This clip is quite entertaining. The full video can be found here
You’d think a Christian missionary who as been trying to convert Muslims to Trinitarian Christianity for 25 years would have had some inclination to debate the Trinity doctrine over the course of his career. In this missionary’s case that does not seem to be the case.
Does this signal a lack of confidence in the Trinity doctrine?
More on Jay Smith of Pfander Films
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
Or he realises the PW is just a troll?
LikeLike
Everybody who challenged him over the last 25 yrs is a troll?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol, this is coming from Mr. Troll himself, our good friend Cerberus, the dog of hell!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Everyone knows his MO. He reads the latest book from a liberal hermeneutic on a given topic. He then proceeds to use his latest “research” in his dawah propaganda, regardless of whether this newest argument contradicts his former positions and even his own faith.
He has done this over and over again for many years now. He’s a troll. Clearly, he had gone to SC prepped for a topic and then walked around trolling everyone for the deen. He has no interest in interaction or truthfulness.
LikeLike
Paulus, you seem to have some sort of beef with Paul Williams. Let it go.
LikeLike
Lol, okay Mr. Troll, whatever you say!
Only a troll would complain about the steady stream of Biblical scholarship as “liberal hermeneutics”. That’s what trolls do. They complain because they know their own conservative views cannot he defended.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you brother Yahya. It seems Cerberus has a grudge with brother Paul. It probably has something to do with the fact that he’s an ex-Christian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I remember rightly Williams refused to debate White or Shamoun on this topic, or any topic for that matter. He was running scared too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How can you debate with Williams when he has invalidated most of the texts that we believe in?
LikeLike
Lol
LikeLike
Once bitten, twice shy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why not simply live and let live (which applies to both sides of this debate)? Enough room on this earth for people to practice what they want, without interfering with other people’s lives…
LikeLike
But Jay Smith does not live and let live when he regularly attacks Islam and tries to convert Muslims to fundamentalist evangelicalism.
Paul has every right to respond and challenge his views
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hence my saying that it applies to all parties. I have enough of Paul’s Twitter feed to see he is quite prepared to offer unsolicited opinions on this subject.
LikeLike
Hmmm … what about survival of the fittest …
LikeLike
Your point?
LikeLike
Why don’t you live and let live when it comes to people debating about theology? Besides Twitter is an open forum where people can post whatever they like as long as it doesn’t break any rules. Last time I checked being critical of a post counts as part of that.
LikeLike
I am not aware of trying to censor comments here or elsewhere…
However, my point stands – this is a lot of arguing about what? Stuff that no one is likely to change their minds on anyway. That’s been firmly established. Nor am I saying people cannot reply to things on Twitter – but I am pointing out this is a two-way street – it’s not merely Christians poking at Islam or Muslims – the reverse happens too. What does it achieve? What is the endgame?
LikeLike
I’m not saying that you are censoring anyone.
How do you know whether or not anyone will change their minds on a particular subject? There are many videos and discussions I have seen and been a part of where people have changed their minds.
The point in this case is that Jay wants Muslims to convert however will not defend his views when confronted by one of the very people he seeks to convert. Don’t you find that odd?
The endgame is that people gain a good idea of what both sides of the argument are so interested folk can make up their minds on a particular subject. In short truth is the endgame 🤔
LikeLiked by 2 people
as long as there is no violence a vigorous debate is fine and is good for humanity.
LikeLike
No doubt Paul Wlliams’s is preceded by hoary fatuity of the argument(sic) that the singular cannot exist if comprised of more than one constituent of it so that a boy will have six parents and each of his parents three sons because they are all the three persons of the one family.
LikeLike
I can debate it with Williams, or anyone else, here, on the basis that the text of the KJV is allowed to stand and argue for itself. Otherwise, no go.
Any Muslim can start the ball rolling.
LikeLike
As Jay said, he has never debated the subject of the Trinity in 25 some years with Muslims. I don’t know why- but his focus is on other things.
but there are others who are (& probably willing) willing to debate Paul Williams on the Trinity:
James White
David Wood
Nabeel Qureshi (he debated Shabir Ally on the Trinity, but his battle with cancer right now would probably not alllow him to )
Sam Shamoun (although his sinful anger and meltdowns recently have greatly disqualified him)
Tony Costa
Anthony Rodgers
Samuel Green
etc.
So, just because Jay won’t debate the doctrine of the Trinity with PW does not mean much, since PW has actually turned down debates with offers from some of the others above.
LikeLike
I think Jay Smith knows that the Trinity is indefensible and he prefers not to get into any debate which will expose the fundamental illogical nature of core Christian belief.
And for the record – Nabeel Qureshi was Crushed by Shabir Ally.
And the others haven’t fared much better in debates against non-Christians.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually, I think Nabeel did very well against Shabir, especially his point about
“Bela Kaif” بلاکیف = “without knowing how”.
Dr. White and Wood won when they debated those subjects.
LikeLike
Smith, Qureshi, Wood – charlatans
LikeLike
Of course they will always win in your sight Mr Temple, wouldn’t they? Your biases afterall will hardly ever make you see the flaws on which they base their arguments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although I certainly do not wish to be harsh, my sub-conscious has forced me into confessing that I do not consider you an objective or impartial analyser of debates. My ears haven’t cease ringing the laughter I let out after reading your ‘thoughts’ on Zakir Hussain- James White debate.
LikeLike
What did you find that is problematic?
You have to be specific.
Dr. White proved Zakir Hossein wrong.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/debate-is-muhammad-prophesied-in-the-bible/
LikeLike
Paul Williams –
Your method is weird to go after Jay Smith, who has never done a debate on the Trinity and doesn’t not even want to; yet you are unwilling to debate others that do want to debate the subject.
Why don’t you debate James White on the Trinity?
He has proven that he has a good attitude towards Muslims as people and is sincere in his efforts to understand Islam and not be judgmental, angry, or hate-filled, as some others are.
His dialogue with Yasir Qadhi (and all his other debates also; and that those like Shabir Ally are willing to debate him) should have proved to you that he is fair.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
It is unfair. wicked, satanic for some Christians like Jay Smith and his disciples will refrain from debating on Trinity, Bible, Crusaders, Catholic killing everybody in Europe, Protestants killing everybody in the USA, John Calving killing Michael Sventus, Christians killing Muslims in Bosnia, ancient Spain, Palestine, evangelical Christians Zionist support for the extermination of Palestinian Christians, Muslims and Jews-yes Jews persecuting Jews because they are against Israel barbaric laws, etc. but the Jay disciples will always want to debate on Prophet Mohammed and Quran alone, as they demonstrated here
with lies.
To the Christians. Jesus was never a head of state and never ruled anyone and so to compare him and other prophets like Mohammed and Moses is disingenuous. Any head of state will execute law and some would inevitably result in death and that is law.
Bush killed, Obama killed, Clinton killed and Trump is killing people and they say is the security of USA. While blame Moses and Mohammed when they are also killing to protect their people? But the killings by Moses commanded by his God Jesus Christ is more gruesome than the others.
They say prophet Mohammed allow the killing of a woman who write poems. Today, if someone is caught writing poem in support of isis on the internet, Trump and the rest of the head of states will arrest him and prosecute him.
During prophet Mohammed’s time, poetry is like internet today. It is an effective tool to use to incite war and violence and so is punishable. In those times, on prison as the death penalty was recently abolishsed by some countries and states.
Some Christians will not reason but to support anything wicked against anyone who does not believe “Jesus died for his sins” like how they did in Europe and the US before being beaten severely by the liberals and athiests to force them to stop it in their state laws. Now they vote for any one like Trump who said he sleeps with married women to carry their dirty job for them. Pathetic.
Well Paul Williams knows his stuff and he is a blessing to Islam and Muslims because he obviously reduces the lies of Christian missionaries. He is not afraid to debate anyone. He debated the archbishop of Canterbury and so he is qualified to debate any Christian.
Probably he(Paul Williams) would not want to cause some missionaries to cry when they are defeated like this one.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Well Paul Williams knows his stuff and he is a blessing to Islam and Muslims
ok . . .
because he obviously reduces the lies of Christian missionaries.
He has made no impact on good missionaries. A bad missionary, Sam Shamoun has disqualified himself by his sinful anger and slander, and bad methods; but Paul W. has made no real impact against good believing scholarship and true Christianity. He just uses liberals to attack and then is unwilling to debate those like Dr. White who can stand up to his attacks on the NT and the Jesus of the NT.
He is not afraid to debate anyone.
Yes he is; he is afraid to debate Dr. White.
He debated the archbishop of Canterbury and so he is qualified to debate any Christian.
The Archbishop of Canterbury sounded refuted Paul Williams’ claims. It was fun to watch.
You sound the guy who went by “Intellect” – the other stuff is just a bad method of “throwing everything out there but the kitchen sink and hope it will confuse people and not focus on one thing at a time”.
LikeLike
Ken, no one takes your reviews of these debates seriously. You have shown yourself to be an extremely biased individual time and again. Your method is to make a claim, tell anyone who disagrees “you are wrong” and then repeat the same nonsense again. Not very impressive…
LikeLike
You are biased towards Islam also. You have not pointed out anything specific that is problematic. You repeat your same old nonsense also from your biased perspective.
LikeLike
Lol, so your response is “yeah, I’m biased but so are you”? Typical Ken.
In my discussions with you, I give evidence for my views. You, on the other hand, seem to consider your opinions as facts. It’s no wonder that you get embarrassed by pretty much everyone on this blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We both have our own biases; everyone does; the issue is which one can argue intellectually for the truth of their position by argumentation, context, background, grammar, text issues.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree and that’s why I say that you base your arguments on your personal opinions, not facts. You do a horrible job of rebutting views contrary to your own.
LikeLike
An objective and consistent mind will find everything wrong with your approach sir. Apart from failing to address several challenges (such as the difficulty involved in reconciling the divine attributes of the holy spirit with the evident human characteristics of Paracletos, the ‘striking’ Jewish differentiation of the Messiah and ‘that prophet’ in the gospels etc), James White failed to live up to the Prophecy standard set by the gospel writers. Accepting Hosea 11v1 as a prophecy of Jesus while rejecting Song of Solomon 5 as a prophecy of Muhammad because it supposedly talks about Solomon is quite funny and stupid. Yet Mr Hussain clearly stated at the beginning ‘Apply consistent standards sir’. Wish…
Of course not less stupid is his mockery of Hussain’s appeal to Deuteronomy 18v15-18 as a ‘Muhammadan’ prophecy. Unsurprisingly, rather than refute it, he played around with the word ‘brothers’ and proceeded to prove that Jesus fulfilled and even attributed them to himself. Quite an unfortunate attempt it was, for Zakir pre-empted it and had explained earlier that Muhammad still fits in given the wonderful ‘double fulfillment’ Christians invented to explain Matthew’s linking of Isaiah 7v14 and Jesus.
There are quite ‘hundreds’ more of such I could point out in the debate sir. For reasons best left unexplained however, I’ll allow my Ink a few hours rest. Perhaps it is about time you learn to watch and analyse debates beyond a certain speaker’s eloquence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He, the Holy Spirit will be in the disciples; in believers. (John 14:17) This verse alone defeats the Muslim’s arguments for the John 14 and 16 and Ahmad argument, because Muhammad cannot be “in” the disciples nor any Christian in the future. The John 14 and 16 passages are talking about a Spirit, not a human. This fact alone demolishes any Islamic argument.
LikeLike
*My comments were intended as a response to Ken Temple.
LikeLike
Quite a predictable reply Temple. Would have been surprised if you had used a new line of defence.
I can’t fathom how you missed out on Zakir Hussain’s refutation of a similar answer by White. Perhaps you do need to watch the debate again.
‘On that day, you will know that I am in the father…… I in you and you in me’
Have you ever heard of a figurative ‘in’. Read the verse above.
LikeLiked by 1 person
except the context is the 11 disciples of Jesus (so Muhammad, who came 600 years later, cannot be the paraklete); and the rest of John (and earlier in John 7:37-39) and Acts shows us that it was meant to be talking about the Holy Spirit – read Acts 2 – it is very clear it talking about a Spirit soon to come upon them, (in about 50 days – “Pentecost” = “50 days after Passover” – The Holy Spirit – the rest of NT testifies of this. So it is you who mistakenly take something that is obvious and turn it upside down and claim a “figurative use of “in”, in order to manipulate the text to try and be about Muhammad.
John 7:37-39
37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Acts 1:4-8
4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for [e]what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (so cannot be about Muhammad who comes 600 years later)
6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
Acts 2:1-4
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Acts 2:33-36
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.”
LikeLike
Quite a predictable reply Temple. Would have been surprised if you had used a new line of defence.
I can’t fathom how you missed out on Zakir Hussain’s refutation of a similar answer by White. Perhaps you do need to watch the debate again.
‘On that day, you will know that I am in the father…… I in you and you in me’
Have you ever heard of a figurative ‘in’ sir? Why not read the verse above then? Any half idiot could easily glean that Jesus never meant he was literally in the father and the disciples. Why should a different standard be demanded of Muhammad?
LikeLike
Since Israel and the coming Messiah are both “Son”; the Messiah being one individual out of the nation of Israel, it is not a strange interpretation. (Hosea 11:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15) It is typology.
Whereas thinking that Muhammad is spoken about in Song of Solomon 5:16 is truly ridiculous: since the context there is about a man and woman’s passionate sexual physical love for one another; so it cannot be about Muhammad.
Song of Solomon 5:16
“His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is wholly desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” This is the weakest of all the Muslims attempts to find Muhammad in the Bible. Even weaker than John 14 and 16 and Deuteronomy 18:15-18. Muslims are trying to claim that this is about Muhammad, because of the similar sound of the Arabic word for Muhammad and the Hebrew word “pleasant, desirable” (מחמדים – Makhmadim). But the context is two lovers and the whole Song of Solomon is about romantic love and feelings for one another before they get married, and then their sexual love within marriage. It is a celebration of romantic love, communication with each other, husband and wife and speaking to each other describing each other, and holy sex within marriage. Sex was God’s idea and is pure within marriage. (Genesis chapters 1-2; Proverbs 5:15-19; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians chapter 7) It is the bride’s description of her soon to be husband. So there is nothing about Muhammad here. Makhmadim – “desirable” מחמדים Mamtaqim – “sweetness” ממתקים – sweetness This is poetry; similar sounding ending to the other word (” . . .im” or “eem” – ים – ממתקים ) , in the Hebrew parallelism for “sweetness”. “Sweetness” and “desirable” are in what is known as Hebrew parallelism in poetry. Balsam wood/trees -Song of Solomon 5:13 and 6:2. Balsam wood is also from Arabia and Mecca. Genesis 37:25 mentions the Ishmaelites bringing “aromatic gum, balm, and myrrh” to Egypt. Ok, but Dr. White points out that Solomon brought a lot of things from a lot of different countries. He was rich and powerful. He had cedar trees from Lebanon (Song 5:15) and lilies (5:13; 6:2) there also, as described in the Song of Solomon. Song of Solomon 6:2 shows it was his garden in Jerusalem, nothing about Muhammad in Arabia. Dr. White – Surah 7:157 – “whom they find in the Gospel and the Torah” No Christian at the time of Jesus, nor the apostles, nor any early church father ever wrote or said they expected a prophet from Arabia.
back to Song of Solomon 5:16 – This is poetry; the bride speaking to bridegroom. The 2 words, ending with “eem”, rhymes with “sweetness” and “pleasant”. Balsam was in his garden in Jerusalem, so were cedars of Lebanon Solomon, and lilies and other things that Solomon brought from all over the world.
Lillies – Song of Solomon 6:2 – are lilies in Mecca? no.
Makhmad – to try and say this is Muhammad just because of the similar sound is not a good intellectual argument. The root word is in other verses – 1 Kings 20:6 – same root word, makhmad / מחמד – “desirable” – “whatever is desirable in your eyes, they will take in their hand and carry away.” Was Muhammad carried in their hands and taken away? מחמד same word used in these two passages also: 2 Chronicles 36:19 – was Muhammad destroyed by fire ? Isaiah 64:10 – did Muhammad become a ruin?
LikeLike
Quite a ludicrous as well as ridiculous attempt at damage control Mr Temple. You sure did not think it through, did you?
If Hosea 11 could be Justifiably applied on Jesus because he and Israel were ‘Son’, why couldn’t Song of Solomon be applied on Muhammad since both he and Solomon were ‘sweet’ and ‘desirable’?
I really do not care much for and about Balsam wood. It does seem however that (just like White), you have spinned and misconstrued his argument. Zakir Hussain’s attempt at linking Balsam to Makkah included Psalm 84 as well as Song of Solomon 5. He continually asked hence during the debate “Which place is a valley, located in the North, known for Balsam and assembles thousands of pilgrims”?
Watch the debate again sir. I can hardly believe you wrote a review on it.
LikeLike
Some bible dictionaries for study which written by christian scholars in Arabic mention Mecca by name as a place where that kind of tree is growing. One of them is (دائرة المعارف الكتابية) Vol2. pp189!
Scientifically, it’s named by that place as (Balsamea meccanensis) .
LikeLike
“The John 14 and 16 passages are talking about a
Spirit, not a human”
Sure enough they are talking about a Spirit! As Zakir explained however, humans are also referred to as spirits in 1john!
Although your attempt at circumventing the problems of associating the Paraclete with the divine holy spirit is not particularly brilliant, my sub-conscious seems to agree that it does deserve a reply. Below hence I reproduce Zakir Hussain’s words:
“If the Paraclete is the holy spirit and the holy spirit is itself God…. Tell me what kind of God does not speak on his own authority and must be told what to say”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is showing there is only One God and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are unified. it is showing that the Holy Spirit is not an independent ‘second’ or “third” god; but in unity with the Father as one God.
Allah Wahed. الله واحد
LikeLike
But the persons are different persons. If 3 persons are one God each, then any kindergarten kid will count 3 Gods.
Thanks.
LikeLike
See Ken? We just saw yet another embarrassing performance from you! You have failed to answer any of Chocoboy’s arguments. All you can do is harp about your personal opinions.
LikeLiked by 1 person