Was Peter a Trinitarian? James White + Br Paul from Speakers Corner + Shabir Ally + MORE!



Categories: Bible, Christianity, God, History, Islam, Judaism, Missionaries, Speakers Corner

40 replies

  1. Thanks!

    The Trinitarian in the vid, James White, was threatening me in a rant on FB a while ago with “massive judgement” awaiting me (from God assume) because I listen to his podcast and still reject the Trinity idea. I think that’s what he was getting at.

    He cannot prove anybody, including Jesus, was a Trinitarian in the 1st century CE. Even secularists don’t think Jesus taught the Trinity idea or even the idea that he was divine (ref Prof. Bart Ehrman). I think Dr Mike Licona, will reject the Trinity idea soon as surely he will realise if he is going to claim to be conducting serious minded historical studies on the Gospels then he will have to reject the Trinity idea – how can he claim to be observing the style of critical history he claims to be doing if he does not at least acknowledge the Trinity was developed. Prof.William Lane Craig has pretty much come out and made some telling admissions about the Trinity idea and its development.

    I wonder if James will threaten them with “massive judgement”. And that’s not to even think about Peter – who clearly had no knowledge of a Trinity.No earthly idea what it was. None at all.

    But James’ threats of judgement, if consistent (and we know James sadly struggles with consistency) would also be directed at the majority of his fellow Christians (and possibly the majority in his church) as we saw on this very blog through the Dallas Theological Seminary’s survey, the vast majority of evangelicals believe Jesus was a creation of God (nevermind believing in the Trinity idea):

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/10/02/this-is-fantastic-news-for-us-more-christians-are-coming-closer-to-the-truth-than-ever-before-jesus-was-indeed-created/

    James really needs somebody just to sit down with him, get him a stiff Scottish drink so he can feel all Scottish and relaxed (Iron Bru!) and just talk to him without him going into testosterone debate and uber pride mode. So this has to be ALONE without some of the cheerleaders from the Reformed Pub egging him on – thus he won’t be trying to fit this Darth Vader of Trinitarian Christian apologetics role that the sycophants, cheerleaders and entertainment-seekers have type cast him as. He needs to put the pride aside and just listen, accept correction and try to be objective whilst taking in the information objectively. There’s just no way the Trinity idea can be argued for in a meaningful and convincing fashion (not to be confused with preaching to the already-convinced)

    He needs to have a private chat with someone either over the phone or in person. I don’t know who that person will be. It’s not me as he and I just don’t get on. For the James White fans who are wondering what’s that all about. Don’t ask, just read this breakdown of our interactions:

    http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/james-white-yahya-snow-is-infamous.html

    The Trinity belief is on the brink. Most of the apologists seem to have little passion in defending it or even will to defend it. Folk like James are dinosaurs in this regard. Many of the folks who he promotes don’t seem to be on the same page with his affinity toward traditions like inerrancy and Romans 9. When James is retired and sniping at people (more so) from his podcast he’s going to see a surge of Christian apologists who he has promoted going against the Church traditions that he has held firm to. When the younger ones such as Nick Peters, Nabeel Qureshi’s (he’s even gone on record saying it is idolatry if one makes the Bible the foundation of their faith), David “I don;t care about theology” Wood, Jay Smith’s disciples who all seem to have Romans 9 missing from their Bible, Jonathan”you can still be a Christian even if you think the Bible has errors in it” and all those youngsters influenced by WLC’s unwitting destruction of the Trinity doctrine take more of the reigns in his retirement I’m not going to feel sorry for James whilst he swipes at them from his basement doing the DL.

    He had his chance to make statements but he only ever did with Ergun Caner – and that seems as though it was more about pride and settling scores with Butch (think that’s Ergun’s nickname IIRC) and that wasn’t even about theology. Oh and he does give some pelters to WLC and Licona but again that’s because they aren’t his friends either.

    James is a fascinating character though – would love to see him just become a Muslim. He’s easily the most charismatic and colourful one out of all the Christian apologists (they are a pretty bland bunch TBH). Also to be honest, James does have a warmer side to him – I think all the years in full time apologetics have just kind of zapped a lot of the temperature out of him but he hasn’t completely lost that warm side. He could do with time off from online apologetics – it can affect people’s character adversely and it does it incrementally.

    And I kind of like him more after he just randomly in the middle of a rant said he would beat me in a cycle race – I’m in stitching just recalling it. He’s like an old drunk grandpa in a pub who has had one or two boxing classes back in the day and a few bevvies down him challenging all the young men to fights. An eccentric figure. But he’s the only Christian apologist who can pull off wearing an Irish rugby shirt. That was cool!

    Despite all that, he’s only Trinitarian apologist I would listen to regularly for an hour. I used to listen to his pod on my way to work but I felt his testosterone-fuelled rants and snide attacks on his opponents (although at first I was kind of fascinated by the numerous put downs he would have in his locker) was not quite right for the morning. You want something mellow so I opted for Dr Dale Tuggy. But still listen to bits of the DL – always on super fast speed though (James you need to get that tongue moving quicker on the DL and you really need to stop introducing the shows with stories about your cycling – nobody is interested apart from you) 🙂

    Anyways, James think about the content of the video and don’t allow pride to kick in and try to make a response – just think about it.

    And, don’t take everything in this comment to heart. It’s all love (oops I’m beginning to sound like Jay Smith and his disciples preaching a “false Gospel” all about love just to try and convert some emotionally crippled folk into believing somebody died for their sins – for all our sins (why do you always promote the non Calvinists?!)

    Wow, what a loong comment. I’m not even going to bother checking for typos.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I really don’t like James’ attitude. He has always been arrogant guy when he approachs muslims.
      Also, his Companionship with Sam & David should give us an impression of who James really is because those people are literally NOTHING regarding the meaningful engagement .

      The most thing I hate with that man is that he is full of pretending!
      I’m wondering when he can stop that or even if he can?!
      He presents himslf as an ” expert” in Islam while his immatureness is rather than clear in this field. He wrote a whole book about Quran while I doubt if he really knows any thing about it ( i.e. Has he read any commentator? Has he known any thing about what Quran is reagrding interpretation, Isnad, and the concept of revelation in Islam)? … Well I doubt that .
      He keeps saying that most muslims don’t have the level of understanding ( i.e. muslims are stupid) that Shabir and Ismail have, and he doubts if muslims can understand the core of debates with Shabir!
      I’m not exaggerating, and you may listen to him in his programm whenever he addresses muslims.
      However, the fact is that James the one who doesn’t have that level of understanding. You wanna a proof ? Just listen to his ” debates” before he started debating muslims. Those ” debates” were mere preaching and changing in the tone of his voice as any christian preacher in his church ( i.e. The holy spirit came upon me matter), but we know firmly that this type of engagement doesn’t work with muslims. The favor must be given back to Shabir, Bassam, and Ismail who elevated James form that swamp of engagement, yet he is still below their level by miles.

      Look to his lectures about Islam. One of them he talked about Shabir as a judge and with that attitude like…. ” .hmmm look to this guy who has no idea about Christianity ”
      In fact, this type of attitude is found also with Licona & WLC.
      WLC took his thesis from Islamic scholars who wrote about his arguments almost 1000 years ago, yet he still has this attitude somehow

      Just a note for James and some christians, the engagement in the field of comparative religions with very professional manner stated with Islamic scholars in a time christians cannot read their own bible without the permission of the church. Ibn Hazam, Al Ghazali, Ibn Tymmyiah, and Ibn Al Qyyem wrote books refuting christianis’ arguments before the country of James was discovered.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. 1. Peter already confessed Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Matthew 16:18
    The Son of God means Jesus has the same nature as God the Father.

    2. Nothing in Acts 2:22 ff which you read is contradictory to the doctrine of the Trinity, which agrees that Jesus is a man. It is amazing that you use this kind of argument, when the doctrine includes the 2 natures of Christ.

    3. Keep reading – Acts 2:33-36 shows Peter had an understanding of the three persons of the Trinity:

    33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

    34 For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:

    ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
    “Sit at My right hand,
    35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’

    36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ —this Jesus whom you crucified.”

    the quote from Psalm 110:1 also shows Peter understood that Christ is Yahweh by nature. And I already discussed that a lot here and refuted your arguments.

    To try and make a point about the word “made” – “made Him both Lord and Christ” as if He was not before, is misunderstanding the condescension of the incarnation and then the exaltation and gaining back the full authority that He already possessed from all eternity. (Philippians 2:5-8; Matthew 28:18; John 17:5)

    “made” here means “made known” or “demonstrated”.

    It means by the atonement and resurrection and ascension and session at the Father’s right hand, God demonstrated that Jesus is Lord and the Messiah.

    As someone else has written, it means God “provided supernatural vindication for Jesus claims
    by resurrecting him. [ and I would add, by the ascension and session] In other words, God supernaturally confirmed Jesus’ Messianic claims by raising him from the dead, and it is in this sense that Christ was “made” Lord.” (Sam Shamoun at one of his articles) He is right on this.

    4. I Peter 3:13-15

    “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” – the quotes from verse 14 from Isaiah 8:12-13 show that Peter was asserting that Christ is the Lord Yahweh.

    Like

    • Son of God’ does NOT mean having the same nature as God. Luke calls Adam “the Son of God” in his gospel. David is the son of God in the Psalms: this is ABC stuff Ken I shouldn’t need to school you – again!

      Like

    • Yes it does. “This is My beloved Son; listen to Him” – the Father says this a couple of times from heaven.

      Psalm 2 is prophesying about the future Messiah, who is also the Son of God by nature.

      “kiss and worship” / fall down and worship the Son – Psalm 2:11-12

      Luke 1:34-35 – “for this reason” the holy offspring will be called the Son of God. why? because His nature was same as Holy Spirit and He had no human father. the power of the Most High enabled the Son to become human.

      Like

  3. Also, the passage is full of statements that Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead. A Muslim cannot really use those passages without refuting his own religion and Qur’an, (Surah 4:157)!!

    Like

    • The Quran in no way contradicts the belief that Jesus died on the cross. It says it appeared to people that he was, and so history records it was so.

      Like

    • But Peter says that Jesus of Nazareth was killed on the cross – so the passage you use contradicts the Qur’an.

      Like

    • Paul, astute point about who the Qur’an does not contradict “history” because the Qur’an does not deny the perception of some that there was a crucifixion took place…a death took place.

      Ken,

      Paul contradicted a passage…Huh?

      Paul just said that the Qur’an does not contradiction of the historical perspective of a few, several, many (whatever the number of people who were viewing (unclear how close they could have been to see particular human features) the crucifixion of someone who those viewers (or at least, some of them presumably) assumed was Jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken but why is it even important to debate Crucifixion of Jesus when we know that Jesus didn’t put any salvation value on it and never asked to believe in it as means of salvation. You haven’t brought nay evidence to this end.

      Br Paul makes very important point. Quran leaves the possibility that some people thought he was crucified but in reality he was not.

      Like

    • Qur’an is wrong. Jesus was crucified and died and even Roman historians/ writers like Tacitus and Suetonius showed this and Jewish writer Josephus. Along with all the Gospels and the rest of the NT.

      But Acts 2:19-29, the very passage that Paul W. was using, says that Jesus was crucified, nailed, dead, buried, and rose from the dead.

      Jesus did teach that one must believe in His atonement and resurrection for salvation – which I showed you, in Luke 24:25-27
      “O slow of heart to believe . . .
      Believe !

      Was it not necessary . . . ? = believe in that – His suffering, death, and entering into His glory – including death, resurrection from the dead, ascension into heaven, and session at the Father’s right hand.

      and

      24:46-47
      the Messiah to suffer, and rise again from the dead. suffering included His death and it clearly says, “rise from the dead means He died.

      and that repentance for forgiveness of sins” = faith in the two things right before that; they go together.

      Like

  4. The Nicean Council and Creed in 325 AD and then Constantinople in 381 AD, which Shabir Ally mentions in the video, was about Jesus’ nature as God and also about Jesus as human.

    But these were results of 3 centuries of wrestling with all the texts and dealing with mis-understandings and heresies. These things did not just “pop up” and appear without any background from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century. Read the letters of Ignatius (107-110 AD) – clearly calls Jesus “God” 7 or 9 times; but also says he was a man and was truly crucified and truly raised from the dead. Justin Martyr ( 155 AD), Irenaeus ( 180-200) and Tertullian (190-220 AD) same thing. Cyprian (250), Origen (250 AD) same thing. They were all quoting from the NT and the OT and showing both the Deity of Christ and Humanity of Christ – both.

    The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, condemned Apollinarianism, which held that Jesus was not full human.
    The Council’s two major decisions was to confirm the humanity of Jesus and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

    So, for Peter to say “Jesus is a man” in Acts 2, is not contradictory to sound doctrine.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      If you do not believe Emperor Haile Selassie God Man, Hindus Sai Baba God Man and other God Men which are impossibility, we will not believe Jesus God Man as well so that there will be no God Mens because you do not know whether God at some point in time revealed himself as Hindu God, voodoo God, Sikh God etc.?

      Thanks.

      Liked by 2 people

    • you are so goofy, and not using your intellect, mr. “intellect”. It is amazing that you keep talking about Haile Selassie and Hindu gods, etc. as if that has any persuasive merit. You have said that so many times over and over and I just ignore you; because it is so goofy.

      Like

    • “A man” is a human person.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      October 9, 2016 • 9:11 pm

      you are so goofy, and not using your intellect, mr. “intellect”. It is amazing that you keep talking about Haile Selassie and Hindu gods, etc. as if that has any persuasive merit. You have said that so many times over and over and I just ignore you; because it is so goofy

      I say;
      You the Trinitarians are more goofy than anyone when you say God is man while the two are totally different and opposite. One knows everything the other does not know every thing and Jesus said he does not know the end day but ONLY the Father knows.

      The goffiest of goffiest is to claim Jesus knows the end day but Jesus does not know the end day to combine his human and God part when you wish and to separate them and say only the human part died. You cannot eat your cake and still have it. God does not die. The Bible never said the human part of God died but the God part cannot die. The Bible said GOD, GOD, GOD is immortal i.e. cannot die and so the whole God cannot die.

      The most goofy of goofy thing in all humanity is to claim God is man or God has become man like Jesus Christ, Emperor Haile Selaissie, Sai Baba and other God Men who like Jesus came down as a human to love humanity.

      Thanks.

      Like

  5. Yes, Jesus was a man; and He was and is also God.

    The Qur’an (4:157 – it was made to appear that Jesus was crucified and died) contradicts the passage that Paul Williams used in Acts 2:19-24, since it says that Jesus the man, the Nazarene was the one actually crucified, nailed to a cross, died, buried (verse 29), and rose from the dead.

    Like

    • Luke is writing late in the first century (according to most scholars) a generation after the life of Jesus. God – the author of the Holy Quran – has perfect knowledge of all events and corrects Luke’s narrative.

      Like

    • No; it is proven that Luke wrote his gospel around 60-61 AD and Acts a little afterward.(61-62 AD) Because of the way it ends; it could not have been written later. Impossible.

      Like

    • LOL you make me laugh Ken

      Liked by 1 person

    • mere assertion. God cannot be the author of the Qur’an because of all the historical mistakes, contradictions, and immoral things in it. (aggressive warfare – Surah 9, husbands can beat their wives – Surah 4:34; and Muhammad’s taking of Zayd’s wife Zaynab Bint Jahash (Surah 33) and the abolition of adoption.

      And Allah not knowing what the doctrine of the Trinity was, that was established centuries before the Qur’an, is proof God is not the author.

      Also, Surah 4:157 contradicts the verses you were using in Acts 2:19-29 – that shows Jesus was crucified and killed and really dead and really buried and really rose from the dead; not that it was made to appear like it.

      anyone can come along and easily say, “God made it look like that, but it really didn’t happen”, etc. – a really ridiculous argument.

      Like

    • Your Jesus is no human person.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      Yes, Jesus was a man; and He was and is also God.

      I say;
      It is an impossibility. Oil is not water they have different properties. God is not a man because God has attribute of uncreated but man is created so it is goofy to think one person of being can be 100% man and 100% God.

      Ken, I am using my intellect that is why I call myself intellect and God gave you intellect also and if you do not use it and remain in your illogical Trinitarian religion you have yourself to be blamed by your creator who is not a man. I hope you repent and become a Muslim. A Jew or a Unitarian Christian if you hate Islam. It is better for you. Do not say 3, desist, it is better for you.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      And Allah not knowing what the doctrine of the Trinity was, that was established centuries before the Qur’an, is proof God is not the author.

      I say;
      “that was established centuries before the Quran”-Trinity.

      Quran never defined Trinity that was established centuries before the Quran. Never. No definition of Trinity in the Quran.

      Trinity was not established in the Bible until centuries ago by some Gentiles and the Quran will not define something that is not in the Bible but established by men.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      mere assertion. God cannot be the author of the Qur’an because of all the historical mistakes, contradictions, and immoral things in it. (aggressive warfare – Surah 9, husbands can beat their wives – Surah 4:34; and Muhammad’s taking of Zayd’s wife Zaynab Bint Jahash (Surah 33) and the abolition of adoption.

      I say;
      When you are pushed in a tight corner that Trinitarianism is not from God because God cannot be man, you bring the above which has been refuted over and over.

      Jesus as your God authored or inspired rape, incest, child killing, adultery, Abraham sleeping with his slave and gave birth to illegitimate child which Jesus will not give the covenant because he considered that child illegitimate.

      Why allow your prophet to rape his slave girl and give birth to a child you will not give covenant because you consider him illegitimate?

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      Also, Surah 4:157 contradicts the verses you were using in Acts 2:19-29 – that shows Jesus was crucified and killed and really dead and really buried and really rose from the dead; not that it was made to appear like it.

      anyone can come along and easily say, “God made it look like that, but it really didn’t happen”, etc. – a really ridiculous argument.

      I say;
      anyone can come along and easily say, “ I HAVE A VISION OF JESUS-Paul of Tarsus”, etc. – a really ridiculous argument.

      Evangelical Christians will vote for married women genital grabber Trump-against their own Bible to ban all Muslims and follow their agenda than refuse him.

      The conservative and Evangelical Christians like Trump because he says what he means when it suits them but if the if the married women genital grabbing does not suit them, they will say Trump does not mean what he said.

      They like Trump because he meant what he says and he does not mean what he says at the same time.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • When you have no good argument; then you go to a dumb subject which has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

      You are goofy and A.D.H.D. (Attention Deficit Hyper-active Disorder) – and throw a bunch of other non-related subjects out in order to avoid answering the issues.

      Like

  6. I have never seen a good refutation of those issues (below). I have read them; they are weak.

    God cannot be the author of the Qur’an because of all the historical mistakes, contradictions, and immoral things in it. (aggressive warfare – Surah 9, husbands can beat their wives – Surah 4:34; and Muhammad’s taking of Zayd’s wife Zaynab Bint Jahash (Surah 33) and the abolition of adoption.

    God never approves of rape in the OT. Hagar was not raped; she was a concubine, according to custom of those days. But God did not approve of what they did. It was adultery; it happened, but God did not approve of it. They were impatient and had a temporary lapse in their faith.

    Even if you can prove that the Trinity doctrine was a man-made development (it is not; it is Biblical), but for th sake of argument with you; even if you don’t think it is Biblical, but that it slowly progressed from 100 AD to 325 to 381 AD; if God was inspiring Muhammad in 610 or 613-632 AD; God would accurately say what the doctrine is, since it was already known all over the Roman Empire from 325 to 600 AD – that is still a lot of time!

    Since the Qur’an does not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is, this proves the Qur’an is wrong and not from God.

    Like

    • your Jesus commanded the genocide of innocent women children and babies Ken. How can i worship your god?

      Like

    • The order for Joshua to drive out the Canaanite tribes from the land and kill those that remained in stubborn rebellion was a justice against their paganism at that time. Most fled and were driven out into other lands outside of Israel’s borders and there was no command to go after them.

      And it was temporary and Jesus took the kingdom away from Israel in Matthew 21:33-46.

      But Muhammad’s commands and actions show he and his Caliphs after him, for centuries, aggressively and unjustly attacked the Byzantine and Persian Empires and it was all unjust. (Surah 9, Hadith, Sira)

      Like

    • Jesus said

      “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

      1 Samuel 15

      “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”.

      Hebrews 13:8

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      I have never seen a good refutation of those issues (below). I have read them; they are weak.

      I say;
      Typical Donald Trump supporter. DJT grabs married women genitals and they has seen nothing wrong about that. These people will not see good refutations about what they claim.

      You said;
      God never approves of rape in the OT. Hagar was not raped; she was a concubine, according to custom of those days. But God did not approve of what they did. It was adultery; it happened, but God did not approve of it. They were impatient and had a temporary lapse in their faith.

      I say;
      Jesus never approved rape but approved adultery. Well adultery is a very big sin for Jesus to approve by his prophet Abraham and later got angry and refused the son a covenant and considers him illegitimate.

      You said;
      Hagar was not raped; she was a concubine, according to custom of those days.

      I say;
      But you blamed prophet Mohammed for marrying a young lady according to custom of those days. I have time for islamophobes like you.

      Thanks.

      Like

  7. I don’t use Aisha’s age as a problem.

    But taking Zayd’s wife, getting special revelation to do the evil deed; and then abolishing adoption; yes; that is a big problem.

    DJTrump is a scum-bag and I don’t support him. But you need to be accurate – he said he did those disgusting and immoral things and was bragging ( like a lot of men do in private with other men), but he has never been accused of “grabbing them by their …..” ( yet ) But, Bill Clinton actually has been accused (by more than 4 women) and did that kind of thing with several women – rape and assault and grabbing them, etc.

    Like

    • But you said Jesus died for Bill Clinton and DJT sins because they are Christians? Where is the Holy Spirit in them to prevent them from grabbing married women genitals and sleeping with women who were not their wives?

      Prophet Mohammed never abolished adoption. Prophet Mohammed persuaded Zayd to stay with his wife but Zaid refused. If Prof Mohammed is bad, he will go with nice younger women like Clinton and Donald Trump instead of widows with children who are not younger.

      Most people will not marry widows with children to take care of them and bring unity but the prophet did that.

      Jesus asked his prophets to commit incest, adultery, etc.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • No; they are not Christians. They give no evidence they are. Trump even admitted he has never asked for forgiveness for sin, so that by itself makes him by definition, NOT a Christian.

      Like

    • Pope Ken decides who is a Christian and who is not..

      Like

    • Paul W. – even you can agree that if someone does not understand the most basic thing of all – that they have to confess they are a sinner – as in the parable you like and use in Luke 18:9-14 – “O God have mercy on me, the sinner!” or “O God, be propitious toward me, the sinner!”

      even you are able to know that and know that a person who says they have never asked for forgiveness is NOT a Christian.

      I am sure you understood that principle in your “Christian” days, and you know this.

      Like

  8. correction
    ………….They have seen nothing wrong about that.

    Like

  9. Ken, you have not given any evidence for Peter being a Trinitarian. If you can’t prove it why not just admit it rather than making the unconvincing stretches you are making right now?

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: