So to be clear, you aren’t going to bother refuting it? I thought you had a whole book chapter on why this Heiser is wrong…

I know exactly what you are trying to do, Jake. Most Christian debaters do not see it, but I see it very well. Because I know your thinking and your problem inside out, and I know why you want to go after the Trinity. That is the only place you can go. You deceive your own Muslim followers and listeners by focusing on the pronounced Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Because the Trinity is the safest place where you can use academic and even church-affirmed opinion of a developed doctrine, and you want to exploit that for your own Islamic narrative by twisting what this development means. It doesn't matter whether the Trinity developed at Nicaea or not. For the sake of the argument, it wouldn't even matter IF the Trinity was invented at Nicaea, which it most certainly was NOT. Because when you falsely say that the Trinity arose in Nicaea, you lead your own audience to believe that the belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit emerged in Nicaea in the 300s. You know very well that the belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was mainstream Christianity in the first century, expressed in the Didache, by Ignatius of Antioch, and even affirmed in the New Testament itself. You know very well that, without a shadow of a doubt, mainline Christians from their earliest days believed in the divinity of Jesus and invoked the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This entirely destroys your Islamic narrative that the followers of Jesus were Islamic believers of Islamic Tawhid. You know very well that all accounts completely refute this narrative. You know very well that academics refute this narrative. You know very well that your own eyes and your own ears refute this narrative. But you don't want to admit it, which is why you want to distract from it and focus on the strict formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine at Nicea. We both know that Islam doesn't fit anywhere into the early history of Christianity. We both know that the followers of Jesus believed that he is God, and that the vast majority of Christians believed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. You cannot handle this fact, as it destroys your Islamic narrative, which is why you want to focus on Nicea even when your dumb revisionist perspective completely fails there as well. Islam is a distortion of the truth and you happily lie for it. You will never actually debate this topic.

I won’t debate you because you’re a fundamentally dishonest person, Jake. Briefly, we have numerous examples of the Old Testament recognizing Yahweh being in two places at once - both present in heaven and on earth in visible (in some instances physical) form. Go read Dr. Michael Heiser’s The Unseen Realm, then come back to me and explain why that scholarly opinion is incorrect.

What is there to debate when you change the meaning of Trinitarian? How do you expect this debate to go? Everyone will agree that Irenaeus agreed with Trinitarian beliefs despite some disagreements. To you he will not be a Trinitarian. To academics and the church he will be. Then what?

I counted several people. I didn't "try with Tertullian." You jumped on him as you always do. You said there were no Trinitarians before Nicea which is objectively false. You rely on dishonesty and can never have a proper discussion.

It's impossible to argue with you when you can't even be honest to yourself nor answer straight questions. You said there were no Trinitarians before Nicea. There were. Therefore, you failed. Sophistry and semantics don't make you right.