Trinity vs. Tawheed: James White & Jake Brancatella

Debate Format and Opening Statements

Greetings and welcome to our debate today Trinity vs. Tauheed. I'm James White. I'm joined by a break break break Jankatella. There you go. We're starting off real. Well, Jake Brancatella from New Jersey is joining us today.

He's been on the program once before. You can find his materials on YouTube under the Muslim metaphysician. And I was just telling him I think he's very brave to continue to wear that particular hat. Because That that gives you an entire Spectrum of people who will dislike you for all sorts of wrong reasons and right reasons, I suppose.

But he is joining us today here in in the studio. And so let me very briefly let everybody know how this is going to go so we can jump right into it. We have about an hour and 40 minutes plus five minutes or so for this opening.

I would assume just to get things going so about an hour and 45 minutes is what we're looking at today. We're gonna have 15 minute opening statements. You need to understand that may sound like a long time to you.

But if you've ever done a debate when it's your 15 minutes It goes by very very quickly when it's the other guy's 15 minutes. It seems like forever 10 minute rebuttals followed by 5 minute rebuttals and Then we'll have 10 minutes of cross-examination each person.

Having 10 minutes to ask questions of the others that's a total of 20 minutes obviously in cross-examination and then 10 minute closing statements for one hour and 40 minutes grand total the topic is Trinity versus Tauheed.

We just were discussing the order in which we would go in a lot of situations there is especially with a topic like this where there is not a Single side being presented there is a flipping of the coin.

But since we are physically separated by I don't know 2 ,000 some-odd miles or so. I just simply said Jake you want to go first or second and Jake has chosen To take the opening for himself. So we'll just continue that order.

Through the course of the debate Jake will go first and I will go Second Jake. Did you want to say anything before we get rolling?

No, other than I did have a PowerPoint, but unfortunately, I can't share my screen to show it.

So, but that's fine. Other than that. Well, you can share it. We just can't see your face while you're doing it.

Yeah, you won't be able to see me. You won't be to see me. So I think it's better to see my nice hat that you already mentioned in my face.

Well, if you if you say that's better than your PowerPoint, I'm just gonna let that stand. Point. All right, okay, so with that I'm sure that Jake has a Timer himself that he probably has we are we are self-moderating today.

I think this is possible to do. I'm certain there are some people that I would engage in debates with that. I could not possibly Trust that that would be something we could do but I think Jake and I can pull this off.

I'm just now turning off my my phone issue because the one thing I have forgotten in the past is I start the timer and then the What the Phone times out. So anyways, so we're gonna start with 15-minute opening statements.

Jake Branca Tella has chosen to go first. So Jake at your convenience.

Yeah, and I do have I do have a timer so I'm gonna use it myself. But of course, you'll be monitoring it. I'm assuming as well. So Just gonna start the timer now. Okay, this is that. First I appreciate the opportunity to engage. Dr. White on this very important debate topic.

The question before us this evening is Trinity versus Tauheed. This is not a minor difference that we can simply sweep under the rug. This is an issue that is crucial to one's afterlife. I will be defending the position of Tauheed and will be refuting the doctrine of the Trinity.

The structure of my opening statement will go as follows. First. I will explain an established Tauheed. Next I will explain what the doctrine of the Trinity is and last but not least I will offer five main Arguments against dr. White's position on the Trinity.

My first argument will establish that the notion of the Trinity is a bit misleading as there are many different Conceptions of the Trinity and we need dr. White to clarify where exactly he falls on the spectrum.

My second argument is the fact that the Trinity cannot be known apart from special revelation. My third argument is that the Trinity contradicts general revelation in that it posits a God that is not self-existent.

My fourth argument is what is called the logical problem of the Trinity and my fifth but not least argument is the tritheism objection. First, let me explain what Tauheed is. Tauheed simply put refers to the oneness of God.

It is the basis of the Muslim faith and the first part of the Shahada La ilaha illallah. There's no God except Allah. The expression of Tauheed can be summed up in a few verses of the Qur 'an and that is in Surah Ikhlas The 112th chapter of the Qur 'an that has four small but yet powerful verses.

It says this قُلْهُ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ اللَّهُ صَمَدٌ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُلْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ. Say he Allah is one, Allah the eternal, the self-sufficient. He begets not nor is he begotten and there is non comparable to him.

In the Qur 'an Chapter 59 verses 22 to 24 Some of God's beautiful names such as the Merciful, the Supreme, the Holy One, etc. are listed to describe who God is. There are many more majestic attributes of God mentioned in the Qur 'an but in its simplest form the Islamic conception of God is that there is one unique God with attributes of perfection.

As Muslims we believe that this conception of God can be arrived at from a purely rational philosophical perspective. Through natural theology alone. We can arrive at a supreme creator of all that exists.

His existence is necessary. He is Ase and self-sufficient. He is one and there is none greater than him. This is accomplished through various philosophical arguments such as cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.

Romans chapter 1 likewise proclaims that God's existence is clear and men are without excuse for denying him. Now let us now turn to the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is the claim that and I'm quoting Dr. White here.

Within the one being that is God there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons. Namely the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. My first argument is that the notion of the Trinity is a bit of a misnomer.

What I mean by this is that there are many different Conceptions of the Trinity that at times are radically different from one another and result in there being Trinity models that are mutually exclusive.

Such that if one is correct, the other is fundamentally flawed and incorrect. For example, Dr White's definition says that there is one being that is God. In order for us to properly evaluate the claim We must have a clear definition of the term being.

So the burden is on Dr. White to give us a clear definition of the term being. Part of the problem is that the answer to this question from a Trinitarian perspective varies greatly. Consider that Philosophically the term being typically refers to something that exists.

If there are three persons in the Trinity under this definition There would be three beings which Dr. White is reluctant to admit. So he must clearly explain to us how he defines the term being. The same exact issue can be wrong for the term persons.

William Lane Craig affirms the distinction between being and person and yet Dr. White would reject his position. This demonstrates that merely making a distinction between the terms being and person is Insufficient.

More must be said and done Dr. White must give us a clear definition of the terms being and person in order for us to even evaluate his claim of the Trinity. If Dr. White fails to give clear definitions for these terms, then he fails to establish the Trinity as a claim that can even be evaluated.

Now, I understand that Dr. White affirms the veracity of the Bible and believes that the Trinity is firmly rooted in the Bible itself. He will probably quote numerous texts to substantiate this. Dr. White However admits that his position regarding the Bible is ultimately circular and he proudly embraces this.

However, a necessary condition for truth is logical coherence and I will argue that Dr. White will be unable to present a biblical doctrine of the Trinity that is logically coherent. Now, my second argument is that the Trinity cannot be known from natural theology.

It can only be known from special revelation. This seems problematic on the face of it as the fundamental notion of who God is cannot be known through creation apart from scripture. My third argument.

Is that what we can know about God from general revelation in nature is contrary to trinitarian Nicene orthodoxy. Through natural revelation and contingency arguments, for example, we conclude that a God exists whose existence is necessary self-sufficient and assay.

However, the Nicene creed which Dr. White affirms states that and I quote I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. The only son of God the only begotten son of the father. God from God light from light. True God from true God begotten not made of one essence with the father.

The notion of the son being eternally begotten from the father results in the son lacking Aseity, which is an essential property for what it means to be God such that without it one cannot be God. Aseity is the property of self-existence or to have existence in and of oneself as opposed to Another the church fathers that were responsible for the Nicene creed held that the son being begotten of the father was a causal notion.

According to the Christian scholar Stephen R. Holmes what all sides agree upon during the patristic era is that and I quote. Within a divine life. The father is the sole cause begetting the son and spirating the spirit.

The great church father Saint Gregory of Nyssa in his work on not three gods states that and I quote. The principle of causality distinguishes them the persons of the holy trinity it affirms that the one is Uncaused while the others depend on the cause.

Again, Saint Athanasius says this and I quote. The son has his being not of himself, but of the father now. Since dr White is a self-proclaimed calvinist. Let's see what john calvin himself states in his famous work the institutes.

He says this and I quote. Regarded as son. He is of the father. His essence is without beginning while his person has its beginning in god the father. And indeed the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the trinity used this term only with reference to the persons.

Note that it said his person had a beginning in god the father. All of these quotes Demonstrate that nicene orthodoxy affirms that the son does not possess the attribute of aseity. Because his existence is from the father.

He does not have self-existence in fact. The church fathers thought that for there to be three persons all to be ase and uncaused would be polytheism. So dr. White has two options. Either affirm the nicene creed and admit that the son is not ase and therefore not god or Reject the nicene creed and deal with the historical problem that results from rejecting the early consensus of the trinitarian church fathers now.

My fourth argument is what is known as the logical problem of the trinity. Now the lpt which is short for that is well known it results from the following affirmation of the following seven premises. First The father is god.

Second the son is god. Third The holy spirit is god. Four the father is not the son. Five The father is not the holy spirit. Six the holy spirit. The the son is not the holy spirit. And seven there is exactly one god.

Now the logical problem is that the conjunction of these seven premises seems to be flatly consistent. Flatly inconsistent. I should say there are three Is god statements and the subjects are not identical to one another and yet we are told there's only one god.

However, based on the seven premises, we should conclude that there are exactly three gods yet We are told there is only one god when we are told that the father is god. What exactly does this mean? There is a distinction between what is called the is of identity and the is of predication.

An example of an eye is of identity would be like this. Clark kent is superman. When we say this we are saying that the two mentioned are identical to one another. These are two names that refer to the same thing.

This is to be contrasted with the is of predication. An example of this would be superman is strong. We are not saying that superman is identical to strongness. Strongness is a predicate or property that we are ascribing to the subject that is superman.

So when dr White states the father is god is this an identity statement or a statement of predication? This makes a huge difference in our understanding of the statement itself now. If dr White says that it is an identity statement.

Then there are a few options either white collapses the persons into one person or he affirms a version of relative identity trinitarianism. Which is an extremely controversial position. Relative identity trinitarianism states that the father is identical to god.

The son is identical to god. The holy spirit is identical to god and yet they are not identical to each other. Simply stated the father and the son are the same god, but are different persons. This results in a violation of the logic of classical identity.

Peter van inwagen a proponent of relative identity trinitarianism States and I quote a philosopher who denies the existence of classical absolute identity. May find materials in the procedure I have outlined for an explanation of the fact that most philosophers and logicians have assumed that there is such a relation as classical.

Identity. Again, he states and I quote as far as I am able to tell. Relative identity logic has no utility outside of christian theology. Again, william lane craig who's a christian? quote Comments on this issue and he says this.

And I quote if these declarations are intended to imply that statements like the father is god are identity statements. Then they threaten the doctrine of the trinity with logical incoherence. For the logic of identity requires that if the father is identical with god and the son is identical with god.

Then the father is identical with the son which the same councils also deny. So if dr White wants to claim that these are identity statements then he is left with either modalism or logical incoherence.

On the opposite side of the spectrum. Dr. White can take the position of the is of predication. If dr White selects the is of predication option. Then he is stating that each person is divine and if you have three things which are each fully divine.

Then you threaten the doctrine of the trinity with tri-theism or the idea that there's three gods in an attempt to avoid tri-theism William Lane Craig adopts what is called partialism. The fundamental problem with this is that it entails that each person is not fully god.

So again the onus is on dr White to clarify his position and tell us whether or not the father is god functions as an identity statement or a statement of Predication. If he cannot do so then again, dr. White has failed to clearly state and establish his position.

Now my fifth and final argument is that dr White is unable to clearly delineate the difference between monotheism and polytheism. Dr. White states that there are three centers of self-consciousness. Each with their own proper will.

He states this in his debates with roger perkins and abdullah kunday respectively. So White seems to be affirming a form of social trinitarianism. Brian lefdow in his famous paper anti-social trinitarianism Defines social trinitarianism as and I quote in god.

There are three distinct centers of self-consciousness each with its proper intellect and will. And then he goes on to say that social trinitarianism Threatens to and I quote veer into tri-theism. He also refers to it as and I quote a reformed paganism.

So How can we have three centers of self-consciousness each with their own will and yet not have three gods? What is it precisely that makes them one? How does dr White distinguish this from polytheism other than merely asserting it to be monotheism.

The burden again is on dr White to give us a clear definition that establishes the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. If he fails to do this, then again white's lack of clarity will prove fatal.

Let me remind the audience that I first explained and established tawhid. I then explained the trinity and lastly I raised five arguments against what the trinity is. These five arguments were the fact.

First that there is not one notion of the trinity. Second the fact that the trinity cannot be known from creation alone. Third the fact that the nicene creed itself contradicts what is known about god through reason.

Fourth the logical problem of the trinity. And fifth but not least the tri-theism objection. Now I want the audience to pay very close attention. Okay to whether or not dr White addresses my arguments.

If dr White fails to adequately respond to these five arguments then he has failed to establish his position. That's it. Thank you very much.

Trinity, Tawhid, and the Qur'an's Teaching on God

All right, thank you very much for that and I will get ready to start my 15 minute opening statement uh right now. All right, so what is trinity and tawhid. Let's Let's make sure that everyone's on the same page has understanding because this is a muslim christian dialogue.

And you will notice for example that just now the vast majority of the presentation was not an establishment or argument for tawhid. It was just simply a statement of what it is and then the rest was criticism of the doctrine of the trinity.

Let's uh, let's go the sources. Surah 4171 in the quran says the following. Oh people of the book. Do not go beyond the bounds in your religion and your dean nor say anything about allah except what is true.

The messiah jesus son of mary was only a messenger of allah and his words which he conveyed to mary and a spirit from him. So believe in allah and his messengers and do not say three. Stop it is better for you for allah is only one allah glory be to him for Far exalted is he above having a son.

To him belongs all things in the heavens and on earth and enough is allah as a disposer of affairs so. The islamic position has to be defined By the quran. Now, you can go beyond that if you wish. But the point is the argument of the quran since this is not muhammad's argumentation.

It is allegedly allah's argumentation. Then we need to look at specifically what the quran is saying. And it is saying do not say three for allah is only one allah. We will not find anything in the quran um.

That in any way even resembles the argumentation that we just heard from jake against the doctrine of the trinity. In fact, the question is did the author of the quran? Have even a tenth of the knowledge that jake has of the doctrine of the trinity.

And if he didn't that sort of also completes the debate. Doesn't it as far as. How that is is not the quran the basis of tawhid. But we need to look at a couple others in surah. Surah 5 verse 72. Certainly they disbelieve who say.

Surely allah he is the messiah the son of mary. And the messiah said oh children of israel serve allah my lord and your lord. Surely whoever associates others with allah. That's the sin of shirk. Then allah has forbidden to him the garden and his abode is the fire and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

Certainly they disbelieve who say. Surely allah is the third person of the three. And there is no god, but the one allah. So there again is the word three and it's immediately followed by the phrase there is no god.

But the one allah. And if they desist not from what they say a painful chastisement shall befall them. Those among them who disbelieve. Will they not then turn to allah and ask his forgiveness and allah is forgiving and merciful.

Verse 75. The messiah son of mary is but a messenger. Messengers before him have indeed passed away and his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how we make the communications clear to them then behold how they are turned away.

Please notice that the quran thinks it's important to point out that mary ate food like jesus did. Why would that be important. Because surah 5 1 16 says. And when allah will say oh isa son of mary. Did you say to men take me and my mother for two gods besides allah?

He will say glory be to thee. It did not befit me that I should say. What I had no right to say and if I had said it you would have indeed known it now. We don't have time to go into an in-depth discussion of the quranic understanding Of for example, what would be a child of god or a son of god or children of god or anything like that?

But what we do see very very clearly In the quran is the argument that the you do not say three because there is only one god. Not because of natural revelation or anything that has to do with the council of nicaea which had taken place.

Well over 200 years almost 300 years prior to the writing of these words. We don't have any any even reference to such things. Now compare what the quran does with the revelation of the doctrine of the trinity in the pages of scripture itself.

Not the council of nicaea not a calcedon or at any point in time. In the page of the scripture itself, for example, we can go prophetically to the book of isaiah. For a child will be born to us a son Will be given to us and the government will rest on his shoulders and his name will be called wonderful counselor El gabor mighty god aviad eternal father or father of eternity prince of peace.

Each one of these phrases fulfilled in the ministry and life of jesus and so matter no matter what we do. In the definition of what we believe the source and foundation has to be what god has revealed in scripture.

And this is prophetic scripture. I've had many a muslim go to the book of isaiah to try to prove the existence of muhammad as a prophet. So you can't deny that and so you have to deal with what is prior.

What is the foundation and source of our understanding of who god is? We also have in first corinthians. The this writing in the new testament fulfilling old testament themes. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed.

There are many gods and many lords. First corinthians chapter 8. Yet for us there is but one god the father. From whom are all things and we exist for him. And one lord jesus christ by whom are all things and we exist through him now again.

Time precludes my ability to lay out as I have in other in other Presentations the fact that what the apostle paul does here is he takes the shema shema yisrael yahweh elehenu. Yahweh echad the very prayer of monotheism of the jewish people and expands it In light of the revelation and history of the coming of jesus.

And so whatever we do We have to allow this there is one god the father. From whom are all things and we exist for him. And one kurios, that's the the rendering of the term yahweh the tetragrammaton the covenant name of god jesus christ.

By whom are all things. Now the quran says he's merely a messenger. He used to eat his food like his mom like his mom did he's he's he's a creature of god. He was made by by allah. But the christian scriptures say he is yahweh.

By whom are all things and we exist through him. Now there is no refutation of this in the quran because there's no evidence that the author of the quran ever Even heard these words or had any knowledge of these words.

So notice the difference between the continuity Of the old and new testament together in their revelation. And then the breaking of that continuity and coming with the quran that's important because in surah five.

Allegedly the quran is the continuation of these revelations and yet we see a massive gap Between these revelations which know each other so well in comparison to what is found in the quran. And so we have an early hymn in the christian church philippians chapter two.

You must have the same mindset among yourselves. It was in christ jesus who although he eternally existed in the very form of god. Notice new testament is completely monotheistic. There's only one god yahweh creator of all things absolute monotheism.

No question about it. He did not consider that equality. He had with god the father something be held on to at all costs. But instead he made himself nothing. By taking on the very form of a slave by being made in human likeness.

So we have monotheism, but we have equality between the father and the son. We have the son actively Making himself nothing. He is the one who voluntarily enters into human flesh by positively taking on a human nature by taking on the very form of a slave by being made in human likeness.

And having entered into human existence. He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death. Even the death one dies on a cross again. Very early historical reference to the cross which is denied within the text of the quran in surah 4 1 to 7.

Because of this god the father exalted him to the highest place and bestowed on him the name which is above every name. So at the mention of the exalted name of jesus everyone who is in heaven on earth and under the earth bows the knee.

And every tongue confesses jesus christ is lord all the glory of god the father. This is a quotation from the book of isaiah. This is this is where yahweh himself says every knee would bow to him. Every tongue would confess to him.

And so here you have this this divine revelation in scripture. Referring us back to the historical reality of the incarnation of jesus christ and the fact that he is distinguished from the father. He and the father the the father speaks to the son.

The son speaks to the father in john chapter 17. The son speaks of the time where in eternity past he shared glory with the father. Not as some pre-existent thought. He existed in the presence. The father is identified as yahweh.

The spirit is the spirit of yahweh and so when we look at the comparison Between the clarity with which the new testament reveals these things and the argumentation of the quran. The first question we have to ask is why do modern muslims have?

Significantly more knowledge of the trinity than the author of the quran did. Is that not sufficient to make you go? Well that raises questions concerning the divine nature of the quran itself. And secondly this also tells us the quran is separated from the old and new testaments.

Even though the quran claims that it's the same god that natsal sent down the torah and the injeel. Gave them to moses gave them to jesus. Then he gives the quran to muhammad. That's a chain in surah five.

It is broken by any meaningful analysis of what these uh these documents teach so in regards to The philosophical argumentation that you can dig into and we will get into. Here's the issue. Jake has already said that the muslim position can be established solely by philosophical argumentation.

And he has said that it's a problem that i'm saying that what I believe is dependent upon divine revelation. Well, he's exactly right it is dependent upon divine revelation. Romans chapter 1 is not a contradiction to that because romans chapter 1 is talking about only those aspects of god's being.

That can be understood through that which has been created specifically as his divine nature and his power. Which holds us accountable to give thanks to him in honor of his god. Not all the rest of the revelation of scripture that is given to us but I embrace the reality.

That the doctrine of the trinity is a biblical doctrine and it's deep and we must depend upon divine revelation. Because to be truly understand even god's eternal nature. Or god's immutability or god's aseity all of that is dependent upon revelation as well.

Because every one of those aspects has been disputed by philosophers at some point in time down through history. And so if natural theology and philosophy is our final authority. Then we will never know who god is and christians have never claimed that that is the final authority.

Scripture must be the final authority and that's the problem. Because the author of the quran did not know what is in the scriptures that came before him. And that is a major major problem that we will have to discuss.

So finally, let me emphasize. When we talk about being when we talk about person. How do we define these things. We define these things in light of a higher authority. Than any kind of philosophical Dictionary or the current Analytical philosophy Perspective or anything like that.

We define being in person not on the basis of philosophers that live before the time of jesus. We are using these words to describe a divine reality in history. Jesus entered into human flesh. He walked amongst us.

He prayed to the father the father spoke To him and said this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. He had fellowship with the father on the mount of transfiguration. He's ascended to the right hand of the father today.

He intercedes for his people. That is the historical reality. And the new testament writers then took all the unique passages about yahweh. And applied them to jesus and to the father and to the spirit in the new testament.

And so what I am saying is whatever definition we use for being and person. The ultimate definer of these things is not philosophical categories because they aren't big enough. The christian god is too big for human philosophy.

Too big. Those philosophical terms must be defined so that they accurately represent what is found in the prior. Prior in the sense of importance prior in the sense of defining the prior source of scripture.

If you don't go there. All you have left whether you're muslim or christian or anything else is mankind's speculations. Concerning god rather than god says you have man allows god to say we don't want that.

We've seen the mess that that produces. We don't want to go there. And so the ultimate authority has to be found in the defining power of scripture itself. We must be consistent with that and nothing else.

And since jake finished up a little bit early, so will I? So that was 15 minutes and so now we have 10 minute rebuttals. Uh starting with uh with jake this would be of course the point in time where you begin to interact.

Um before the cross examination period that will take place later. There will be another five minute rebuttal period. Um that will come after this as well. So 10 minutes, uh turning it over to jake, uh, go ahead.

One second. I'm just setting up my timer here. Okay. All right. Here we go. So Dr. White in those 15 minutes, of course as he said it seemed like it was going on for a long time. I made a lot of notes.

I'll try to address as much as I can but. Uh, let's see what I can do in these 10 minutes okay, bismillah, so. One of the main points obviously is that he said that the trinity is grounded in the bible and it's grounded in scripture.

Of course, uh, that's his claim and I am for the sake of this debate and for the sake of this argument I'm, just saying okay. Well, dr. White. That's your position. You think the bible's true? You think the trinity is true because it's in the bible?

Well, let's see whether or not it makes any sense. That's what i'm going to be pressing on here. I'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat quoting scriptures back and forth. Although I will mention a couple for consideration.

So that's the first point. Second point is he says well, it seems like the quran doesn't know as much about the trinity as jake does. Well, jake is presenting these Um in-depth philosophical arguments against the trinity.

No it does but the quran is a book of guidance. Okay, it's not a metaphysical textbook in the way that some people may want to understand things. No, it's not. It's meant for people like me as well as and i'm not saying that i'm some grand person.

But it's also meant for the farmer okay, the common person who doesn't even understand these things and allah does address the trinity or And all these different conceptions of it. He doesn't need to go into relative identity trinitarianism and social trinitarianism and refute all these different positions systematically.

No, he says do not say three simple it Excommunicates all of anything you want to say about the trinity when it says there's one god and do not say three. Do not say three persons. Do not say three gods.

It does answer the problem. Okay, that's the first thing. Second thing is. Third thing is dr White also mentioned the uh nysingh creed and the fact that it came out some hundred years before the quran was revealed.

That's true. And he thinks that the quran didn't address it. Well, I want to point back to my original statement. Yes, the quran does address it. Qul hu allahu ahad allahu samad. Lam yalid wa lam yulad lam yalid wa lam yulad is a direct refutation of the nysingh creed.

The sun or god does not beget nor is he begotten? It's a direct refutation of what james white thinks is in the bible and what is found in the nysingh creed. We do not believe that god can beget or be eternally begotten in the way that I just said with the sun.

Okay. So the quran does clearly address the trinity in the sense that it says do not say three. It covers all these different conceptions to say no you're all wrong. And then it also dresses the nysingh creed clearly in surah ikhlas.

Okay, so that's clear I hope for the audience now, we've got several points here left um, he also mentions well the quran, uh. Doesn't seem to possess the same knowledge on the trinity as jake. Well, what's your evidence for it?

I just provided evidence for the fact that it does it knocks them out clear in one swipe. It doesn't need to go into all these little tiny details. But for some people who need it like the audience, that's what i'm here to do.

The quran as I said is a book of guidance. It's not a systematic metaphysical textbook. Okay, that's why even christians have systematic theology text. That doesn't mean that the bible is insufficient.