The Trinity is the truth and Jesus is God.

Hi, 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. Regarding your claim about the angel. In the Bible, God can use a representative. In Genesis 32 Jacob is wrestling with God and in Hosea 12:4 Jacob is wrestling with an angel. Here are some more examples. Isaiah 42 foretells the coming of an Arabian prophet (prophet Muhammad SAW to be specific). In Isaiah 42:13 a representative is used again. Deuteronomy 33:1-4 is another example. Even satan is used as a representative (or this is a contradiction proving your religion to be false as well). Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God did (2 Samuel 24:1) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1). You need to elaborate on Exodus 3. I really don't see what your point is here? This is too far-fetched. If I were you I would wonder what Jewish rabbis are saying about this verse. Let's take a look at Isaiah 48:16, which you claim to be supporting the doctrine of a trinity. This verse can be read differently in the Hebrew Bible. Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit. (Isaiah 48:16) We can find that the Christian translation is a gross mistranslation. The meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. 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. So we have found that according to you, the human nature can override the divine nature and so therefore the human nature is stronger than the divine nature. I really don't care what Hebrews says, we don't even know who authored the freaking book. We don't even know where it came from. It is said that this comes from Paul and if that is true then there's no reason to see this book as valid. Paul contradicts the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and he didn't even meet Jesus. On top of that, Paul was persecuting Christians. He was a bounty hunter, but we don't know if that's factual or not. Phillipians 2 was also authored by Paul and so therefore none of it can be taken as evidence or proof of anything. If that what Paul wrote was authentic then the Bible is a book full of contradictions. So as of now we can see that Jesus was not like the Father and that Jesus definitely wasn't all-knowing. You made a claim about the word Echad, which simply means One. This is a lie of the church, it is obvious that this is referring to one God. For example you can have a room with items and that is one room and you can have 1 cup of water, echad just means one. You need to understand one means one and not three. You cherry pick the verses where echad is a complex unity and you ignore and extract the verses where echad means one and no other than that one. Rabbi Tovia (who speaks fluent Hebrew) completely refutes this claim here: Allah would have no problem with him being called the Father if Christians didn't paganise the Biblical language. Since Christians did paganise the Biblical language Allah decided to remove this confusion. The point of John 17 is that the Father is called the only true God, no mention of the holy spirit or Jesus here. Son of God is not an exclusive title. Common people are called son of God. Jeremiah is called son of God. Adam is called son of God in the New Testament. So this is not an exclusive title to Jesus. Genesis 6 calls multiple people son of God. In John 17 Jesus is granted power and so therefore he had no authority to begin with. That means Jesus has no power on his own and without the true God, Jesus cannot do anything without the authority of God. John 5:30 "proves" my claim. So does John 8:28 I can do nothing by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (John 5:30) (John 8:28) Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 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. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Matthew 28:19 is a corrupted verse. According to Eusebius himself this verse is unauthentic. There is no proof that this verse ever existed before clear corruption. Sources that prove my point: http://www.apostolic-voice.org... http://jesus-messiah.com... http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com... Mark 1 doesn't prove any form of trinity doctrine and you haven't even explained why or how. Let's read 14 in context alright. 1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust ALSO in me. 2 IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going." 5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" (John 14:1-5) Jesus is talking about going to the heavens Jesus was the way to God, just like every other prophet was the way during that prophet's time. At the time of Abraham, Abraham was the way to God. At the time of Moses, Moses was the way to God. I really don't get your point. Why are you bring up the names of Allah? Chapter 4 verse 171 of the Qur'an denounces the trinity explicitly. If you read the context of John 10:30 then you'll read that they are one in purpose. John 5 contradicts John 12. 47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. (John 12:47-49) This Alpha and Omega argument is silly for three reasons. First of all, the book of Revelation is a vision of John. Secondly, according to the NIV Bible's theologians this book is unreliable. Thirdly, Hebrews (which is unauthentic to be honest) states in 7:13 that Priest Melchisedec has no beginning nor end. This statement is more powerful than being the beginning and end. And here's a bonus. Revelation also states: 1And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. (Revelation 13:1-2) Christians don't believe in that stuff so where's the consistency. Now let's go over to the I AM argument. This is blasphemous. You can't put the title of God in here. If Jesus says I AM and went away without finishing his sentence then that's not our problem, it's his problem. Rabbi Tovia refuting such an argument here: Isaiah 9:6 is not a prophecy, it's something that happened in the past. In this verse this son is not called God either, but it states that he will be called God by men. Rabbi Tovia refuting this again: "Why do you call Me good? Jesus replied, "No one is good except God alone. (Mark 10:18) According to trinitarians God became flesh and so Jesus became God himself. Was God always a man? He was not. Did he become a man to die on the cross for the sins of humanity? According to trinitarians he did. So to claim that God did not change is simply playing around with words. You believe that the author "John" in the gospel John is John the baptist himself, I do not. He contradicts other gospels. All the gospels contradict each other. In Mark Jesus went somewhere and preached. In Matthew Jesus went to another place and preached. In Luke Jesus went to another place and preached. In John Jesus went to another place and preached.