Archive for the ‘Apologetica/Apologetics’ Category

Only Jesus can set us free from the fact of sin.
It’s all about Him. 1 Peter 3:15,16
1 Peter 3:15,16
Thank you for being available, uncle Zacharias.
Thank you for being available.

On my research about the Trinity, I found this very instructive article by Nabeel Qureshi, a man whose life God used to teach me His ways. A brother whom I learned to love and respect. The article was originally published at The concept of the Trinity is explained in a simple way. Read this, and other articles on this topic here

Of all the chapters of the Qur’an that we memorized as Muslim children, there was one we recited more frequently than any other. It wasn’t long, only 4 verses, but Muhammad taught that it encapsulated a third of the Quran’s teaching, making it the weightiest chapter of the scripture and a core doctrine of the Islamic faith. It is Surat-al-Ikhlaas, chapter 112, and its second verse contains the message:

“God is not a Father, and He is not a Son.”

So above all doctrine in my Muslim life, the one teaching that was drilled into my head most often was ‘Tawhid’, that God is absolutely one and cannot be Father or Son. By the time I was a teen, my reaction to the Trinity was kneejerk: I saw it as nonsensical, polytheistic blasphemy.

Part of the problem was that no one clarified to me how the Trinity could be a monotheistic doctrine. It sounded to me like people wanted to worship three gods, but still desired the dignity of being monotheists, so they invented a nonsense doctrine called the Trinity in which God could be three and one at the same time.

What made the problem worse was that no one explained what it meant for Jesus to be the Son of God. I, and most of the Muslim world around me, assumed that this implied some kind of biological sonship; physical offspring, as if one day God decided to create another god. In turn, that meant Jesus must be an inferior god, a created one. The Bible seemed to support Jesus’ inferiority to God, since Jesus says in John: “the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) Regarding the Bible, I did not find the doctrine of the Trinity anywhere in the Bible, so I concluded it must be blasphemous.

That is why I saw the Trinity as nonsensical, polytheistic blasphemy.

It all changed when I began studying two things more carefully: science and the Bible. Science began to show me that there are things in this world so tiny that we can only view them through microscopes, and yet they are incomprehensibly complex. Though quantum mechanics comes to mind, much more commonplace matters can be similarly befuddling, such as light. Light defies the minds of scientists, being both a particle and a wave, yet this apparent contradiction is demonstrably true.

If the world is so complex that it baffles our minds, what about the One who created the world? The One who created our minds? I now think that if my Creator is so simple that I can understand Him, perhaps I have made Him in my image.

With a less presumptuous attitude, I approached the Bible to see what it actually teaches. Though it does not use the word “Trinity”, the teachings are certainly there. It teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 4:35), but He is somehow plural (Genesis 1:1, Deuteronomy 6:4, John 1:1). God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit, and these three persons share the name of Yahweh (Matthew 28:19; Philippians 2:11 cf. Isaiah 45:22-23).

So the Bible teaches that God is one being and three persons. This is not a contradiction, because ‘being’ and ‘person’ are two different things. Your being is that which makes you what you are, your person is that which makes you who you are. For instance, I am one being, a human being, and one person, Nabeel Qureshi. Yahweh is one being, God, with three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Complex? Yes. Unique? Yes. Nonsensical? No.

The Sonship of Jesus is not physical, but one of role. This explains how he can be inferior to the Father in one sense, but still be equal to the Father in another. As an illustration, my father is superior to me in terms of role within the family, but he and I are equally human. I am inferior in role, but equal in substance. So is Jesus inferior in role to the Father, but equal in substance, since they are the same Being.

Armed with these definitions and illustrations, I began to see how the Trinity was a viable model for the nature of God. I didn’t believe it, however, until I found good reason to believe the Gospel. I found that when I saw the evidence that Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead, having died for our sins on the cross.

There is so much depth to God that we can never tire of drawing from His well. As we know God more and go deeper in our understanding of His nature, not only will our lives be enriched but so will the lives of others as we more compellingly share Him and His love.
Nabeel Qureshi  was a speaker with Ravi Zacharias International Ministry.  One of his bestseller books is, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity, released from Zondervan. Find more about him on his website,,  on Twitter @NAQureshi, and on Youtube NQMinistries.


Honestly, I find it hard to understand how Christian couples in our day and age can risk bringing children into the world without being trained in apologetics as part of the art of parenting.- William L. Craig

We do what we need to do, but we are always relying on God. We know he has more wisdom than we do and more power than we can imagine. So we look to Him, we pray to him, we count on him, we trust him.

A very interesting and must read article by Kyle Idleman read the full text HERE.

Abû Hâmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazâlî ( ou simplesmente Al-Ghazali) foi um Teólogo Muçulmano da Persia, actualmente Irão no sec. XII. cuja preocupação estava voltada a influência da filosofia Grega que negava a criação do universo por Deus, entre os Filósofos Islâmicos do seu tempo. Eles asseguravam que a existência do universo era um facto que deu-se necessariamente sem a participação de Deus e, por tanto, não tinha início algum.
Após um estudo exaustivo dos ensinos destes filósofos, Ghazali escreveu uma crítica devastadora intitulada “A Incoerência dos Filósofos”. No seu tão fascinante livro, ele defende que a idéia do universo não possuir um início era absurda. O universo deve ter um início e, uma vez que nada existe sem causa deve haver um Criador transcendente do universo.
Ghazali apresenta o seu argumento do seguinte modo: “Todo o ser que possui um ponto inicial tem uma causa para o seu início; o mundo é um ser com ponto inicial; por isso, possui uma causa para o seu início. ”[2]
O raciocínio de Ghazali pode ser resumido em três pontos:
  1. Tudo quanto começou a existir tem uma causa.
  2. O universo começou a existir.
  3. Portanto, o universo tem uma causa.
Seguindo a lógica do argumento, se as duas premissas são verdadeiras então, a conclusão é necessariamente verdadeira. Consequentemente, qualquer que queira negar a conclusão terá de considerar ou a premissa 1 ou a premissa 2 como falsa. Portanto, a questão que surge disto é:
É mais provável que estas declarações sejam verdadeiras ou que sejam falsas?
Qual é a sua opinião? Que tal deixar um comentário?
[1] William Lane Craig, Em Guarda, Ed. Vida Nova, 2011.
[2] Al-Ghazali Kitab al-Iqtisad fi’l-I’tiqad, citado em S. Beaurecueil, “Gazzali et S. Thomas d’Aquin: Essai sur la preuve de l’existance de Dieu proposé dans l’Iqtisad et sa comparaison avec les ‘voies’ Thomiste,” Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Archaeologie Orientale, 46, p. 203, 1947.
Obs: Se quiser ler e aprender mais sobre como expor e defender a razão da sua fé, consulte os blogs Fé Racional,;


One book in the New Testament that plays as indispensable role in evaluating the resurrection of Jesus is the book of Acts. It is within Acts that we see the resurrection was part of the early apostolic preaching and the evidence given that Christianity is true (Acts 2:25-32; 3: 15; 10:39-41; 17:2-3, 18, 31). It is also within Acts that records Paul’s testimony to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 9:1-9; 22: 1-11; 26: 9-19). So given the importance of Acts, here are some resources on the historical reliability of Acts. Keep in mind, we must also establish what we mean by ‘historical.’ That is discussed in Mike Licona’s article here. 

First of all, here is a video from Craig Keener who has released a four volume set of commentaries on Acts. 

Second, here is a pdf from Apologetics 315 called: The Historical Reliability of Acts: Support from Extra-Biblical Primary Sources

View original post 1,952 more words