Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Dr. Laurence Brown is an opthamologist, author, and Muslim apologist. In this episode of The Deen Show (“Deen” is Arabic for “religion” or “religious practice.”), he gave his “Top 10 Reasons Why The Trinity Is Invalid.” Does he disprove or undermine trinitarian theology? In this episode, I interact with and evaluate his reasons.
You can also listen to this episode on youtube.
This this 50th episode of the trinities podcast? Do you like the podcast, or have suggestions? Which were the best episodes? Upload some audio feedback here, for possible inclusion in a future episode.
Links for this episode:
- The Deen Show
- Dr. Laurence Brown’s home page
- podcast episode 11 – Tertullian the unitarian
- podcast episode 30 – The Council of Nicea
- Who Should Christians Worship? – Is worshiping Jesus idolatry?
- God and his Son – the logic of the New Testament – on John 10
- How Trinity Theories Conflict with the New Testament
Related posts:
the Maverick Philosopher on some fashionable confusions
podcast 222 - Self-evident truths relevant to Trinity or Incarnation theories - Part 1
podcast 243 - Response to Branson Part 1 - The Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity
podcast 383 – New Zealand Conference Church History Q and A with Sean Finnegan and Dale Tuggy – Part...
podcast 149 - Dr. Larry Hurtado's Destroyer of the gods - Part 1
On Dr. James Anderson's "Brief Response" to the Challenge
Don't think/write like a contemporary theologian - Part 1 - "grounded" blabber
podcast 125 - Dr. Robert M. Bowman's "What about This View?"
podcast 187 - Dr. Paul W. Newman's Spirit Christology - Part 1
podcast 295 - James Martineau on John 1
I was quite unimpressed with his argumentation. As you mentioned, it is a half hour show with commercial breaks, so elaboration would be difficult. He was also courteous, which is fairly rare from Muslim apologists in my experience. Other than that, I felt he either misunderstood or misrepresented the vast majority of what he was trying to use in order to disprove the Trinity doctrine. Lots of his points were weak or not necessary conclusions based on the evidence of history or the text.
Comments are closed.