Is it permissible to use verses from the corrupted Gospel to prove the falsity of the divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him), original sin, the naming of Jesus as the Son of God, and the prophecy of a prophet to come after him, without discussing the authenticity of these verses? And is it permissible to use the methodology of showing that Jesus is not unique in possessing some of the titles mentioned in the Gospel, such as "Son of God" or "Lord," to prove that these titles are metaphorical and not exclusive to him?

Calling to Allah is the path of prophets and messengers, and whoever Allah makes a cause for guiding people has attained a great triumph.

The methodology you followed in your book is correct, and there is no need to mention the distortion of the Gospels or the invalidity of much of what is in them. The method of imposition (or compelling argument) is one of the strongest methods in disputation, as if you are saying: "Assuming the authenticity of your book, it indicates the humanity of Jesus, peace be upon him, negates divinity and godhood from him, and prophesies a messenger who will come after him. And what you cling to to prove his divinity or sonship does not indicate that; these are metaphorical expressions used by your book for others besides Jesus."

And what could be more explicit than the Gospel reporting that Jesus has a God and an object of worship like all other people: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

It must be noted that this methodology is directed at those who believe in the Bible, and it is necessary to refute the compulsion with a phrase that does not align with the correct meaning.

The title "Son of God" has been applied in their book to others besides Christ in many places, as in Luke (3:38) "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God," and Exodus (4:22) "Israel is my firstborn son," and Luke (20:36) "for they are children of God," and Matthew (5:9) "for they will be called children of God."