>>17928721
>This is no different from the model of the Trinity
Yes it is because Jesus is not merely an act of speech and they are not God while you believe Jesus is. I am not sure how you cannot see that. If I speak something out loud is that thing me?
> is not correct
Your interpretation of scripture isn't because that is what it plainly states. The whole point of this discussion is about that.
>Then you don't disagree that Jesus can be called the son of God?
That kind of language is abrogated like pic rel. But no I do not if it is meant in the correct sense and not like literal offspring as you believe. He wasn't eternally begotten of the Father, whatever that is supposed to mean.
>deliberately misinterprets what Jesus being the word means
"Indeed, the example of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be!” And he was! " -Quran 3:59
>If it isn't an issue for them to be "powerless"
No muslim believes those chapters to be part of God in any sense of the word. This is just a straw man of our position. You claim to believe in Jesus as God, yet an inherently powerless one. He is lacking divine making properties like self sufficiency and therefore he cannot be God
>say he doesn't lie?
It says he doesn't do it because he is not a man, lying is within the nature of man not the divine. If he wasn't saying that then why link what he isn't with what he does?
>Whatever you wish to call them is what I would call the members of the Trinity.
Word concept fallacy? Nice!
>I was using it to show Jesus was not torn out of God.
What the fuck are you saying? If Jesus wants you to be one in the Father the exact same way he is then it must mean according to your logic that he is making you a God. Which is exactly what many Christians believe. Anyway according to your scripture he said "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." This is a separation