Why Islam is truth not Christianity

Precursor: I misquoted earlier. I said that Genesis 1:1 was "In the beginning was the word...," and this actually comes from John 1:1. However, both Islam and Christianity hold to this gospel, and so my point remains. First: According to religious scholars Hajj Muhammad Legenhausen, Diane Steigerwald (McGill Institute of Islamic Studies), Irfan Omar (University of Florida), and others Kalimat Allah is a title used in the Quran exclusively to refer to Jesus son of Mary. Muhammad himself called Jesus the Word of God in the Sahih al-Bukhari: "... and that Jesus is God"s servant and His Messenger and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit from Him...". There is no way for me to make this point any more clear. Second: The reasons I quoted Quran 3:55 are: 1. it is an example of the translation of "kalimat allah" to refer to Jesus son of Mary and 2. It show's God elevating Jesus to his side, a place of honor and equality. The phrase is "I shall raise the to Myself," which is markedly different that "raise the unto heaven" Third: Plurality is used in Arabic, the original language of the Quran, to denote honor - this is not something that exists in English. I respect my dad, but I say that "he is my dad" and not "they are my dad." I would say "I met the president and shook his hand," instead of "I met the president and shook their hand." If the only purpose of the plural term is as an honorific, then why is it not changed with translation? "Kalimat Allah" is not an English term, so we translate it as "word of God" or "Jesus." Using third-person as an honorific title is not an English rule, so we should translate it as "I." Quranic translations often have parenthetical notes on the translations, such as: This is what We recite to you, [O Muhammad], of [Our] verses and the precise [and wise] message. Quran 3:58 The phrases in brackets are added to clarify the translation, and yet notice that the above verse does not say "This is what I [plural honorific] recite..." It says "We." Additionally, there is overlap between the Arabic Honorific Plurality of God and the Christian Trinity. Both ways of describing God use the plural sense as a means of better understanding God. In Islam, He is more honorable than an I so we say We. In Christianity, he is more complex that a single form so we say Trinity. The only difference is that Christianity goes further and explains god three different ways, while the Quran stops at a single honorific. Fourth: The Old Testament does talk about God in a trinitarian sense. Genesis 1:2 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Here there is God and then the Spirit of God. Isaiah 48:16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me" God and Spirit again. Proverbs 30:3-4 "I neither learned wisdom nor have knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son"s name, if you know?" Here Agur, who is speaking, points out the failings of the priests of his time, that they do not know the name of God nor the name of His Son (who has not yet been born). Isaiah 42:1: "Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, my Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles." The Messiah will carry the Spirit of God. And, of course, the entire story of Abraham who went to sacrifice his son is an analogy to how God (in the form of the Father) would sacrifice himself (in the form of His Son Jesus). Just because the Old Testament and Torah do not use the word "Trinity" or "Triune God" does not mean they did not have a concept of a plural entity - it merely shows they did not have a term for it. Most of the book of Isaiah deals with humanity's need of the Messiah, that humanity cannot save itself without being shown an example. The innate sin of man is in the Torah - but again we see only the concept without the modern terminology. Fifth: Do you have no counter argument to the points I made about Islam overthrowing the messages of peace brought by the Messiah and instead teaching a doctrine of vengeance and violence? Sixth: Moving on, you do bring up another point in how Islam and Christianity differ. Christians believe that Jesus was crucified to death and then rose again, while Islam states that God saved Jesus and had another man die instead. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man (and they killed that man)... Quran 4:157 This is a particularly interesting point because both religions treat the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as sacred scripture. Yet the Gospels say that Jesus was killed and resurrected. The Gospels were written 80 to 90 years after the events took place. If God had indeed spared Jesus son of Mary, why then would that fact not be recorded until the Quran was written 640 years after the event? Is it not strange that God would cause another person to die in place of Jesus? Why not just take Jesus to heaven and skip the entire Crucifixion story?