The polemicist has absolutely no idea about the concepts of divine sonship; the divine council of El; the Christian conception of God or the basics of Christology.
If we turn to the Qur'an it clearly does not understand the concept of the incarnation, divine sonship or the Trinity. The impression of the authors of the Qur'an are as follows:
- The Trinity is God the Father, Mary the divine Mother and Jesus the divine Son. Clearly, this is an errant position. The Christian Trinity is one being of God (as monotheists) with three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
- God the Father and Mary the Mother begot a divine Son, Jesus. Clearly, this is not what Christians believe. Mary is not divine nor does anyone claim that Jesus was the 'product' of a sexul act. The persons of the Trinity are eternal in Christian belief.
He then goes onto the 'begotten' has been removed from the Bible in John 3:16 argument. This argument is a copy/paste job of Deedat's as found in his Is the Bible the Word of God? The underlying Greek text is the same - the word monogenos. That is, mono (one of), genos (a kind). As rendered correctly by most modern translations - Jesus is the Only Unique (monogenos) Son. Clearly, within this verse there is no implication of a physical parental relationship of which Jesus is the divine offspring of - however, that is the argument they take.
A first year Greek student or even opening a concordance would explain this difficult to the man. In fact, simply reading the New Testament would demonstrate how baseless his claims are. However, if he were to take these proactive steps he would realise that the Qur'an was actually grossly incorrect in its representation of Christianity.
His next point on 1 Corinthians 15 - I cannot take it seriously. He is saying that people must be able - with their limited mental facultues - to understand the complete nature of GOD ALMIGHTY. The creator of the universe - the one who always was and always will be?
Furthermore, when he gets to 'destroying' the Trinity all he does are two things:
- Make it clear that he does not understand the Trinity at the most basic level;
- Attack a bad analogy provided by his opponent (whose response we never see...)