Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[Sy123]

It is actually only two propositions:
1. The Father, Son, Spirit are the 3 distinct persons* of one God.
2. Each person is fully God and can co-exist but in unity.

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God."

Either the first or second statement will be hard to comprehend. I think I've posted enough links.
If you are not convinced, then fair enough...

Sure that's the orthodox creed, but the propositions that I've layed out for you are extractions from the creed. Do you deny the first second or third proposition?

 

[Drsoccerball]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCqpputvtw8

 

[dan964]

Sure that's the orthodox creed, but the propositions that I've layed out for you are extractions from the creed. Do you deny the first second or third proposition?

none of the three. I felt it necessary to expand on what that looks like. No further dialogue is necessary. It is quite clear that we would disagree, and arguing further is unnecessary at this stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCqpputvtw8

I watched the first couple of minutes just for curiousity sake. I can understand that Muslims disagree with the Christian God, that is expected. I think it sufficiently represents the Islamic position, which I happen to disagree with.

The word 'person' should actually be replaced with the word 'hypostatis' or "subsistence", the first of which is derived from Greek and the second from Latin. The word 'person' is used not to refer to a physical human being as we would understand the conventional meaning of person, but rather subsistence meaning something that has a real existence and persons is used to describe the relational, individuality (I call it the distinctness) and self-awareness.

We could go on for ends. I'd rather not. I have one more reply.

edit: I'd like to point out that this video has not shown much except your view of the Trinity, and it is understandable. You'd probably find that none of the arguments are new. John 14:28 also has the context of the sending of the Holy Spirit. It is interesting to consider what exactly the Holy Spirit is, Unitarians who reject the Trinity hold that the Holy Spirit is the Father, and usually make Jesus to be lesser but not God.

continued in next reply...

 

[dan964]

I understand that this issue will be hard to resolve. A degree of personal conviction about truth maybe needed as well as evidence.

on the actual thread topic: whether God exists or not has been argued continually on/off, it will not be resolved any time soon in a BOS thread. I am convinced of what the Bible says, as Muslims are convinced of what the Quran says, while atheists are not convinced by any of it and instead convinced of the arguments for atheism.

---
side topic:the testimony of the Old Testament/Jewish Scriptures is that the Messiah which Christians believe is Jesus, is that the Messianic figure is actually
would also be God… other verses show that He cannot [just] simply be a man.

And this is just the Old Testament, there are several cases in the New Testament that clearly refer to the divinity of Jesus.
There are several other passages not mentioned, in Isaiah, Daniel and the minor prophets that speak of a Messianic figure.
In particular Colossians 1:16-23 is loaded particularly v.17. The book of John noteably the chapters 1 and 8
[And the reasons why the Jews wanted to kill him was because he claimed to be God], Hebrews 1:1-3 is also quite clear (particular in the context of Hebrews 1-2), Romans 9:5*
*depending on how it is interpreted see: http://forananswer.org/Romans/Rom9_5.htm


I understand [somewhat why] the idea that God becoming man is absurd [in the mind of Muslims]
(Technically Christians hold only the Son or what John calls the Word become flesh. John then goes onto explain why this was necessary in the well known John 3:16, other writings clarify the need for the Son to come as a man)

Please note: the following text is not my own words, so if you disagree with something here
---
<1>
Isaiah 9:6 ‘For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;’
This child which is born is called El-Gibbor, which as I’m sure you know is 'Mighty God' and is never used of a man. Avi-Ad is literally ‘Father of Eternity’ and could never describe a mere man. Some quotes for you…
In the Targum of Isaiah we read: "His name has been called from old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us."

Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele ["Miracle"], Yo'etz ["Counselor"], Mashiah ["Messiah"], El ["God"], Gibbor ["Hero"], and Avi 'Ad Shalom ["Eternal Father of Peace"]
The great rabbi Ibn Ezra said: There are some interpreters who say that ‘wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father’ are the names of God, and that only ‘prince of peace’ is the name of the child. But according to my view, the right interpretation is that they are all the names of the child. (Walter Riggans, Yeshua Ben David [Wowborough, East Sussex; MARC, 1995], p. 370)
Clearly, if this was the only verse, it shows that this child is called God. The Rabbis called the Messiah by the name ‘God’.

<2>
Jeremiah 23:5-6 'The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.
The Messiah is given the name of God alone. YHWH. Jehovah. The Midrash on Proverbs 19:21 says ‘Rabbi Hunah said ‘Eight names are given to the Messiah which are Yinnon, Shiloh, David, Menachem, Jehovah, Justi de Nostra, Tzemmach, Elias.’
The Midrash on Lam 1:16 says ‘What is the name of the Messiah? Rav Ava ben Kahanna said ‘Jehovah is his name and this is proved by, ‘this is his name… [quoting Jer 23:6].’
So this passage and these Rabbinic quotes show that the Messiah was called Jehovah. No mere man would ever be called by God’s name.

<3>
Micah 5:2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.
The Targum Jonathan (second century A. D.) : ‘And You Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, From you shall come forth before Me The Messiah.’
In regards to the Messiah’s human origin He is said to have been born in Bethlehem, but regarding His divine origin He is said to be ‘from old, from ancient days.’ Arnold Fruchenbaum writes ‘The Hebrew for ‘from long ago, from the days of eternity’ are the strongest Hebrew words ever used for eternity past. They are used of God the Father in Psalm 90:2… Again we have a passage which shows that Messiah is to be human – being born at some specific point in time at some specific place – yet having existed since eternity past, and therefore divine.’

<4>
Psalm 2:7-12
Messiah would be the Son of God. Therefore He would be divine. And in case you think this isn’t about the Messiah, Rabbi Rashi says ‘Our Rabbis expound it as relating to King Messiah.’

<5>
Isaiah 7:14
While you don’t like it, the prophecy shows that a virgin would give birth to a child who is literally, ‘God with us’. The Hebrew word 'Almah' is used in this passage and speaks of a virgin. Arnold Fruchtenbaum writes ‘Since everyone agrees that 'almah' means an unmarried woman, if the woman in Isaiah 7:14 were a non-virgin, then God would be promising a sign involving fornication and illegitimacy. It is unthinkable that God would sanction sin, and in any case, what would be so unusual about an illegitimate baby that could possibly constitute a sign? As far as ancient Jewish writers were concerned, there are no arguments about Isaiah 7:14 predicting a virgin birth… The Jews who made this translation (Septuagint), living much closer to the times of Isaiah than we do today, translated Isaiah 7:14 using the Greek word parthenos which very clearly and exclusively means a virgin.

<6> Psalm 110
We know from 1 Kings 2:19 that anyone who sits at the king’s right hand must be equal with the King. This Psalm of David’s speaks of someone other than Jehovah who is David’s lord. This Lord is both a priest and a king and sits at Jehovah’s right hand. It is a joke to say that this is David himself as David was from not a priest, but was from the tribe of Judah. Nor does he sit at the right hand of God. It is the Messiah who is spoken about in this passage and He is equal to God.

<7>Prov 30:4
Here is a riddle for you… It consists of 6 questions. The first 4 questions are obviously about God Himself as only God could accomplish these things. The fifth question asks what the name of God is. I’m sure you can answer this one. The sixth question reveals that God has a Son! And it asks what His name is! Oh, oh! I know, I know. The Messiah is the son of God and His name is Jesus!

<8>Psalm 45:6-7
Elohim is applied to two divine personalities in the same verse! The second Elohim is called the God of the first Elohim! Only makes sense in terms of the Messiah being God, the son of God as other verses have shown!

<9>Hosea 1:7
We see the same thing where the speaker (God – Elohim) will save them by the Jehovah, their Elohim. Elohim is again spoken of as two distinct personalities. Another example is Gen 19:24.

<10>Zech 2:10-11
Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,” declares the LORD. “Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.’ The LORD is going to dwell amongst us and it is the LORD Almighty that sent Him! Can it get any clearer? This shows the YHWH sent YHWH and only makes sense when you know that the Messiah Jesus is God! He is the one who lived amongst us. He is ‘God with us!’
That is why in the Shema, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!’, the ‘our God’ part is plural in the Hebrew (literally ‘our Gods’ and the word for ‘one’ is echad – a compound unity, not absolute unity as in the word ‘yachid’.) Arnold writes ‘If Moses had intended to teach God’s absolute oneness as opposed to His compound oneness, this would have been a far more appropriate word (yachid) to use.’ But he didn’t! He used echad which is used in such passages as Gen 1:5 where evening and morning are called one (echad’) day. Gen 2:24 where when man and woman come together in marriage and are called ‘one flesh’. Ezra 2:64 where the whole assembly was one, though ofcourse it comprised of many people. Or Ezek 37:17 where the two sticks are combined to become one. These are all uses of echad and show that it is a compound unity.
Even in the Old Testament there are three distinct personalities that are considered divine.
1. The Lord YHWH
2. The Angel of YHWH
3. The Spirit of God.
The Angel of the Lord is clearly seen to be divine in passages such as Gen 16:7-14, Gen 22:9-16, Gen 31:11-13, 32:24-30, Ex 3:1-5, Judges 6:11-24 amongst others. These passages show that ‘The Angel of the Lord’ is much more than just an angel and is a fulfillment of the Micah prophecy about the Messiah ‘whose goings forth have been from eternity.’
The Spirit of God is clearly divine in such passages as Gen 1:2, Psalm 51:11, Isaiah 11:2, Isaiah 63:10, Isaiah 63:14 amongst others. Arnold writes ‘The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because, as can be seen in these quotations, He has all the characteristics of personality – intellect, emotion and will – and is considered divine.’
Arnold points out that all three personalities are used in the same passage such as Isa 48:12-16 where God the creator of the earth is speaking and says that He has been sent by another, Jehovah, together with a third person, the Spirit of Jehovah. This is the trinity! And it is clearly seen in the Tanach. The three are seen also in Isaiah 63:7-14.

---
So that is a snapshot, I understand you may not believe the Bible is true or inspired.
Of course there are explanations other religions/groups may give for some of the above verses. Particular <10> above looks sketchy to me. But the weight of evidence within the Scriptures for Jesus being God is clear.

The question is then to consider if what Jesus said about other things to be true, and to do that we need to verify whether the New Testament account of at least Jesus death and his prediction of his death is true. Naturalistic interpretations often dismiss biblical prophecy or prophetic texts in other religious texts for the matter (for a more general case), as they view predictive prophecy as impossible.

 

[dan964]

and I'll leave it at that.
islam and Christianity agree to disagree on God and Jesus.

as does atheism and theistic religion disagree on whether God exists
and Hinduism and monotheistic (and Abrahamic) religions disagree of the number of Gods.

So in answer to the question "Does God exist?" differs for religious/theistic and atheistic worldviews (and of course agnosticism). To the answer can we prove God's existence using science/logic, to a limited degree. Can we disprove God's existence using science/logic, not really*

*except for the atheists on this forum who would think otherwise.

 

[Sy123]

Trinitarians hold the following set of propositions:

1. The Father is God
2. Jesus is God
3. The Father is not Jesus

Where 'is' is used in the sense of identity, i.e. The Father is identical with God

But of course, the 3 propositions that I've layed out are self-evidently inconsistent.

none of the three. I felt it necessary to expand on what that looks like. No further dialogue is necessary. It is quite clear that we would disagree, and arguing further is unnecessary at this stage.

I don't think so at all, the first proposition is a direct read off of your posts and are propositions you must hold in any case, you must hold that the Son is God, you must hold that the Father is God, and you must hold that they are distinct Being. For example the Son was supposedly crucified at the cross, yet the Father was not, the Son eternally emanates with the Father, yet the Father is truly a se (this is another doctrine that is incoherent).

I can come up with a whole host of these spelled out inconsistencies (and not rhetorical jabs like "1+1+1=1" which is imprecise) that are very difficult to see any reconciliation with. For example:

1. Jesus and God differ
2. Jesus is God
3. Two identical things (X is Y) necessarily implies that (if X has property P => Y has property P). Essentially, "identical things don't differ"

These 3 statements are of course logically inconsistent, if 1 is true and 2 is true, given 2 it means Jesus and God cannot differ, contrary to 1.

So how should we approach this conundrum? We obviously have to relinquish the premise that is least founded by the evidence. 1 is obvious with Biblical evidence, 2 is only due to tenuous interpretations of some of the statements of Jesus, 3 is indispensable as a principle of reason.

My question is, we agree that the existence of an Omnipotent and Necessary Being, God, Exalted is He, exists and that this is given support by reason. With other things we can deduce about God, we can rule out the truth of every other religion bar Christianity and Islam (at least on a pragmatic level). If reason led me this far, and reason seems to tell me that Christianity is false, why should I not then believe in Islam? (of course I'm not mentioning at this moment the reasons why one should believe in the Prophethood of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad, since I'm just asking what pure reason leads us to believe right now)

 

[dan964]

I don't think so at all, the first proposition is a direct read off of your posts and are propositions you must hold in any case, you must hold that the Son is God, you must hold that the Father is God, and you must hold that they are distinct Being. For example the Son was supposedly crucified at the cross, yet the Father was not, the Son eternally emanates with the Father, yet the Father is truly a se (this is another doctrine that is incoherent).

I can come up with a whole host of these spelled out inconsistencies (and not rhetorical jabs like "1+1+1=1" which is imprecise) that are very difficult to see any reconciliation with. For example:

1. Jesus and God differ*
2. Jesus is God
3. Two identical things (X is Y) necessarily implies that (if X has property P => Y has property P). Essentially, "identical things don't differ"

*I am assuming you are referring to 'nature', that said the term God when used by Christians in reference to the Trinity can be very general

These 3 statements are of course logically inconsistent, if 1 is true and 2 is true, given 2 it means Jesus and God cannot differ, contrary to 1.

So how should we approach this conundrum? We obviously have to relinquish the premise that is least founded by the evidence. 1 is obvious with Biblical evidence, 2 is only due to tenuous interpretations of some of the statements of Jesus, 3 is indispensable as a principle of reason.

My question is, we agree that the existence of an Omnipotent and Necessary Being, God, Exalted is He, exists and that this is given support by reason. With other things we can deduce about God, we can rule out the truth of every other religion bar Christianity and Islam (at least on a pragmatic level). If reason led me this far, and reason seems to tell me that Christianity is false, why should I not then believe in Islam? (of course I'm not mentioning at this moment the reasons why one should believe in the Prophethood of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad, since I'm just asking what pure reason leads us to believe right now)

"Jesus and God differ"
Actually a fair majority of Christians (most Protestants, Catholics & Eastern Orthodox) hold that statement 1 to be false. Christians would hold that the first statement should be
"the Son is not the Father" >> And that amendment would be true for Christians.

I agree with all of the following statements as you posted earlier, just not all your second lot of statements which are not the same.
1. The Father is God (fully)
2. Jesus (the Son) is God (fully)
3. The Father is not the Son.

definition as mentioned: The Father and Son (and Spirit) are 3 persons*, of the same essence and are one God. Yet each is not one-third God, each is fully God.

*Greek: hypostasis, Latin: subsistences

"So how should we approach this conundrum? We obviously have to relinquish the premise that is least founded by the evidence. 1 is obvious with Biblical evidence, 2 is only due to tenuous interpretations of some of the statements of Jesus, 3 is indispensable as a principle of reason. "

1 is actually not from Biblical evidence refer to my longer post above from a Christian perspective. I have already stated a lot on why the 3 points in your original post which were:
> the Father is God
> the Son (Jesus) is God
> the Father is not the Son

THAT SAID: I understand that although Islamic interpretation of the Bible through the lenses of the Quran could possibly end up with the statement. I would disagree that Biblical evidence says that Jesus is not God, the weight of the evidence particularly the New Testament (that said I posted a couple of replies back, some from the Old Testament) is actually in favour of the second statement you put forward.

As stated, for Christians, statement 2 not 1 is based on Biblical evidence, particularly in the Gospel of John in particularly here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:12-70&version=NASB
and here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:1-14&version=NASB
and here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1:13-23&version=NKJV
and here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9:5&version=NKJV
and here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20:30-31&version=NKJV
and in the Apostle Paul's writings, but also in the long list above, particularly in the Prophets, particularly if anyone hold Jesus to be the Messiah, as Christians do.

Conclusion: Thus statement 3 is not accepted on the premise that statement 1 is hold to be false by Christians. Therefore I do not come to the same conclusion as you, and reject statement 3.

Statement 1 "Jesus and God differ" is incoherent at best, and false at worst.

Sidenote: Yes it is a hard concept, and like most things approaching it purely from reason/intellect won't necessary mean to end up the same outcome.

End section

----
My question is, we agree that the existence of an Omnipotent and Necessary Being, God, Exalted is He, exists and that this is given support by reason. With other things we can deduce about God, we can rule out the truth of every other religion bar Christianity and Islam (at least on a pragmatic level) (you forgot about Judaism). If reason led me this far, and reason* seems to tell me that Christianity is false, why should I not then believe in Islam? (of course I'm not mentioning at this moment the reasons why one should believe in the Prophethood of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad, since I'm just asking what pure reason leads us to believe right now)

To this I will quote the Proverb: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.".

Your own reason/intellect can only get you so far. It is why this forum is neither closed nor this topic. (It is why Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. in general hold firmly to their beliefs/convictions same goes for the atheist/atheistic agnostic)

(of course I'm not mentioning at this moment the reasons why one should believe in the Prophethood of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad, since I'm just asking what pure reason leads us to believe right now)

This may be a better reason for you and for the other Muslims on this thread. as for me, I have no reason to become a Muslim.

 

[dan964]

to clarify what I mean,
your first statement "Jesus is differ from God" is highly incoherent (i.e. lacking normal clarity).
[while "Jesus is different from the Father" is clear and mostly correct (except that they of the same substance etc. etc.)]

 

[dan964]

Hmm.. Well that's a tough question. Never thought about dying young...

I will probably become religious and practicing when I finish Uni, find a nice girl and get married. For now I am a young guy and so I want to have fun and party all the way till then! Being religious prevents you from doing all of that!

strawman/big generalisation just saying. some degree of truth

 

[dan964]

Yes you're quite right, one major difference is the status of Jesus. However there are some other differences, e.g. the characteristics of God/Allah (contrast Romans 5:8 "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" with Surah 2:277 "God loves not the impious and sinners")

There's one thing that I'd just like to raise to your attention: you said that in the Bible, Jesus never claimed to be God. Here's a few verses from the gospels that contradict this:

John 14:9 "Anyone who has seen me has seen the father"
John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am!" ('I AM' is the name God gives himself in Exodus 3:14)
Throughout the gospels Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (for example, Mark 2:10, Matthew 17:22, Luke 22:48, etc), which references Daniel 7: 13-14
Luke 5:20 "Friend, your sins are forgiven" - this is equivalent to Jesus claiming to be God, because in the Jewish religious milieu that Jesus was in, only God could forgive sins (Isaiah 43:25)

As far as Jesus praying, he prays to his Father, which according to Jesus, he is equal with (in John 5:17, Jesus is breaking the Sabbath, and the Jewish leaders begin to persecute him. Jesus says "My Father is always at work to this very day, and I too am working". John 5:18 then explicitly says that Jesus makes "himself equal with God"). While Jesus does claim to be equal with the Father, there can still be communication and different roles for both Jesus and the Father. This really comes down to doctrine about the trinity.

I appreciate your hesitancy in raising Jesus to a divine level, after all he was a man! However, the Jesus of the Bible certainly does claim to be divine, hence, if I believe that he truly did rise from the dead (as Jesus himself predicted several times, e.g. Matthew 20:19), then that is a strong indicator to me that he was telling the truth about his divinity.

I guess what you say struck you about Islam is what also strikes me about Christianity: the textual integrity of the Bible, and also my experience of life.

repost

 

[braintic]

Observing a christian-muslim debate is like listening to two people arguing about whether grass is purple or orange.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Observing a christian-muslim debate is like listening to two people arguing about whether grass is purple or orange.

Maybe for you...But then again people thought Einstein was wrong...

 

[dan964]

Observing a christian-muslim debate is like listening to two people arguing about whether grass is purple or orange.

I am confident from your previous posts that to comment that you are somewhat non-religious (possibly atheist/atheistic agnostic), and thus an equally valid argument would be to say whether the grass exists or not. Unfortunately God is not reducible to grass, but if in your mind he doesn't exist, it is not going to matter for you what he is like then, or his character/nature.

 

[turntaker]

I believe in Lord GabeN

 

[SylviaB]

I don't think so at all, the first proposition is a direct read off of your posts and are propositions you must hold in any case, you must hold that the Son is God, you must hold that the Father is God, and you must hold that they are distinct Being. For example the Son was supposedly crucified at the cross, yet the Father was not, the Son eternally emanates with the Father, yet the Father is truly a se (this is another doctrine that is incoherent).

I can come up with a whole host of these spelled out inconsistencies (and not rhetorical jabs like "1+1+1=1" which is imprecise) that are very difficult to see any reconciliation with. For example:

1. Jesus and God differ
2. Jesus is God
3. Two identical things (X is Y) necessarily implies that (if X has property P => Y has property P). Essentially, "identical things don't differ"

These 3 statements are of course logically inconsistent, if 1 is true and 2 is true, given 2 it means Jesus and God cannot differ, contrary to 1.

So how should we approach this conundrum? We obviously have to relinquish the premise that is least founded by the evidence. 1 is obvious with Biblical evidence, 2 is only due to tenuous interpretations of some of the statements of Jesus, 3 is indispensable as a principle of reason.

My question is, we agree that the existence of an Omnipotent and Necessary Being, God, Exalted is He, exists and that this is given support by reason. With other things we can deduce about God, we can rule out the truth of every other religion bar Christianity and Islam (at least on a pragmatic level). If reason led me this far, and reason seems to tell me that Christianity is false, why should I not then believe in Islam? (of course I'm not mentioning at this moment the reasons why one should believe in the Prophethood of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad, since I'm just asking what pure reason leads us to believe right now)

christ youre an idiot

 

[Drsoccerball]

christ youre an idiot

Everything he said made sense ? I suppose writing that reply insinuates you couldn't reply to what he said?

 

[braintic]

Maybe for you...But then again people thought Einstein was wrong...

Yes ..... until the EVIDENCE showed that he was indeed right.

Is there any chance of Muslims/Christians converting the other through tangible, repeatable evidence?
Or is the debate going to continue being about assertions based on respective dogmas?

 

[SylviaB]

Everything he said made sense ? I suppose writing that reply insinuates you couldn't reply to what he said?

dan explained the folly of what sy said

 

[Drsoccerball]

dan explained the folly of what sy said

Yes ..... until the EVIDENCE showed that he was indeed right.

Is there any chance of Muslims/Christians converting the other through tangible, repeatable evidence?
Or is the debate going to continue being about assertions based on respective dogmas?

Unlike some religions we don't accept without evidence. In fact its compulsory to learn in our religion. The Quran is an ongoing miracle due to its literary value due to scientific facts etc... We as Muslims give out a hand to the Christians but i guess we understand the scriptures differently :/ When the bible says "The father is greater than I, the father is greater than all" we interpret it as God is greater than Jesus thus Jesus cannot be God but Christians interpret it differently. When Jesus says "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me" we interpret that again as God being greater than Jesus. Just like when it says "I and my father are one" if you read the context you know it means one in purpose and not one as in the same entity. Thats my view upon the Christianity and Islam we interpret things differently...

Refer to the video he explains it better:

EDIT: Sylvia this also answers some of your claims about Islam since you're reading out of context and misunderstanding by looking at one verse by itself

 

[dan964]

for a balanced view, here is a Christian understanding of the same section:
http://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html