Aaron Page

How misused: Though not explicitly stated as misquoted, the rejection of 'God the Son' implies a misinterpretation of passages affirming Christ's divinity, such as 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' This speaker would likely interpret 'the Word was God' not as ontological equality but as representing God's message or authority, thereby stripping Jesus of co-essential divinity.

Scripture's answer: John 1:1, particularly 'the Word was God' (Greek: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, theos ēn ho logos), unequivocally affirms the divine nature of the Logos (Jesus). The grammatical construction 'θεὸς' without the definite article before the verb, followed by 'ὁ λόγος' with the definite article, indicates a qualitative description of the Word as God, not merely a god or divine-like. The Fathers understood this as affirming the co-eternal and co-equal divinity of the Son with the Father, essential for understanding the Trinity.

How misused: The claim that Jesus is a 'created being' directly contradicts passages like Colossians 1:15-17, which states Jesus is 'the firstborn of all creation' and 'all things were created through him and for him.' This speaker likely interprets 'firstborn' chronologically or as the 'first creation,' rather than a term of preeminence and an indicator of His creative role.

Scripture's answer: Colossians 1:15-17 describes Jesus as the 'firstborn over all creation' (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως). 'Firstborn' (πρωτότοκος) in a Jewish context often denotes preeminence, rank, or inheritance, not necessarily birth order (e.g., Psalm 89:27 regarding David). The subsequent verses clarify that 'all things were created through him and for him' and 'in him all things hold together,' affirming His active role as Creator and Sustainer, which precludes Him from being a created being Himself. He is the agent of creation, not a part of it.

How misused: The denial of Jesus' divinity and assertion of Him as a mere 'messenger' overlooks the profound affirmations in Hebrews 1, which declares Jesus as 'the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being' and the one who 'upholds the universe by the word of His power,' clearly assigning divine attributes to Him.

Scripture's answer: Hebrews 1:1-3 elevates Jesus far beyond a mere messenger. He is identified as the Son through whom God speaks, 'the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being' (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). These strong phrases emphasize His inherent deity and consubstantiality with the Father. To reduce Him to a 'created being or messenger' is to diminish His divine essence and redemptive role.

How misused: Rejecting 'God the Son' means dismissing prophecies that explicitly name the Messiah with divine titles, such as 'Mighty God' (El Gibbor) and 'Everlasting Father' in Isaiah 9:6, which point to the Messiah's divine nature.

Scripture's answer: Isaiah 9:6, 'For to us a child is born, to us a son is given... And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,' provides clear Old Testament prophetic witness to the Messiah's divine identity. The title 'Mighty God' (אֵל גִּבּוֹר, El Gibbor) is used elsewhere for Yahweh Himself, demonstrating that the future king would share in the divine nature, not merely be a human messenger.

How misused: The assertion that 'Jesus is not God' directly contradicts passages like Titus 2:13, which refers to 'our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,' explicitly uniting both titles to one person.

Scripture's answer: Titus 2:13, 'waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ' (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), employs a grammatical construction (Granville Sharp's Rule) where a single definite article governs two nouns in the same case, indicating that both 'great God' and 'Savior' refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is a clear New Testament affirmation of Jesus' divinity.

How misused: The claim that biblical descriptions of God's physical appearance are 'purely symbolic' and that God 'fundamentally lacks any physical form, even in heaven,' actively dismisses the literal elements of apocalyptic visions where God is depicted seated on a throne, with discernable form or attributes (e.g., like jasper and carnelian). While there's symbolism, the very act of sitting on a throne implies a locale and a physical presence.

Scripture's answer: While apocalyptic literature contains symbolism, denying any 'physical form' for God, even in heavenly contexts, oversimplifies the biblical presentation. Passages like Revelation 4:2-3 describe 'one seated on the throne' with an appearance 'like jasper and carnelian,' and Revelation 20:11 mentions a 'great white throne and him who was seated on it.' While not claiming a human body in the earthly sense, these descriptions suggest a real, discernible, and localized presence in a way that goes beyond 'pure symbolism' to exclude any form. The Bible often uses anthropomorphic language to convey God's reality in a way humans can grasp, but these are more than just metaphors for an utterly formless being in all senses.

How misused: The rejection of 'God the Son' and a purely formless God undermines the 'plurality-in-unity' suggested by 'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,' which has traditionally been understood as an early hint of the Trinity, or at least a divine council including pre-incarnate Christ.

Scripture's answer: Genesis 1:26, 'Then God said, 'Let Us make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness,'' uses plural pronouns within a singular context, providing early scriptural evidence for the complex nature of God. While not a full Trinitarian explanation, it suggests a plurality of persons within the Godhead, consistent with the later revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To deny 'God the Son' is to miss a crucial part of this divine interaction in creation.

How misused: The speaker's Unitarian anti-Trinitarian stance would necessarily misinterpret Psalm 110:1, 'The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand...',' denying the distinct yet divine nature of the two 'Lords' mentioned, one being the Father and the other the Son, frequently applied to Christ in the New Testament.

Scripture's answer: Psalm 110:1 'The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'' (יְהוָה נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי, Yahweh is the utterance of my Adonai) clearly distinguishes between two divine figures: Yahweh and 'my Lord' (Adonai), a title used for God. The New Testament frequently applies this verse to Jesus (e.g., Matthew 22:44, Acts 2:34-35, Hebrews 1:13), establishing His divine authority and position at the Father's right hand, a key text for Christology and the distinct persons of the Trinity.