The Trinity is the truth and Jesus is God.

"Let me start off by saying that the word lord does not directly mean God or Father. This was always used as a title of respect and this is a very common and normal thing in Eastern European cultures as well." This is true, however with Exodus 3, the word LORD is in capitals, which results to the hebrew term YHWH being used, rather than Adonai,. "In Genesis 32 Jacob is wrestling with God and in Hosea 12:4 Jacob is wrestling with an angel." I don't have enough research into Jacob wrestling with God, but from reading the two passages, not once does Jacob interchangebly call the Angel "LORD" with God. I don't want to get into Isaiah 42, I will if you want in another debate. Onto 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel, You have to remember in the OT, however evil, is an angel of God, a being who has as much power as God entrusts him, so Satan here is only a minister of God's purposes i.e. God was allowing such temptations of David to take place, he isn't used as a representative, but as the agent who carries out the temptations, not the inciter himself. "How I would interpret John 1:1 is from an Islamic perspective. Jesus PBUH was created from the Word of Allah. No mention of a trinity here. If you read John 1 you will see that Jesus was a word from the Word. Jesus isn't the Word himself. This verse is also mistranslated. The correct translation can be found in the NWT Bible." The first mistake you're doing, is looking at history backwardness, the events that occur 600 years after the passage shouldn't effect the interpretation, an obvious pre-supposition. John 1:1 clearly states, the Word was in the beggining with God, and WAS God, all things were made by HIM, this is singular not plural so is only reffering to one individual. It then says, the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us. Also I'm shocked that you would think the NWT is a greater translation than the KJV, ESV or NIV? The New World Translation, is the one Jehovah's Witnesses use. If you look into the history of the translation, The New World Bible translation committee had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree. The New Testament translation in the New World Translation has taken out the Greek words 'Theos' (God) and 'Kurios' (Lord) in over 60 places within the NT and replaced them with 'Jehovah'. Jehovah occurs nowhere in the Greek. Could you name me one scholar with A PHD in New Testament Studies or Classics who would call the NWT good? The points you made about Paul, again, are off topic, even if you don't accept his testimony, you have to accept that early Christians believed Jesus was God, since Paul had manny followers. Also, I think there is a genuine rule that links shouldn't be cited, you yourself have to argue, not a PHD proffesor, you can use their information but demonstrate your understanding. I think what you would find with echad is that I proved it isn't just used in the singular tense, and the fact that the Hebrew word for God in this sense was plural, not singular, so it would actually make more sense. Genesis 6 calls people "sons of God" not the One and Only Son Of God, the same applies to the other Old Testament passages, the Greek used in the NT for Son of God is different to the Hebrew used for sons of God, but even if this was the case: 1. Name one prophet who was called The Ressurection and the Life? I think you find the whole of John disproves your claim, if you read the text without a pre-supposition and looking backwardness in history. If you read John 5:30 in context, it proves Jesus is God because: "because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working." 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." Onto the next verse it says the Son, can do nothing, as you stated in John 5:30, because he only sees what his Father is doing. Jesus says: WHATEVER the Father does, the Son DOES ALSO. I couldn't think of a more blasphemous claim if I tried. Can you do or any Prophet do whatever the Father does? this expalins why Jesus is the only prophet in history, who could heal the sick, feed the five thousand, turn water into wine, raise the dead, raise his own life, call his own name and drive out demons and so on, and to be sinless. It goes onto say, The Son gives life to whoever he pleases, and all judgement has been entrusted onto him, so on the final day, God is giving a man the judgement of the WORLD? "ALL may HONOR the SON "JUST"... As they honor the Father", do you honor Jesus as much as Allah? "Your claim about Jesus in John 14 can't be found anywhere and it's just another trinitarian bogus claim. I cannot accept such a claim because it is illogical." Phillip says, Lord show us the Father? (God) Jesus says, Don't know you me Phillip? anyone who has seen ME has seen the FATHER Now ask yourself, If you see Muhammad or any other prophet do you see GOD. "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves" Is a prophet, IN the Father? "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." When you pray, do you ask anything in the name of Muhammad or the name of Allah, and who will do it? Allah or Muhammad. "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." Why on earth would God send the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus? does Allah do that to Muhammad? I clicked on the links you sent, only one actually talked about the translation was the second one, I don't see how you understand Biblical Hebrew. Secondly, the manuscriptal evidence before the Council of Nicea has the verse as shown in all supported translations we have to date, also Matthew's Gospel we read today, is in Greek, not Hebrew, so where they got a Hebrew manuscript I don't have a clue, i.e. it's a fraud. I don't see Muhammad preparing a place for you in heaven in John 14? The reason why i brought up Allah's names, is because Jesus uses a name of Allah, the Truth, notice how it's in singular to, not a, THE truth. Name on other prophet who calls themself, THE WAY. Jesus even says, NO ONE, literally no one goes to God, except through him Onto revelation, your first point is irrelevant, the majority of Isaiah and Daniel, infact many events of the Old Testament are based on visions, what about Muhammads revelation in the cave? by you standard I can dismiss it. No what you're reffering to is the canons that occured in the 4th century, there were multiple, Revelation was placed in the category where the majority of canons accepted the text, some placed doubt, but the vast majority accepted it. It's funny how you bring that up, when 10 of Pauls Letters, were considering canon by all churches at the time, so it wouldn't make a difference to your argument anyways. Revelation was also in manuscript list of the early 2nd century, and quoted by 1st and 2nd century Christian writers. Why you bringing up Hebrews when you dimissed it? Also, where? Looked up 7:13, i saw nothing. I think you mean't 7:3, which says he will remain a priest forever, well I don't dismiss this at all, I will remain a human forever, but I won't be the Alpha and the Omega of the Old Testament. Actually, Christians do believe in this stuff, many events in Revelation are using imagery to portary the coming of the end times, but that's another topic. I don't get your point with I AM? he literally was stoned after the incident? Who knows better, this Rabbi or the High Priests who lived with Jesus at the time? "You believe that the author "John" in the gospel John is John the baptist himself" I think this sums up the debate, nope, you're wrong, we don't. Their is more than one John in the Bible, the apostle John, not John The Baptist. I think its clear from this debate, that you have 3 defences: 1. Dismiss the whole text as corrupt- without manuscript evidence or attestation from many scholars and their reasons for this. a question... Why would you say this? because you know it says he's God. 2. Re-interpret the text- you don't take it as the authentic words of Jesus and insert phrases to support the Islamic view, when the original Greek supports the multiple peer-reviewed translations. I think this stands, Jesus performed miracles that Muhammad couldn't peform, or any other prophet. Jesus called himself the Alpha and the Omega, Only Way to the Father, The Ressurection and the Life, born before Abraham, One with the Father, The Judge, The Giver of Life, Does whatever he sees his Father doing, Lord over the Sabbath, all his followers said he was God, John the Baptist called him God, the Father himself did, the Jews said he claimed to, and even the Demons knew he was the Holy One... Who didn't? Muhammad, 600 years later. "It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3)." I think what you really want to debate is the reliability of the NT, so why not?