I don't recall anyone saying sacrifice was part of the covenant. What is part of the covenant is circumcision on the eighth day for males. Which has been discussed and muslims do not follow this except by their own interpretation. However, the sacrifice does have a link with Jesus and it is a link the Bible clearly shows.

"Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' 2 And He said, 'Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'"(Gen. 22:1-2).

God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac because their actions are pointing ahead to the person of Jesus in an example of the true sacrifice. Firstly God says to Abraham to take his "only son", But, we know that 13 years earlier Ishmael had been born to Abraham. So why would God call Isaac the only son? The Bible shows many similarities between the sacrifice of Isaac and the future sacrifice of Jesus. Both are referred to as the only begotten son.. As we know Isaac already had a brother in Ishmael.. But God refers to Isaac by this term because we know it was not Ishmael who was the son of the promised covenant.. it was Isaac. That is why God called Isaac Abraham's only son. Isaac was representing the future Messiah. Jesus was also called the only begotten son. There are many close parallels between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus. Abraham represented God the Father. Isaac represented God the Son. The sacrifice of Christ was typified in the sacrifice of Isaac. Just as God provided the ram in place of Isaac God provided Jesus.. The lamb of God in place of us. Abraham showed the ultimate obedience in offering his son born out of complete faith in God.. This reflects the same depth of obedience in Jesus. If we see this covenant fulfilled in Jesus then I'm not sure why the need to transfer it to Ishmael would ever be an issue. But of course we know nothing of the kind happened according to both the Quran and the Bible.


Ishmael is honoured in the Bible and I don't know where you get the impression that he is not. God honoured Ishmael through the promise of making him the father of many nations.. Which he was. It seems like you are trying to prove corruption of the Bible to imply Ishmael was hard done by when not even the Quran gives you reason to suppose he was!! Any manipulation here is really your own.

:) nope.. The Bible is quite clear on the age of Ismael when the sacrifice of Isaac took place. If you look at the rest of the text and the ages of all concerned in the time frame.. Then Ishmael is at least 16 years old. But thank you kindly for the well done.... But I guess you could be applying a modicum of sarcasm here.. ;)

not it does not... As for Ishmael being silent except for crying.. Well.. He had just been told to leave all he knew and was cast out along with his mother. Even 16 year olds are allowed to get upset at such a prospect .. Crying is sometimes a consequence of that. I can't imagine why it would be thought to record any dialogue he and Hagar may have had on their journey.

That's your opinion and I respect that and of course you don't expect me to agree. Jesus submitted to the Father’s will and obeyed His commands. How then you may ask could they be equal? Both are equally God, yet according to the divine order, each has a different rank or position in the hierarchy of God. Just as man and woman are equal, so are the Father and the Son. The different rank a woman has does not make her any less of a Christian... or human for that matter. Neither does the different rank of Christ make Him any less Deity. The different rank that each person holds simply means that there are different roles and responsibilities that each one fulfils. All three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) represent Deity, though each person of the Godhead is distinguishable from the other. Each person of God is distinct in the sense that each one has a different role that each one fulfils. The Word and the Spirit cannot act independently of God the father because they are ONE.

I can see that could put you at a disadvantage and explains the random claims muslims make in regards to the foretelling of Mohammed in the Torah and the Gospel. You miss the bigger picture and the chronological order in the Bible puts things into context. So we are left with no doubt. I think it's a shame you don't have the greater picture of the prophets instead of a snap shot. You miss out on a lot.

Thank you. Have a good day also. :)

Well, regarding the point of Ishmael, I see we are just keeping on repeating ourselves, so I see that keeping on discussing this issue is a waste of time. You may try to make analogy of the offered son with the sacrifice of Jesus, but that does nothing if the point that Jesus died for our sins is not applicable.
I will just answer some other points raised, well giving the analogy of Jesus and the Father as man and woman is actually not applicable to the Trinity as man and woman are two different people, no one can be a man and a woman at the same time. You are saying that the son and Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father? Is the opposite true that the Father is dependent on the Son and the Holy Spirit? And if they are one, how can they have different roles and responsibilities? Different roles are between parts, not that each of them is God but they are one God.

Yes, I agree, we are travailing over old ground on the issue of Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't see your arguments as convincing enough for me to change my opinion that the account in the Bible seems more realistic and makes better sense. On this I feel we must agree to disagree. I see it has everything to do with Jesus as the offered sacrifice but I respect you do not see this and on that point we also beg to differ. :) I have enjoyed dialogue with you though and you have put your points across well. Would you care to discuss another topic?

Hmm.. Maybe not such a good analogy.. I thought it kind of got my point across, obviously not tho. :) the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father.. They do the Fathers will at all times.. The Father is not dependant on the Son or the Holy Spirit in the way you seem to be implying, for there to be independence then they would have to be three separate distinct beings..if we take that Jesus is Gods uncreated Word, and the Holy Spirit as Gods uncreated Will.. Then they have always existed in unity.. As ONE. The Word communicates with mankind.. The Will (Holy Spirit) grants understanding. I'm sorry this does not make sense to you and I truly wish I could explain it to you better. Yet truly, I believe God is a mystery and we are not meant to fully understand God except in terms has He chooses to reveal Himself to us. I don't think I would want to condense my understanding of God to something logical I could place on a postage stamp.. I want God to be more than that.. I believe my God is.. Or my view of our God if you like.. ;)

Blessings.

If you don't mind me joining in here, Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus was subordinate to God. Let's look at the verse in context 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

From these verses and the fact that Jesus said "the father is greater than I," we Christians understand that the father was greater in position, function and office than Jesus, but they were always equal in nature, character and essence, but Jesus didn't claim His deity rights as the son of man on earth; therefore, Muslims, IMHO, fail to know who Jesus is. That is why Jesus said, "You will die in your sin unless you believe I am he...and no man comes to the father except through me" Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus is the word of God, but Muslims are unable to see that it is impossible for the word of God to be created; IOW, the Word is uncreated; therefore, the Word is eternal. As in Jn. 1 In the beginning (which is as far back as a human can imagine) was the word, who was with God and who was God. Jesus is the eternal word of God. This is the only inference that can be made. Jesus is all that God is but not all there is to God.

Muslims focus more on the trinity than Christians, because it is only too obvious they are trying to trap us Christians into explaining what can not be explained by finite beings such as ourselves. It is like me asking you explain how God is everywhere and knows all things or how could God have no beginning or how can he say be and it is ? Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am,"and I am is a form of "Be" Allah says "be" and it is. Jesus is the I am or the word God used to create all things. That is why the Scripture states all things were made by Him for Him and through Him. It is written that God exalts His word above all His name, but Muslims don't know the name of God, but Christians do know His name and do know God and we want all people to know the truth who is Jesus. Jesus said it. I am the truth he didn't say show the truth for now He said I am. I am is the name God gave to Moses I wonder if you will know Jesus today like true Biblical Christians know Him? To know Him is to have eternal life!

If you want to discuss another topic, you can raise it. :)

It's ok :) the problem I have with Trinity is not that we are not able to understand it although I don't like what some Christians do when they try to make it logical by some analogies which are actually irrelevant. We in Islam believe in attributes of God and we don't try to explain how, but we just believe in them the way God told about. The real problem in the Trinity is that it has no evidence.

Well, actually I am concerned with what Jesus said, actually Jesus never said that he is God, but actually when he was accused by the Jews that he is saying he is God, his answer was actually denying it:
“I and the Father are one”:
Well, this word in itself is not a proof that he claims divinity, for the unity can be unity in aim, for example what Jesus said concerning the disciples:
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;
Of course this verse doesn’t mean that they are one by body, but by aim and faith, it is the same also concerning John 10:30. Dr. Thomas Constable, a Christian commentator acknowledges this on his notes on John 10:30:

“Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form of the word translated “one” (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their action. This explanation also harmonized with the context since Jesus had said that He would keep His sheep safe (v. 28) and His Father would keep them safe (v. 29)……..First, Jesus’ claim to oneness does not in itself prove the Son’s unity in essence with the Father. In 17:22, Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one as He and the Father were one, namely, in their purpose and beliefs…….In short, this verse does not say that Jesus was claiming to be of the same essence as God. Here He claimed to function in union with the Father. However the context and other statements in this Gospel show that His unity with the Father extended beyond a functional unity and did involve essential metaphysical unity.”

https://www.soniclight.com/constable/.../John/John.htm

So Dr. Constable is saying here that this verse in itself doesn’t mean real unity but figurative one, but the context proves that he was claiming to be God, but actually I don’t agree with him on that, because the context disproves his deity, let’s look at what the context says:

Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), Joh 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Joh 10:38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Joh 10:39 They sought again to take him: and he went forth out of their hand.

When we look at the context, we find actually that Jesus is actually disproving the claim that he is God not proving it. The Jews misunderstood what he said, and thought that he was saying that he was God. Actually what the Jews said means that they understood from the scriptures that the Messiah is not God, so anyone who is saying that he is God is blaspheming. if they really misunderstood the scriptures, it should have been that Jesus answers their misconception by quoting a verse from the OT telling that the Messiah will be God as Isaiah (9:6 for example, see my post (Old Testament and Jesus), but the verse he quoted proves the opposite, Jesus referred to Psalms 82

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?
So simply Jesus is quoting people who were called gods when they are not actually God. Just a metaphorical godhead, Jesus says that as these judges in Psalm 82:6 are called gods metaphorically, I am called son of God metaphorically. So I am called son of God as these were called gods and sons of Most High, if the Psalm wasn’t blasphemed when they called the judges as gods, why do you consider me blaspheming when I am called son of God?
Finally coming to the last point which some may say that Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father is in him. This is not also a proof, as it only means that he has a good relationship with God since he is a prophet, and this language is very common:
Joh 14:20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
1Jo 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father.
As for the 2 verses you quoted here:
“Before Abraham was born, I am!”
This actually is not a proof that Jesus is God because he is eternal, because this language was present in the Bible, it only means that he was in God’s foreknowledge, the same as what said concerning Jeremiah and Paul:
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
The context also proves this when he said before:
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Joh 8:57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.
Jesus (Peace be upon him) meant here is that Abraham (Peace be upon him) rejoiced when he knew that Jesus (Peace be upon him) will be from his descendants, and this is clear through the word “my day”, he didn’t say:”when he saw me”, this clearly means that he meant that Abraham knew that he will be raised one day, so he was rejoiced for that day.
The word “I AM” doesn’t claim divinity, anyone can say I am. The word “ego eimi” if it really meant Jehovah, it wouldn’t have been translated but it have been written Jehovah, especially when we see that the same word “ego eimi” was said by others:
Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.” (John 9:9)
Is the beggar God? Of course not, but it actually means “I am the Messiah”, and this is very clear with what he said to the Samaritan woman:
Joh 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Joh 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
Which was said in other translation:
(MKJV) Jesus said to her, I AM, the One speaking to you.
This is a very clear proof that he didn’t mean to Jehovah by this word, and the context can show that as above.

John 1:1-3:
First of all, these are the words of Gospel John’s writer. Actually there is a doubt in theidentity of the writer of Gospel John being John the apostle or an anonymous writer. What is more important is that this verse is mistranslated. The first “God” in “the word was with God” in this verse is “hotheos” in Greek origin which means God (with capital G) and with ho a definite article, while the second which is in “the word was god” is “theos” with no definite article which is supposed to be translated into god (with small g). Of course there is a big difference between both words , since the word “God” means Jehovah of the Old Testament, while the word god, means a god for pagans which is not meant in this verse, or god which means master as told about Moses (Peace be upon him):
Exodus 7:1″ And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh. And Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.”
Or Psalms 82:6 “:
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ (Psalms 82:6)”.
As for John 1:3
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
These things doesn’t necessarily mean creation, but it is his religion, and saving the people by faith in God and in Jesus as a prophet, since many scripts prove that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is not God.
https://jesus-is-muslim.net/did-jesus-really-say-i-am-god/

OK.. How about covenants? I don't see covenants mentioned in your article... Also I confess I'm not sure what covenant God made with Mohammed for the muslims. I would be interested in your view on this. What do you think? Or would you prefer I pick something from your article?

:) you don't have to understand it, and as a Muslim it doesn't impact on your person any. Truly.. It could well be a concept beyond our understanding and sometimes words we use in an effort to explain fall short. However, it is a concept found in the Bible and I find it makes more sense that a unitary being for various reasons. Maybe man will always seek to try to understand and explain God in terms we are comfortable with. Yet.. Are we right to do this? If God, as we believe, is far greater than His creation, how on earth can we expect the creation could fully know the creator. I am content to understand what God has revealed to me about His being.. From the Bible but mainly through Jesus. In the absence of any clear proof to the contrary I see Christianity and accepting Jesus as my saviour is truth.

Peace to you. :)

Well, you can consider the covenant made with Muslims as the five pillars:
https://jesus-is-muslim.net/pillars-of-islam/
Also regarding the praying which is the second pillar, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) said:
"The pact between us and them is prayer. Whoever abandons it is a disbeliever." (Related by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, anNasa'i and Ibn Majah.)
Well, actually the case is that the Bible itself mentioned nothing regarding the Trinity or that Jesus is God, actually Jesus said that only the Father is God:Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. Actually if he said “God” instead of Father in verse 1 (the bolded word), this wouldn’t have been a proof that the Father is the only Gpd, because God could have meant the whole Trinity. By using the word Father, Jesus clearly states the Father only is the only God, thus excluding the son and the holy spirit.
And consider Jesus word “this is the eternal life”.Jesus didn’t say that the eternal life is that he is God who came in flesh or that he is the second person in the Trinity, or that he is the Savior who came to be crucified for the sin of Adam, it is simply that the Father is the only God, and that Jesus was sent by God.

By your rather dismissive tone am I to assume that Covenants are a no go then? Shame.. I would have been interested in knowing what actually constitutes a covenant between Allah and Mohammed on behalf of muslims. I'm not sure I see the five pillars of Islam fits the bill as a covenant. What are the conditions.. Is it unconditional or conditional?

Im really not sure what to make of this.. It's like anything I have said about Christianity and my efforts to explain things have been completely ignored. The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.. I don't think you would find a Christian that would say it was. Neither does Jesus ever say the words "I am God, worship me". Although He never said he was just a prophet either.. However... The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. I could ask you is the word Tawheed found in the Quran? Yet the concept of oneness is. On the point of deity in regards to Jesus.. There are other means rather than direct speech to say something. That is by actions and examples.. If you didn't know I was a woman.. And I said I was to about to give birth to a child you would immediately realise that I was in fact a woman.. Maybe poor analogy.. But you get the idea ;) poor analogies being my thing it seems..

Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you

But Jesus used the term Father .. Not God. Jesus asking the Father to Glorify Him and in doing so the Son reflects the Glory back to the Father. This implies community and close relationship. Why would Jesus assume he was worthy of being glorified by God if He did not share in a greater relationship than others had. No Prophets before had ever asked God to glorify them in a way that implies a shared mutual glory.

Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

Here Jesus claims God has given Him authority over mankind.. To sit in judgement? To grant eternal life to those who have accepted Him.

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

When those who have accepted Jesus for who He claims to be, when granted eternal life will come to know God and Jesus as being one in essence. This is Gods will.

So really, as Jesus by these words is claiming to know God the Father unlike any other has ever known God. Why would you be expecting Him to be mentioning the trinity, or indeed being the sent Saviour, or even bring Adam and his fall from grace into the equation in this verse I don't quite understand. We know that God the Father is the only true God.. You are saying this as if you think we see Jesus as a god and the Holy Spirit as a god!!!!

Peace to you, may God grant you understanding.

I believe Satan makes pacts, but God makes covenants. People make pacts with the devil, but they can never make a pact with God. A pact is like an alliance, covenant, or treaty. God makes the covenants with us and not us with Him, and prayer is not a pact; it is communication. It is not only us speaking our peace to god but God speaking to us. Jesus warns us not to use repetitious prayers where people think they will be heard for their many words. Those types of prayers bounce off the ceiling!

What do you mean by a no go? I am not even sure what is your aim of that point of covenants.

Well, I didn't ask for specific words, I am actually asking for the concept. The case is that the concept is absent from what Jesus said.

Well, I am not sure how you got the impression that Jesus knew the Father in a different way than anyone else have known Him, yes he came to teach people about God in the present and in generations afterwards, but not in a different way from past prophets I am not sure where you got that impression from these verses. The case here is that Jesus is negating here that he or the Holy Spirit to be God either as separate gods or as persons of Trinity when he says that the Father is the only true God, he didn't say: "That they know you, me and the Holy Spirit as three persons one God or the only true God", but the Father only. This is clearly against Trinity since the Father is different from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I mean by the tone of your reply it seems to me that it is not a topic you wish to pursue. I thought it could be an interesting comparison. As I'm not clear on what if any covenant God made with the Mohammed for the Muslims. Covenants are viewed as quite important in the Bible and it shows God made many throughout its history.. Some conditional some not. I just assumed that Muslims were just adopted into the Abrahamic Covenant.. The circumcision requirement gave me that idea, but however although you follow circumcision you do not do so according to the Covenant. So then I thought, maybe you have some other covenant applicable to Muslims. No matter, we can discuss something from your article if you like. Do you mind if I chose? :)

To arrive at the concept of the Trinity involved much study of the Scriptures as a whole.. Not random verses here and there. I mean the word "monotheism" is not in the Bible, yet the Bible teaches it. Therefore, your criticism on this point is invalid.

Matthew 28:18

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

John 15:26

“When the Advocate (comforter) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.


This is the impression one gets from the teachings of Jesus in the Bible. You keep saying about what Jesus didn't say in verses but fail to truly understand what He did say. You seem bent on rewriting verses and having Jesus say something else entirely.. Something that maybe conforms to what little you understand of Jesus from what you have in the Quran.. With Issa. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not gods and please stop implying they are.

Peace.

Well, this depends upon your definition to a covenant, for me I see that a covenant is what anyone should do to be a Muslim.

Actually there are some comments on this verse:
The verse doesn’t say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, all what it said is to baptize people in the name of the 3 of them, saying name not names doesn’t mean that the 3 are one. When a leader tells his soldiers: “fight your enemies in the name of the country the people and the king” doesn’t mean that the 3 are one, this is the same case for 1 Peter 1:1-2.
Otherwise, if we used the same way, we can have another Trinity from the Bible:
1Ti 5:21 I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.
It is the first time for me to hear that the elect angels became the third person in the Trinity.
The apostles didn’t respond to what Jesus ordered them in this verse, since the baptismal formula was never told that way by the apostles, but they were always baptizing people in the name of Jesus, and they were baptizing the Jews only not the gentiles, only Paul and Baranabas (who were not present when Jesus said the above) baptized the gentiles.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html

John 15:26

“When the Advocate (comforter) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

I don't see where this verse is talking about Trinity.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not gods and please stop implying they are.

Well, I never implied that you say they are gods in a polytheistic means. I am not sure where you get this impression, if Jesus didn't mean that neither he nor the Holy Spirit are persons in the Trinity, i.e. each of them is God, he won't have addressed the Father by "the only true God". That's my point.

This leads me to think there is no covenant given to muslims from God through Mohammed in the Quran. A covenant has to have conditions. Simply doing things that one believes one should do to be a Muslim is a bit wooly, don't you think? You haven't answered yet.. Is this a topic you would like to explore further or not?

Actually there are some comments on this verse:

Again, you are concentrating on what was not said rather than seeing what was actually said, and what was meant by the words actually said!! Why would Jesus tell the apostles to go and baptise in His name.. Along side the name of God and the Name of the Holy Spirit? If Jesus saw Himself as simply a prophet or messenger would He have the audacity to make such a bold claim to adjoin Himself with God and the Holy Spirit? The alternative... Is that Jesus is who He claimed to be.. Which makes perfect sense. Your link.. Interesting.. But only as interesting as a mans personal opinion and interpretation can be. Others of course may hold a different view. Who is to say which is right? We can deliberate till the cows come home.. However, at the end of the day we are all judged the same.

It infers a relationship between God, the Holy Spirt and Jesus. The Father will send the Spirit in the Sons name.

John 15:26


“When the Advocate (comforter) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

Jesus will send the Holy Spirit from the Father... The Spirit goes out from the Father.. That implies a closeness of community between them.. The Holy Spirit will testify about Jesus.. Seems like three acting in unity to me.

I thank you for that at least.. Because it gets very tiresome as a Christian to be referred to as a polytheist.. What makes you the expert on what Jesus meant? I'm afraid I don't get your point.. Why would you think that Jesus would not see God as the One..only ..true God? Why do you assume that if Jesus and the Spirit exist in community with the Father that somehow negates Gods unity.. God exists with His Word and His will. We also have words and will to communicate through speech and actions, do you see this is something God does not have? If God has these attributes.. Why do you assume that they would have to conform to our human concept? God being far greater than all His creation.

Peace.

Well, Islamic pillars have many conditions and times as well. I see no much difference and still cannot see what you are trying to prove.

Well, the point is that what wasn't said is much more important, I don't see that these verses imply the Trinity in the way you believe in, it just mentions the son and the Holy Spirit, neither does it say they are God nor that they are one with the Father.

No not necessary a unity, they are just three different entities interacting with each other.
Well, I didn't say that these verses negate God's unity all what it says is there is no Trinity and only the Father is God.