Thank you both for y'all's explanation of the Trinity.. i just don't understand why the Trinity is so hard to see. I believe in my personal opinion that they can see the Trinity but just deny God because they can't make sense of it... Jesus is God
Appreciate the show brothers Regardless of WLC’s position - he dominated this debate The Muslim was just outclassed - wasn’t even close really I disagree with WLC in these areas but do appreciate his heart to be as biblical as possible Keep up the good work brother
Great stuff? You've got to be kidding me. There is no such thing as trinity in Scripture *at all.* It is a philosophical concept (not a teaching) pushed on the Scriptures by mainly *abusing* the Gospel of John. The Israelites were no trinitarians and neither were Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They worshipped one God >>> The Father! Can you prove me wrong?
A little late, but I don't think Craig's view is different from the historical view, so much as it was a development of it. A high-res photograph of something might look different from a low-res photo of the same object, but there's a sense in which it's a picture of the same thing.
My hearing of Dr Craig was that he chose to defend a bare-bones description of the Trinity. He omitted details that were not relevant to its coherence when compared to Islamic beliefs. What did I miss? How did his definition conflict with the current doctrine of the Trinity?
Good writing from orthodox theologians can be part of a good argument against WLC. So bringing up the church fathers was not a red herring. He just did not use them wisely and did not use their writings in conjunction with well thought out arguments against certain points of WLC's theology. Good theology and interpretation of the Bible makes good use of tradition or historical interpretation of the Bible by the church. Even protestants use arguments from history from good theologians interpreting scripture wisely. If you have a novel view of the Bible then you are most likely a heretic.
Christians need to stop using the term "members" when discussing the Persons of the Trinity. Members implies parts, yet our God is one being, the Three Persons being of that same substances.
There was a major mistake having WLC be the Christian side of this debate. He does not hold to the classical orthodox view of the Trinity. Hijab performed horribly but he had a tough job. He cannot really go after the orthodox view and state that is incoherent because Craig does not hold to it. So he has to go after WLC's view. I think it is a good point for Hijab to show that WLC's view are not even believed by many Christian nor are they the historical view of the trinity. That is one point that is good. But he needed to spend time showing how WLC's view are incoherent. Maybe go through each of the views showing the incoherence and then mention Christians who also oppose him and how his view does not agree with the historic view of the Trinity. I think Hijab could have then won the debate. I am a Christian and believe in the Trinity but not WLC's version. I think his version is incoherent.
As I understood Craig, he presented an older, orthodox, simplified, LCD (least common denominator) statement of the doctrine. He withheld details that Hijab used to complicate the debate. How does Craig’s detailed view, which you must have found in another source, differ from the orthodox definition? What am I missing?
@@ricksonora6656 He first gives an almost bare minimum definition. But in the debate when challenged by Hijab he fleshes out his own view more. He says he i a social trinitarian for instance. That alone shows that he is not defending a classical orthodox definition of the Trinity. WLC does not deny this. He thinks the classical definition is wrong. He says it in the debate. He calls it the Latin view though. It is not really Latin because the east also argued for it and the doctrine of the Trinity was largely formed in the East and by eastern church fathers (Athanasius, Cappadocians, etc) He also denies that the son is eternally begotten by the father.
Is it logically coherent that an “omniscient”, “omnipotent”, “omnipresent”, GOD the Father, needs, and or would be, wholly and necessarily dependent upon, two additional third party God persons, to perform, that is carry out, HIS desires, will, plans, duties, obligations and tasks, when HE, GOD the Father, is already perfectly capable of, and in full control of, those responsibilities, by virtue of HIS power and authority, and perfectly capable of carrying them out all by HIS itty-bitty self?
In the context of the debate, your question implies that if God is able to do something Himself and in a particular way, then it is incoherent for Him to delegate it or do it in any different way. That is a non sequitur.
@@ricksonora6656 --- [1] According to Trinitarian doctrine, there is no such thing as the Trinitarian God being a “Himself”. [2] You, like every Trinitarian, [a] do not understand Trinitarian doctrine, and [b] you *falsify your own beliefs* by repeatedly calling the “They”/”Them”/”We”/”Our” “Being” thingamajiggy Trinitarian God composed as a consequence of the amalgamation of three God persons” ----- > “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My”; when it is 100% impossible for an “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My” single Person to be a Trinitarian “They”/”Them”/”We”/“Our” multiple persons. [3] Creator GOD YHVH identifies HIMSELF over 32,000 times with first person singular pronouns, i.e. “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My”; it is 100% impossible for a “He, Him, I, Me, My” single Person to be “They”/”Them”/”We”/“Our” thingamajiggy “Being” composed of multiple persons. [4] Creator GOD YHVH never once calls HIMSELF a thingamajiggy Being. [5] Trinitarianism itself is the thing that is a non sequitur.
@@JohnQPublic11 Rather than acknowledge that your argument was incoherent, or at least defending your bad logic, you have changed the subject with an incoherent attack, loaded with unsupported claims and non sequiturs, on what you assume I believe. I am disappointed in you.
@@ricksonora6656 --- Calling what any properly educated objective reasonable person would consider my perfectly valid, logically coherent, non-contradictory, reasonable, questions, criticisms and explanations ----- > incoherent, or bad logic, or loaded with unsupported claims and non sequiturs, is just a typical intellectually dishonest mindless gibberish failed attempt to dodge, duck and weave, your way out of serious discussion.
Was looking for some honest intellectual analysis and decided to look past the fact that this is clearly an apologetics page. Barely a minute in and we're already in for misrepresentation galore. The literary gymnastics being performed here to suggest that the Quran gets the trinity wrong is hilarious. It's funny when Christians do this because if you took this uncharitable (if not outright misrepresentative) interpretative methodology, your religion, theology, and scripture fail the test. Since when is Sirah literature authoritative for Muslims? The hadeeth and Quran are the only material you can use to challenge our creed/theology; Ibn Ishaq (and the later recension by Ibn Hisham) is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an authoritative work. Even if we were to grant the Najran delegation narrative, it is abundantly clear, as you recounted yourself, that the revelation came unto the prophet as he was responding to people who actually took Mary and Jesus to be gods alongside God. The verses therefore got nothing wrong?? References to the trinity or God being the third of three IS NOT mentioned in the same passages where the condemnation of Jesus-Mary worship is made. Nicene trinitarianism was ubiquitous at this point, and the prophet himself regularly visited the Roman and Aksumite trinitarian domains. To claim that someone who, by your accounts plagiarized and embellished countless stories from the bible and apocrypha, does not know what the ABCs of Christianity were, is whack and disingenuous. This predation on uninformed Muslims and impressionable Christians is pathetic and is the reason Christianity is quickly losing footing in the world. Christianity falls apart through honest investigation while Islam does not. Hence the need to resort to fabrications, misrepresentations and lies... God has truly hardened your hearts.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Great episode
I recommend my debate review too for a philosophical analysis
Thank you both for y'all's explanation of the Trinity.. i just don't understand why the Trinity is so hard to see. I believe in my personal opinion that they can see the Trinity but just deny God because they can't make sense of it... Jesus is God
Appreciate the show brothers
Regardless of WLC’s position - he dominated this debate
The Muslim was just outclassed - wasn’t even close really
I disagree with WLC in these areas but do appreciate his heart to be as biblical as possible
Keep up the good work brother
Great stuff brothers, thank you, praise Christ!
Great stuff? You've got to be kidding me. There is no such thing as trinity in Scripture *at all.* It is a philosophical concept (not a teaching) pushed on the Scriptures by mainly *abusing* the Gospel of John. The Israelites were no trinitarians and neither were Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They worshipped one God >>> The Father!
Can you prove me wrong?
A little late, but I don't think Craig's view is different from the historical view, so much as it was a development of it. A high-res photograph of something might look different from a low-res photo of the same object, but there's a sense in which it's a picture of the same thing.
My hearing of Dr Craig was that he chose to defend a bare-bones description of the Trinity. He omitted details that were not relevant to its coherence when compared to Islamic beliefs.
What did I miss? How did his definition conflict with the current doctrine of the Trinity?
Can they offer the criteria to distinguish "X is logically coherent" and "Y is not logically coherent"?
Anthony was just getting started
He is cooking up some chicken
Your internet lagged, should check it brother
Good writing from orthodox theologians can be part of a good argument against WLC. So bringing up the church fathers was not a red herring. He just did not use them wisely and did not use their writings in conjunction with well thought out arguments against certain points of WLC's theology. Good theology and interpretation of the Bible makes good use of tradition or historical interpretation of the Bible by the church. Even protestants use arguments from history from good theologians interpreting scripture wisely. If you have a novel view of the Bible then you are most likely a heretic.
Christians need to stop using the term "members" when discussing the Persons of the Trinity. Members implies parts, yet our God is one being, the Three Persons being of that same substances.
Southern Evangelical Seminary
There was a major mistake having WLC be the Christian side of this debate. He does not hold to the classical orthodox view of the Trinity. Hijab performed horribly but he had a tough job. He cannot really go after the orthodox view and state that is incoherent because Craig does not hold to it. So he has to go after WLC's view. I think it is a good point for Hijab to show that WLC's view are not even believed by many Christian nor are they the historical view of the trinity. That is one point that is good. But he needed to spend time showing how WLC's view are incoherent. Maybe go through each of the views showing the incoherence and then mention Christians who also oppose him and how his view does not agree with the historic view of the Trinity. I think Hijab could have then won the debate. I am a Christian and believe in the Trinity but not WLC's version. I think his version is incoherent.
As I understood Craig, he presented an older, orthodox, simplified, LCD (least common denominator) statement of the doctrine. He withheld details that Hijab used to complicate the debate.
How does Craig’s detailed view, which you must have found in another source, differ from the orthodox definition? What am I missing?
@@ricksonora6656 He first gives an almost bare minimum definition. But in the debate when challenged by Hijab he fleshes out his own view more. He says he i a social trinitarian for instance. That alone shows that he is not defending a classical orthodox definition of the Trinity. WLC does not deny this. He thinks the classical definition is wrong. He says it in the debate. He calls it the Latin view though. It is not really Latin because the east also argued for it and the doctrine of the Trinity was largely formed in the East and by eastern church fathers (Athanasius, Cappadocians, etc) He also denies that the son is eternally begotten by the father.
@@carlpeterson8182 Thank you. Looks like I have some new homework to do.
Is it logically coherent that an “omniscient”, “omnipotent”, “omnipresent”, GOD the Father, needs, and or would be, wholly and necessarily dependent upon, two additional third party God persons, to perform, that is carry out, HIS desires, will, plans, duties, obligations and tasks, when HE, GOD the Father, is already perfectly capable of, and in full control of, those responsibilities, by virtue of HIS power and authority, and perfectly capable of carrying them out all by HIS itty-bitty self?
In the context of the debate, your question implies that if God is able to do something Himself and in a particular way, then it is incoherent for Him to delegate it or do it in any different way. That is a non sequitur.
@@ricksonora6656 --- [1] According to Trinitarian doctrine, there is no such thing as the Trinitarian God being a “Himself”. [2] You, like every Trinitarian, [a] do not understand Trinitarian doctrine, and [b] you *falsify your own beliefs* by repeatedly calling the “They”/”Them”/”We”/”Our” “Being” thingamajiggy Trinitarian God composed as a consequence of the amalgamation of three God persons” ----- > “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My”; when it is 100% impossible for an “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My” single Person to be a Trinitarian “They”/”Them”/”We”/“Our” multiple persons. [3] Creator GOD YHVH identifies HIMSELF over 32,000 times with first person singular pronouns, i.e. “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My”; it is 100% impossible for a “He, Him, I, Me, My” single Person to be “They”/”Them”/”We”/“Our” thingamajiggy “Being” composed of multiple persons. [4] Creator GOD YHVH never once calls HIMSELF a thingamajiggy Being. [5] Trinitarianism itself is the thing that is a non sequitur.
@@JohnQPublic11 Rather than acknowledge that your argument was incoherent, or at least defending your bad logic, you have changed the subject with an incoherent attack, loaded with unsupported claims and non sequiturs, on what you assume I believe. I am disappointed in you.
@@ricksonora6656 --- Calling what any properly educated objective reasonable person would consider my perfectly valid, logically coherent, non-contradictory, reasonable, questions, criticisms and explanations ----- > incoherent, or bad logic, or loaded with unsupported claims and non sequiturs, is just a typical intellectually dishonest mindless gibberish failed attempt to dodge, duck and weave, your way out of serious discussion.
@@JohnQPublic11 You can claim anything, invert any fact. And do.
Was looking for some honest intellectual analysis and decided to look past the fact that this is clearly an apologetics page. Barely a minute in and we're already in for misrepresentation galore. The literary gymnastics being performed here to suggest that the Quran gets the trinity wrong is hilarious. It's funny when Christians do this because if you took this uncharitable (if not outright misrepresentative) interpretative methodology, your religion, theology, and scripture fail the test.
Since when is Sirah literature authoritative for Muslims? The hadeeth and Quran are the only material you can use to challenge our creed/theology; Ibn Ishaq (and the later recension by Ibn Hisham) is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an authoritative work.
Even if we were to grant the Najran delegation narrative, it is abundantly clear, as you recounted yourself, that the revelation came unto the prophet as he was responding to people who actually took Mary and Jesus to be gods alongside God. The verses therefore got nothing wrong??
References to the trinity or God being the third of three IS NOT mentioned in the same passages where the condemnation of Jesus-Mary worship is made. Nicene trinitarianism was ubiquitous at this point, and the prophet himself regularly visited the Roman and Aksumite trinitarian domains. To claim that someone who, by your accounts plagiarized and embellished countless stories from the bible and apocrypha, does not know what the ABCs of Christianity were, is whack and disingenuous.
This predation on uninformed Muslims and impressionable Christians is pathetic and is the reason Christianity is quickly losing footing in the world. Christianity falls apart through honest investigation while Islam does not. Hence the need to resort to fabrications, misrepresentations and lies... God has truly hardened your hearts.
and challenging the use of the majestic We in a pathetic attempt to allude to the idea that the Quran was actually trinitarian? Really?
Is the Qur'an created or uncreated?
@@HumanAction1 Uncreated. Let's see your attempt at boxing me in lol.
@@jado2kis the Qur'an allah?
@@HumanAction1 The speech of Allah. Can you just lay out your argument in one go? Please