or an eternal, uncreated offspring; rather, what they mean is His intimate friend, a being of nāsūt (human nature) not lāhūt (divine nature), like Jacob and the disciples. Nor do they intend by “the Holy Spirit” God’s very life, or that it is a living Lord; instead, they mean the angel, or that guidance, support, and similar gifts that God sends down into the hearts of His prophets and chosen servants. Thus the Holy Spirit, according to both you and the Muslims, is found with prophets and others, just as it was with David and with the disciples.

Accordingly, if it were conceded that the term “the Son” occurs in the Messiah’s words—used at one time for the Word of God and at another for His human ally—and that “the Holy Spirit” is used at one time for His life and at another for what He places in the hearts of His prophets, then your categorical claim that here he meant the divine attributes would itself be categorically false. Whatever was said about the Messiah—that he is the Son of God and that the Holy Spirit is in him—was likewise said about other prophets and righteous people. Therefore, if “the Son” and “the Holy Spirit” are two attributes of God, it would follow that others besides the Messiah must also be both lāhūt and nāsūt as he is, for whatever dwelt in the Messiah has dwelt in them as well.

Moreover, your dogmatic assertion that these attributes are hypostases, and that God has no intrinsic or essential attributes beyond these three, is itself followed by disagreement among you concerning the three: are the hypostases existence, knowledge, and life; or wisdom and speech; or articulation?