds, Dr Tim Winter, Theology, Trinity

142 replies

  1. Winter begins his argument by claiming that the part of 1 John 5:7-8, “the Comma Johanneum” is the main basis for the Trinity, but it is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Yes, we all know this about it not being in the early Greek manuscripts, etc., but that verse was NEVER used in the early centuries, so how did the early church defend the Trinity without it?

    How did Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, the bishops at the Council of Nicea, Athanasius or Augustine, or Jerome, defend the Deity of Christ and the Trinity without the “Comma Johanneum” ?

    “Justin Martyr believed in a rudimentary form of the Trinity” (Rob Bowman, page 29, see below) (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 6)

    Christians worshiped “the Father of righteousness . . . who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son . . . and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore . . . ” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 6) (Justin died, martyred for his faith in Christ, in 165 AD)

    You misspoke on the reference at 3:12 – it is 1 Peter 1:2, not 1 Timothy 1:2.

    You (and all other Muslims) need to read the chapter/article in that same book, before Tim Winter’s – “The Doctrine of the Trinity is Coherent” by Thomas D. Senor

    Also, every Muslim needs to read all of these books carefully in order to get a better grasp on the Doctrine of the Trinity, since Tim Winter distorts things:

    Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, by Robert Bowman
    The Forgotten Trinity, by James White
    The Holy Trinity, by Robert Letham
    Delighting in the Trinity, Michael Reeves
    Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? by Timothy George

    Like

  2. ‘How did Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, the bishops at the Council of Nicea, Athanasius or Augustine, or Jerome, defend the Deity of Christ and the Trinity without the “Comma Johanneum” ?’

    Let’s go through these one by one:

    1) Show me where Justin Martyr defends the idea of the Trinity.

    Just give me a quote from his work Ken.

    Like

    • I cant see any quote from Justin.

      Like

    • Christians worshiped

      “the Father of righteousness . . . who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son . . . and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore . . . ” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 6)

      (Justin died, martyred for his faith in Christ, in 165 AD)

      Like

      • a highly edited quote. Let’s have the unedited version shall we?

        Like

      • All the standard Early church fathers are available on line at ccel.org and also at the RC site, “newadvent”

        Amazing how lazy you are being. You can easily check Winter’s claims there.

        These are just the first 2 examples of him being wrong.

        Like

      • No it is YOU who are being lazy and discourteous by not bothering to cite the full unedited quote you refer to.

        Like

      • No; since I provided the links to find the more fuller quotes. The only reason for shortening is for clarity and combox space, but anyways, I have provided the full quotes now. Muslims are not dumb, Paul. You are acting like Muslims cannot read and cannot click on a link and find the full quotes.

        Like

      • No, it is characteristic of you not to provide full quotes in your references. This is because you are a con man.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, since I gave the full quotes and the links to find the fuller context.

        These 2 examples, show that Winter is the one who is being a “con-man” by skewing the evidence, along with the lack of comprehension of the early church defense of the Trinity, even without the “comma Johanneum”

        Like

      • As Stewjo004 likes to say,

        “you have a reading comprehension problem”

        Like

      • I don’t accept chopped up ‘quotes’ from missionaries.

        Try again

        Like

      • Justin Martyr, First Apology, 6: (note the footnote also)

        “Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him),1776 and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.”

        1776 This is the literal and obvious translation of Justin’s words. But from c. 13, 16, and 61, it is evident that he did not desire to inculcate the worship of angels. We are therefore driven to adopt another translation of this passage, even though it be somewhat harsh. Two such translations have been proposed: the first connecting “us” and “the host of the other good angels” as the common object of the verb “taught;” the second connecting “these things” with “the host of,” etc., and making these two together the subject taught. In the first case the translation would stand, “taught these things to us and to the host,” etc.; in the second case the translation would be, “taught us about these things, and about the host of the others who follow Him, viz. the good angels.” [I have ventured to insert parenthetic marks in the text, an obvious and simple resource to suggest the manifest intent of the author. Grabe’s note in loc. gives another and very ingenious exegesis, but the simplest is best.]

        Like

      • This proves you are a liar Ken. This does not defend the doctrine of the Trinity as you falsely claim:

        ‘Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity [So the Father is the true God]. But both Him [GOD], and the Son who came forth from Him [the son comes from God] and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, 1776 and the prophetic Spirit [quite distinct from the Father who is the only being Justin calls “God” earlier], we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.’

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, the quote proves you are skewing things.

        Why do Muslims often jump to say “you are a liar” ? when difference of opinion is not “a lie” ?

        Justin Martyr clearly teaches that the Christians worship the Father, and the Son, and the prophetic Spirit . . .

        a rudimentary form of the Trinity is right there before 165 AD.

        Like

      • Don’t fib!

        Fact: *Only* the Father is called God. No one else. Period.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Both Him (the Father) and the Son, (who comes from God -no Trinitarian denies this) – The logos is eternally coming out from the Father – John 1:1 and the Son shared in the same glory with the Father into eternity past – John 17:5

        and the prophetic Spirit we worship and adore . . .

        Like

      • Also, Ignatius, earlier, around 107-110 AD, wrote:

        “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.” Ignatius to the Ephesians 7
        “For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.” Ignatius, to the Ephesians, 18
        you can look both of them up:
        don’t be lazy
        https://ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.ii.xviii.html

        Like

      • Granted that it is a simple early form of the Doctrine, but it is all there in its basic parts. Notice the mention of the Holy Spirit at the end. It is Christocentric and Incarnational. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are clearly taught, early, which points to the basic texts of Matthew 3:13-17; Matthew 28:19; Luke 1:34-35; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Ephesians 1:3-14; I Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6

        Like

      • 13 Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” 15 But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he *permitted Him. 16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
        Matthew 3:13-17

        We see here Jesus the Son, the voice of the Father from heaven, and the Holy Spirit coming down upon Jesus, anointing Him for the beginning of His ministry.

        Jehovah’s Witnesses try to say that Jesus did not have the Holy Spirit at all until His baptism, and that the HS is just a force, and not a person.

        Bowman writes:
        “The fact is that the Holy Spirit’s descent on Jesus was not for Him to become actively present in Jesus’ life for the first time, but to mark publicly the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and manifest to the world that the Spirit was indeed on Jesus.” (Robert Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, page 126)

        The clear passages about “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (see Mark 3:28-30) demonstrate that the HS is a person and is God by essence / substance – and was spoken of in the OT – “the Spirit of Yahweh”.

        Like

      • distinct, but not separate

        this points to the distinction in persons within the Trinity, but not separation, since the 3 persons are ONE Unity in substance / essence.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “distinct, but not separate

        this points to the distinction in persons within the Trinity, but not separation, since the 3 persons are ONE Unity in substance / essence.”

        Until the human nature is attached then it becomes two…

        Question for you Ken, how is this understanding of God you’ve proposed different from Hindu worship and their idea of a plural godhead?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I already answered that months ago with lots of argument with Faiz (QB) although discussion always degenerates into his sinful character of ad hominem, insults, hatred, psychological projections of whining, etc.

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/how-christs-incarnation-differs-from-the-hindu-idea-of-avatar/

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        You seem to have misunderstood the points i was making. you said “the 3 persons are ONE Unity in substance / essence.” and i wanted to counter this by bringing two points to consider.

        1. The “ONE unity in substance / essence” no longer holds true as the human nature was added to person of the son. Because trinitarianism is predicated on the belief that you worship a plurality of persons not natures, now that there is a plurality of natures there are in effect two gods. the father and the son and spirit who share the divine nature as one god, and the the son alone with his human nature as another god.You don’t have to be worshiping the human nature for it to be polytheism. The mere fact you are worshiping plurality of persons in the trinity who ALSO have a plurality of natures is enough.

        2.The second point i wanted to discuss was the plurality of the trinity versus the plurality in the hindu godhead. Since you called hindu’s polytheists before I want to know, whats the difference between their godhead and yours?

        3.As for the links/ response you posted about hindu man worship being different from christianity, i found it wanting.

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/07/ken-temple-cannot-explain-the-difference-between-christian-and-hindu-man-worship/

        Liked by 3 people

      • Vaqas,
        I commend you on your argumentation and method. Thanks for being gracious and yet also tenacious in your questions. I confess I do not know enough about Hinduism to go much deeper in order to really interact with your questions, except that Christianity limits the plurality within the ONE God to three persons (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14) and Christianity is historical and depends on the Incarnation and virgin conception of Christ, and the Monotheism of Christianity is much different than the Monism or “ground of all being” – the Brahman – that not only do all the Avatars / Manifestations come from but all matter and energy and existence itself will eventually “melt” into or be absorbed into in the future. Also, the concept of Maya (illusion) – that all matter is just an illusion, is part of that worldview and makes their understandings of the Avatars / Manifestations a lot different than the unique incarnation of Christ, and oneness of the Trinity, etc. The Maya principle is why many Hindus pierce themselves with knives, needles into eyelids, spears into sides, hooks in skin, etc. – seeking to prove that matter / physicality is an illusion and not real. (A lot of Muslim Sufis / Dervishes do this kind of thing also) – I confess I need to Hinduism a lot more in order to go deeper into that. From what I know, these things make the Brahman very different from the Trinity and the other principles very different from the historicity of the incarnation and the Christian faith. Again, thanks for being respectful. As a Muslim, you should rebuke QB / Faiz for his evil behavior and sometimes others who, say “You are liar”, when they are not operating on a proper definition of what lying or a liar actually is. Difference of opinion is not lying and sincerity of belief is not lying.

        This quote I found about Hinduism is an example of how complicated it is and how incoherent and seemingly non-sense and contradictory.

        Julius J. Lipner (2009), Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 2nd Edition, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-45677-7, page 8; Quote: “[…] one need not be religious in the minimal sense described to be accepted as a Hindu by Hindus, or describe oneself perfectly validly as Hindu. One may be polytheistic or monotheistic, monistic or pantheistic,henotheistic, panentheistic ,pandeistic, even an agnostic, humanist or atheist, and still be considered a Hindu.”

        Like

      • Typo; I left out the word “study”.

        I confess I need to STUDY Hinduism a lot more in order to go deeper into that.

        Like

      • Hey Kennywise, the lying clown, your lies have been exposed for all to see. Stop whining.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “This quote I found about Hinduism is an example of how complicated it is and how incoherent and seemingly non-sense and contradictory.”

        Lol, if it’s “incoherent” then it must be true! Hindus didn’t try to “simplify” God, like Kennywise tries to do. 😂

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        “This quote I found about Hinduism is an example of how complicated it is and how incoherent and seemingly non-sense and contradictory.”

        Lol, if it’s “incoherent” then it must be true! Hindus didn’t try to “simplify” God, like Kennywise tries to do. 😂

        EXACTLY!!! (PS I love how he ignores the fact that his “godhead” is just as complicated, incoherent, contradictory nonsense)

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s our lovable loser Kennywise for ya!

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Winter, on page 352, claims that neither Justin Martyr (I already refuted that above with the quote from First Apology, 6) nor Tertullian taught a Triune God . . . ”

    “neither taught a Triune God; their conception was essentially binitarian . . . ”

    This is an amazingly wrong statement, given that Tertullian is the one who is the most famous for the Latin terms “trinitas” and “unitas” and “persona” (reflecting the Greek terminology of hupostasis, developed by the Cappadocian fathers in the east.)

    Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2 – writing against Praxeas and his doctrine of modalism, Tertullian says

    “We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas.”

    https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/against_praxeas/anf03.v.ix.ii.html#fnf_v.ix.ii-p7.1

    Tertullian continues:

    “In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very self same Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation [economic hierarchical roles] is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.”

    Against Praxeas, chapter 2

    How could Winter make such an elementary mistake?

    Like

    • Tim Winter knows his patristics better than you Ken. There was NO trinity before Nicea:

      Like

      • No.
        the mistake winter made about Tertullian was enough to prove he doesn’t really know patristics that well.

        The video is not Tim Winters teaching and I have not had time to listen to that at this point.

        Like

      • The video supports Winter’s view with many citations from the Fathers including Tertullian.

        They were not trinitarian.

        It refutes you totally.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I went back and listened to the Tertullian section again. Finnegan did not even address the section I quoted above, Against Praxeas, 2.

        He jumped to different contexts and avoided the main one.

        Of course Tertullian (after conversion and writings – around 190-220 AD) was a Trinitarian.

        100 years before Nicea.

        and the NT – Trinitarian texts – Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14; Matthew 3:13-17; 1 Peter 1:2, John 1:1-5; 14-16; etc is all first century inspired God-breathed texts that teach the Trinity, along with many other passages.

        Like

  4. You must be being deliberately obtuse to try and say that the Trinity is not in Tertullian, when he is the main dude that came up with the Latin terminology Trinitas, Unitas (3 in 1) and persona (person) – as in the quote I gave you.

    Amazing . . . !!!

    Dale Tuggy’s anti-Trinitarian material is a lot of stuff. They are not Christians. Steve Hays at Triablogue has interacted a lot with him over the past few years.

    I have read some of them, when I have time, but I was not able to keep up with the volume. Dale Tuggy is not convincing.

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search/label/Dale%20Tuggy

    Like

  5. 47. So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable, therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son.

    Irenaeus, The Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, 47 (Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, France, sent as a missionary from Smyrna, Asia Minor (modern Izmir, Turkey, where also Polycarp was from) wrote around 180-202 AD)

    Like

    • “So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable, therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son.”

      So where is the holy spirit? Taking a bathroom break? Where is the trinity here?

      This again demonstrates the complete and utter dishonesty of scumbags like Kennywise.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It is unreasonable to always demand that every passage or verse mention all three persons of the one
        God. some do – Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14

        the same for the writings of the Fathers. It is unreasonable to demand that they always have mention all three persons close together, for many times they are making long extended arguments.

        Like

      • Why is it “unreasonable”, r-tard? Was there an ink shortage back then? It is perfectly reasonable to demand that every verse mention all 3 persons, especially as it pertains to theology.

        Liked by 2 people

    • @ Ken

      If “divine inspiration” is happening it is strange not to use the three persons. Very simple:

      “Greetings in the name if the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I am writing you today to inform you…”

      You might have an argument if you saw things like:

      “In the Son and Holy Spirit’s name…”

      Or

      “The Father and the Holy Spirit send blessings…”

      But the fact that you only keep getting “Father and His Son” shirk is odd.

      Liked by 3 people

  6. This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the
    stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith.

    The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible,79 in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union80 between God and man.
    And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way a upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God.

    Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 6

    Like

    • So where is the trinity? Again, you are forcing your trinity anachronistically by assuming it from the beginning. You do the same thing with the New Testament, even though it also does not teach the trinity.

      In the above passage, Irenaeus specifically refers to the Father as “God”. He NEVER uses the word “God” when describing either Jesus or the holy spirit!

      Like

  7. The Son is called God, not only in John 1:1; 14; 18; 5:17-18; 10:30; 20:28, Philippians 2:5-8, etc.
    but also in

    Romans 9:4-5

    who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
    whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

    and

    1 John 5:20

    And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

    Like

  8. @ Ken

    I wasn’t going to comment because I could care less about what random heretics who never met Jesus(as) write or how they came to their wrong beliefs, but since you said my name like Beetlejuice I gotta come through now. As noted by the translator he says the text is ambiguous but it can be translated as follows:

    “But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us about these things, and about the host of the others who follow Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore…”

    If I understand what he is saying correctly in this translation Jesus(as) taught about:
    1.the previously mentioned things
    2. the (angels)
    3. the prophetic Spirit.

    And these (God and Jesus(as) are worshiped and adored by them(authobillah) This makes the most sense in context as the other two translations are problematic:

    “But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore…”

    “But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and “taught these things to us and to the host,” of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore…”

    The problem here is Justin’s entire point is Christians are “atheist” in the idols/evil spirits that the Greeks worship, but according to these translations, the implication is Jesus(as) taught the angels not to worship them? Ignoring this point, the more serious theological problem, if you think about it that would mean in he is saying the angels are “made like Jesus(as)” which contradicts the Trinity as the Son is supposed to be eternal if memory serves me correctly.

    Liked by 1 person

    • (who came forth from Him and taught us about these things, and about the host of the others who follow Him)

      difficult to know what Justin means here about the host, angels, being made like Him, etc.

      The footnote is helpful, for it refers to other clear passages in Justin’s writing that speak of not worshiping angels.

      on the surface, Justin is making a parenthetical statement that Christ came from God the Father (all Trinitarians believe this)
      and that Christ taught about these things, and about angels or other believers who follow Him.

      this is why I left out the parenthetical phrase – it is unclear.

      But it clearly says that there is only one God, and the Christians worship the Father, the Son, and the prophetic Spirit. That is an elementary form of the doctrine of the Trinity.

      Everyone has always confessed this is proper development of theology, not additions, but deeper understanding of the fullness of taking all the NT relevant passages into account.

      Like

      • @ Ken

        I agree the text is ambiguous (and am assuming Justin is not talking about Christians directly worshipping angels) which is why I didn’t insult your reading ability. My point is the translation I noted that they worship God and Jesus(as) who taught them the above things makes the most sense in context otherwise his understanding goes against the Trinity.

        Also, you DEFINITELY don’t take all passages into account as I’ve said previously. If you read the text (mainly John) Jesus (as) is a pre-existent semi divine being that is subservient to God. That is what the authors want you to take away from the whole story.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Justin Martyr, taken as whole and reading him more widely, clearly says that there is only one God, and the Christians worship the Father, the Son, and the prophetic Spirit. That is an elementary form of the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Everyone (theologians, historians, historical theology, early catholic church, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, classical Protestantism) has always confessed this is proper development of theology, not additions, but deeper understanding of the fullness of taking all the NT relevant passages into account.

    The three persons of the Trinity are mentioned in many passages, without using the word “person”.
    Matthew 28:19
    2 Corinthians 13:14
    Matthew 3:13-17
    1 Peter 1:2
    Ephesians 1:3-14
    Ephesians 4:4-6
    1 Corinthians 12:4-6

    Sean Finnegan, the Unitarian, left out the main section of Tertullian’s understanding of the Trinity – Against Praxeaus, 2, which I gave you above, which shows (along with the others – Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origen, etc. ) – overall, they all held to a rudimentary form of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Divine Triad, the Trinitas Unitas (3 in 1), even though they don’t explicate every single nuance of the more developed words of “homo-ousias” and “eternal generation” of the Council of Nicea.

    You did not “catch me lying” at all – you still don’t know the definition of lying. And you don’t understand nuance and argumentation and opinion.

    You all (QB and Stewjo004 and Paul Williams) – in the way you argue in a brittle, wooden-istic fashion – your anachronistic demands upon the NT text and upon the early Christians, – demonstrates that Islam makes you too wooden and brittle in your thinking and argumentations.

    Like

    • Dummy, Justin Martyr would be labelled a “heretic” by all orthodox Christians. You’re a pathetic loser who simply cannot accept facts when they contradict your subjective, pathetic agenda.

      Liked by 1 person

      • actually Justin Martyr is considered a saint

        He is venerated as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church,[5] the Anglican Church,[6] the Eastern Orthodox Church,[7] and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

        He is highly respected by Protestants and Evangelicals and is an early church testimony to the understanding of the Deity of Christ in his explication of John 1:1-5; 14 in the logos theology. (Jesus is the Word God from all eternity past)

        Even Islam agrees with this, that Jesus Al Masih is the Word of God (Kalimat’Allah)
        عیسی المسیح کلمه الله

        So, who is the real “dummy” and “pathetic looser” (since your religion does not give you power to behave respectfully) but you!

        Like

      • Thanks for the Farsi Ken. Without it BT readers are always at a loss to understand what you write

        Liked by 2 people

      • “actually Justin Martyr is considered a saint ”

        Which just goes to show you stupid and hypocritical Christians are! This guy was talking about angels being made like God! How is he a “saint”?

        “So, who is the real “dummy” and “pathetic looser” (since your religion does not give you power to behave respectfully) but you!”

        LOL!! Why are you disobeying your mangod, loser? Why don’t you turn the other cheek? Bwhahaha, poor Kennywise can’t even follow his silly mangod like he claims!

        And by the way, idiot, it’s spelled “loser”, not “looser”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Justin Martyr proved he was a heretic right from the get-go. Here is what he wrote at the beginning of the First Apology:

        “To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.” (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html)

        “Sacred senate”? Wow! A group of pagan Roman senators is somehow “sacred”?

        Liked by 1 person

    • “The three persons of the Trinity are mentioned in many passages, without using the word “person”.
      Matthew 28:19
      2 Corinthians 13:14
      Matthew 3:13-17
      1 Peter 1:2
      Ephesians 1:3-14
      Ephesians 4:4-6
      1 Corinthians 12:4-6”

      LOL, yes, and your pathetic interpretation is what is called an “anachronism”. You are forcing a trinitarian interpretation when it is not called for. There is no evidence of a trinitarian mindset in the New Testament. Just because the 3 “persons” are mentioned in scattered passages, that does not prove a trinitarian mindset.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken ‘brittle’ and ‘wooden’ are opposites. Like your Trinitarianism, it is contradictory 🙄

      Liked by 1 person

      • how are they opposites?

        brittle and flexible are opposites

        wooden vs. soft / pliable, plastic, bendable are opposites,

        so I honestly don’t understand you

        Like

      • Dude wood is not brittle. Your tri-god theology is, however.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Three persons vs. One substance is not contradictory, as they are different categories in logic.

        1 and 3 apply to different categories, therefore there is no contradiction.

        Like

      • Yes there is. Each is fully God. Yet it is claimed there is only 1 God. This is very poor maths.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This is also the very nature of Islam and it’s injustice, harshness, violence, war-like attitudes of wanting to conquer the world, the Dar Al-Islam, Dar Al-Harb, etc. traditions, Sharia punishments, laws vs. apostasy and blasphemy and how many Muslims take the law into their own hands in many areas, etc. – harsh and ugly and more proof Islam is not true. (along with contradictions about Surah 4:157 and the deception of Allah in 3:54-55 and 61:14, and the contradiction with the followers of Jesus becoming manifest, obvious, clear, superior, uppermost, dominant.

        Like

      • Gosh Ken how you must LOATH the Jewish Bible!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Israel was never commanded to conquer the whole world, as Islam took Surah 9 as applicable beyond the Hijaz.

        Like

      • Surah 9 does not say that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes it does, (9:5 vs. pagans and 9:28-30 vs. the people of the book – “if you fear poverty, Allah is going to reward you (with war booty and Jiziye taxes) and the subsequent Caliphs and Caliphate dynasties took it all that way (along with Surah 8:39 and various Hadiths – “I have been commanded to fight the people until they either become Muslims or submit and pay the Jiziye”, etc. that way in Islamic history until they were stopped by defensive wars at various times of off and on intensity.

        Like

      • Anyone might think you were diverting from the fact that your Jesus order the killing of children and babies in 1 Samuel 15.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That was only for Theocratic Israel at the time of Samuel; as part of the “drive the Canaanites and Amorites, etc. out of the borders of the promised land. The kingdom of God was taken away from Israel. The sacrificial and civil laws of Israel were fulfilled in Christ. Hebrews 8:7-13

        7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

        “The days are coming, declares the Lord,
        when I will make a new covenant
        with the people of Israel
        and with the people of Judah.

        9 It will not be like the covenant
        I made with their ancestors
        when I took them by the hand
        to lead them out of Egypt,
        because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
        and I turned away from them,
        declares the Lord.
        10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
        after that time, declares the Lord.
        I will put my laws in their minds
        and write them on their hearts.
        I will be their God,
        and they will be my people.
        11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
        or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
        because they will all know me,
        from the least of them to the greatest.
        12 For I will forgive their wickedness
        and will remember their sins no more.”

        13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

        Like

      • I love the way you effortlessly justify the killing of children and babies. You are a sick man Ken – your religion has perverted your conscience.

        Liked by 2 people

      • If wood is thin, they it can be broken easier, like something that is brittle. So they are not complete opposites. They have nuanced similarities in describing the way you guys are arguing for Islam. (hard, rigid, if forced, breaks)

        Like

      • “This is also the very nature of Islam and it’s injustice, harshness, violence, war-like attitudes of wanting to conquer the world, the Dar Al-Islam, Dar Al-Harb, etc. traditions, Sharia punishments, laws vs. apostasy and blasphemy and how many Muslims take the law into their own hands in many areas, etc. – harsh and ugly and more proof Islam is not true. (along with contradictions about Surah 4:157 and the deception of Allah in 3:54-55 and 61:14, and the contradiction with the followers of Jesus becoming manifest, obvious, clear, superior, uppermost, dominant.”

        LOL, despite having been refuted on all these points, Kennywise the clown continues to repeat his moronic and subjective arguments.

        Now I know, you worship secularism Kennywise. You kiss secularism’s rear-end because you want to impress secularists. Of course, they don’t fall for such a pathetic ruse.

        And meanwhile, your pagan god commanded mass murder and genocide for hundreds of years. Go figure…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken to be consistent must condemn the Jewish Bible (‘Old Testament’) where his Jesus ordered the execution of apostates, and the killing children and babies in 1 Samuel 15. But he will try and justify all that – what a hypocrite 😅

        Liked by 2 people

      • And where will hypocrites like Kennywise go eventually? Down into the depths of hell. 🔥🔥🔥

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Israel was never commanded to conquer the whole world, as Islam took Surah 9 as applicable beyond the Hijaz.”

        Awww, how nice of Kennywise’s god. Just conquer the lands in Palestine and kill everyone, including babies. BUT, don’t go any further!

        Aww, such a nice god that Kennywise worships. 🥰

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ken is ok with Jesus killing babies in 1 Samuel 15. Perfectly normal.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oh yeah. I mean, what’s the big deal, right? All they did was stab infants in their little bodies and murdered their families as well. Another day, another massacre. Nothing to see here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Ken to be consistent must condemn the Jewish Bible (‘Old Testament’) where his Jesus ordered the execution of apostates, and the killing children and babies in 1 Samuel 15. But he will try and justify all that – what a hypocrite 😅”

        Prophecy fulfilled. Kennywise the clown thinks that since his god did not call for the conquering of the whole world, then killing babies was justified as long as it was within the Holy Land.

        Assuming this turd never comes to his senses before he leaves this world, I hope there is a nice, warm spot for him in hell.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “That was only for Theocratic Israel at the time of Samuel; as part of the “drive the Canaanites and Amorites, etc. out of the borders of the promised land. The kingdom of God was taken away from Israel. The sacrificial and civil laws of Israel were fulfilled in Christ. Hebrews 8:7-13”

        See guys? It’s all good. The mass murder, INFANTICIDE, and taking of sex slaves was only for “theocratic Israel”. I mean, what’s the big deal you guys? All that happened was thousands of people were slaughtered, including children and babies, and thousands of women taken as slaves. It’s all good! It was only for that time!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yep, and for trinitarians, it was Jesus who did all this!

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Paul

        Notice how Kennywise is going on an unrelated tangent about Surah 9 when were are discussing his religion’s foundational beliefs (i.e. his actual chance to preach to us his heretics claim of the gospel)

        PS

        In a rare defense of Ken’s arguments, wood can TECHNICALLY become brittle if burnt (like Trinitarians in Hell)

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken

      oh didn’t see this lovely number:

      “You all (QB and Stewjo004 and Paul Williams) – in the way you argue in a brittle, wooden-istic fashion – your anachronistic demands upon the NT text and upon the early Christians, – demonstrates that Islam makes you too wooden and brittle in your thinking and argumentations.”

      I’m sorry asking people to “list their sources” (especially in a time when everyone is lying) is such a hard demand for Christendom.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Except we are the ones who have true peace, because Al Masih satisfied God’s justice at the cross by being an eternal atonement, a propitiation (satisfaction of the wrath of God), a final effective, eternal sacrifice.

    Through faith in Christ as a person and all that He is and His atonement and resurrection, we have peace with God and no fear of hell.

    Romans 3:21-26

    21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

    Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

    Romans 5:1

    Jesus Al Masih spoke of this in His early life:

    “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.”
    John 14:27

    Like

    • Blah, blah, blah. It doesn’t matter what your stupid Bible says, dummy. There can be no peace in idolatry. Period. Satan has given you a false sense of security. On the Day of Judgment, you will see the fires of hell raging and will be consigned to them for eternity. This will be a just punishment for your idolatry and paganism.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The incarnation, Deity, eternal Sonship of Christ, atonement, and the Trinity are not pagan nor idolatry and not shirk; therefore, we are the ones who have peace with God.

        You do not have peace with God.

        You are still in your sins. You have no assurance of forgiveness or paradise.

        Insha’Allah – if God wills, is all you can say. No peace; no forgiveness.
        You gut the main spiritual truths than actually can bring you peace and forgiveness.

        Like

      • Worshiping a man is idolatry moron. Get over it. You are a pagan.

        Plus, your mangod was also sinful. So, it’s you who is still in your sins, you pathetic clown. 😂

        Also, as for the silly assurance nonsense, any idiot can give you a guarantee. But it means nothing. It’s like Chris Farley said. “If you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will.”

        So take your pagan “peace” and shove it up your rear-end and go straight to hell. You are sick man. You make excuses for your god’s barbarity and still have the audacity to pretend your god is “loving”. Your god was nothing more than a desert tyrant.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “The incarnation, Deity, eternal Sonship of Christ, atonement, and the Trinity are not pagan nor idolatry and not shirk; therefore, we are the ones who have peace with God.”

      You say this yet when i pressed you on the similarities between the Hindu godhead and the trinity you simply conceded that you didn’t know enough about hindu theology. (disclaimer: i’m not saying i’m an expert either)

      “You do not have peace with God.”

      How would you know Ken?

      “You are still in your sins. You have no assurance of forgiveness or paradise.”

      Muslims are assured paradise eventually if they remain muslim and do not commit shirk.

      ” Insha’Allah – if God wills, is all you can say. No peace; no forgiveness.
      You gut the main spiritual truths than actually can bring you peace and forgiveness.”

      I think we’ll have to agree to disagree with you ken.

      Also since you brought up the sacrificial atonement there’s something i’ve been wondering. How exactly does God sacrifice something of his?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oh snap! Here we go again! Kennywise is about to be tripped up by Vaqas yet again. Where’s my popcorn?!

        Liked by 3 people

      • Since the NT says the way to have peace with God is through the faith in Christ and His person and redemption in the atonement and resurrection, (I gave verses above), and that is revelation from the one true God, and 600 years earlier than Islam, and Islam’s message contradicts that message, then we know that you do not have objective peace with God.

        I agree that will have to agree to disagree.
        At least you are more proper and respectful debater than Faiz / QB – he has mental problems and spews hatred every chance he gets. They he does psychological projection of accusing of whining like a girl, which seems to be his mental problem.

        Islam does not give him power to do proper argumentation.

        Like

      • Hey whiny clown, the only one with mental problems is you, you sick monkey. Tell me. Who here has been making excuses for infanticide and mass murder? Hmm? Who here has been preaching manworship like a pagan? Mental problems? Yeah, that’s you. 😂

        Liked by 1 person

  11. QB / Faiz – you constantly prove that you are the one with mental problems and that your religion has no power over your sinful heart that is full of hatred and bitterness.

    Romans 3:9-20

    Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
    10 as it is written,

    “There is none righteous, not even one;
    11 There is none who understands,
    There is none who seeks for God;
    12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
    There is none who does good,
    There is not even one.”
    13 “Their throat is an open grave,
    With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
    “The poison of asps is under their lips”;
    14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;

    15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
    16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
    17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
    18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

    19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

    Romans 3:13-14 describes you:

    13 “Their throat is an open grave,
    With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
    “The poison of asps is under their lips”;
    14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;

    Like

    • Ken the Christian Bitch. Move over Sam…

      Liked by 1 person

      • When you cannot deal with arguing on principle, you also resort to name calling.

        All I did was quote the text of Romans 3:13-14, and emphasize it, to show that God’s word describes the nature of what unbelievers are in their hearts.

        “mouths full of cursing and bitterness”

        is the inherent nature of unbelieving humans – sinful at the core – selfish, arrogant, hateful, rebellious.

        It confirms Jesus’ words about the human heart:

        Mark 7:20-23
        20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
        21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
        22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
        23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

        Matthew 13:34
        “the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart”

        and these words of Jesus are confirmation of earlier revelation in the OT:

        Genesis 6:5
        Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

        Jeremiah 17:9
        “The heart is more deceitful than all else
        And is desperately sick;
        Who can understand it?

        It is the previous Scriptures (the OT and NT, the true Injeel) that properly evaluates the sinful nature of mankind, not Islam.

        Like

    • LOL, Kennywise the retarded clown…Again, you’re the one who is making excuses for child murder, you absolute joke of a human being! You belong in an asylum, because a normal person would not be so non-chalant about infanticide. Get over yourself, scumbag. Don’t worry. You will join the false apostle Paul in hell. That’s where idolaters go.

      Liked by 2 people

    • And again I ask, why are you disobeying your mangod Kennywise? He told you to turn the other cheek. So why are you throwing temper tantrums at me like a little girl?

      And yes, I am full of hate for false and evil doctrines, like your death cult which makes excuses for child murder and human sacrifice, as well as the lunatics (i.e., you) who follow these doctrines and make excuses for them. That’s a good thing. What do you guys call it? “Righteous anger”? LOL!!

      Of course, I also laugh at lunatics like you. You don’t deserve respect, only mockery. So stop whining.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Love you lots Ken 🌹 but i think you need to start thinking of the bad blood between you blokes…Faiz is normally very nice, empathetic, helpful and considerate, full of love unless someone do something to piss him off first

      Liked by 2 people

      • You don’t know Kennywise the clown. Otherwise, you wouldn’t give him a rose but a pie in the face. 🤣

        But thanks for the support.

        As for Kennywise, the guy’s an arrogant liar. Anyone who converses with him long enough would come to the realization that he is a scumbag and laugh at his face.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I guess you have not read much of our interactions here over the past couple of years. ( I don’t remember when Faiz started commenting here)

        Like

  12. Faiz / QB does not understand the proper definition of what lying / a liar is.

    Difference of opinion or difference of interpretation of texts is not lying.

    Sincerely defending Christianity and the Trinity and the text of the NT, which the Qur’an confirms unknowingly, is not lying.

    Understanding the Jihads of Islam in conquering the eastern Byzantine Empire, N. Africa, Spain, and Persia as unjust and evil is not lying – based on Surah 9:5 and 9:28-30 and how the subsequent Caliphs and Caliphate dynasties applied these verses and the whole of the Sunna and all of Surah 9 and 8:39, it seems clear that Islam conquered basically by the sword and force and Jiziye and Dhimmi principles.

    Islam, as shown by Abraham Geiger, basically took Judaism and Theocracy (as also demonstrated by Marc C. on the quotes about Geiger in other recent thread] to the next level outside of the promised land borders of Israel, and applied the Jihads / Qatal / Harb/ holy wars of Joshua to conquer the whole world, and apply the unique take of Muhammad’s Sharia (a development from legalistic and theocratic Torah) to enforce it upon the whole world.

    Like

  13. On the thread about the crucifixion and the Qur’an and discussion in Todd Lawson’s book:

    https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/03/15/the-crucifixion-and-the-quran-a-study-in-the-history-of-muslim-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-35204

    The above quotations about Abraham Geiger that Marc C. gave seem very true.

    “Through a rich and well documented comparative study of Talmud and Qur’ān, he [Abraham Geiger] sought to show that Islam is essentially derivative of Judaism; indeed, that it is a form of Judaism, truer to the spirit and law of Moses than was Christianity. Yet it was an inferior form of Judaism, as the Qur’ān imperfectly transmitted biblical teachings.”

    Like

    • @ Ken

      Except he didn’t and most of his views have already been refuted. Now, this is why everyone calls you a lowlife Temple. Do you see how this has nothing to do with the topic at hand but you are diverting to escape the topical of your nonsensical beliefs?

      Liked by 1 person

      • why resort to name-calling over difference of opinion about intellectual argument?
        “lowlife” – this, along with Paul Williams saying “Christian Bitch” ( LOL ) is another example of not being about to obey Surah 29:46 and not obeying Islamic Adab. ادب (manners, courtesy)

        Like

      • Ken acts like a bitch then gets sanctimonious when we point it out to him lol

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kennywise, why resort to whining like a little…oh what the hell, let’s use Paul’s wording…”bitch”, when you clearly are a lying scumbag? Also, Stew is right. You are a lowlife who tries to change topics and divert attention from the holes in your nonsensical beliefs. So why whine when all we are doing is telling the truth about you? Get over yourself, loser. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • The bloody truth: Ken’s Jesus is a baby killer. 1 Samual 15.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Ken acts like a bitch then gets sanctimonious when we point it out to him lol”

        He also loses his temper and responds with name calling as well, which makes him a disobedient Christian because he doesn’t turn the other cheek. Notice I have been asking him why he disobeys his mangod and he never answers. LOL!!

        Liked by 2 people

      • “The bloody truth: Ken’s Jesus is a baby killer. 1 Samual 15. ”

        It’s “Kennywise”, Paul. Get the name right.

        Since Kennywise’s Jesus is a baby killer. That makes Kennywise an apologist for baby killing. What a sick human (or a joke of a human) this little piece of excrement is.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Kennywise

        1. I’m not upset lol. I have intellectually slapped you around for years now and you have still to reply with a proper refutation to either my or QB’s articles. You just act like you didn’t hear it and still keep repeating the same crap.

        2. I never insulted you I am pointing out to you why you’re insulted so you can stop with the “whoa is me” victim card.

        3. I am calling out you diverting from the topic which many people would consider intellectually dishonest (i.e. a low life move)

        Liked by 2 people

Trackbacks

  1. Justin Martyr and the Trinity: Ken Temple (aka Kennywise the Clown) Caught Lying Again – The Quran and Bible Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: