Islam Is True

How misused: Implicitly misconstrued by applying a unitarian interpretation of 'God' (Yahweh) to 'the Word was God,' leading to the conclusion that if the Father is 'God,' there's no room for the Son to be 'God' without tritheism. This ignores the nuanced Greek theological understanding of 'theos' (God) as both proper noun and qualitative description, especially as applied to the Word's relationship with 'ho theos' (the Father).

Scripture's answer: John 1:1 states 'kai theos ēn ho logos' (and God was the Word). The anarthrous 'theos' before the verb emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Word, meaning the Word possessed the very nature or essence of God, without identifying 'the Word' as the person of 'the Father.' This distinguishes the Son from the Father while affirming their shared divine essence, a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology, not a statement of numerical identity between persons.

How misused: Likely implied as a proof-text for Jesus's unitarian subservience rather than co-equality, or as a statement of unity in purpose rather than essence, to refute divine co-equality within the Trinity. While not explicitly mentioned in the summary, this verse is a common target when attacking the co-equality of the Son with the Father.

Scripture's answer: Jesus's declaration, 'I and the Father are one' (ego kai ho patēr hen esmen), uses the neuter 'hen' (one) to denote unity of essence or nature, not singleness of person. The verb 'esmen' (we are) is plural, indicating two distinct persons, while 'hen' signifies their shared divine being. This is precisely why the Jews picked up stones to stone Him, understanding His claim as blasphemous because He, a man, was making Himself God (John 10:33).

How misused: The statement regarding Jesus 'emptying himself' is misinterpreted to mean Jesus divested himself of divine attributes or ceased to be fully God, thereby arguing against His sustained divinity during the incarnation. This is used to support the idea that 'limitation' in human form prevents co-equality.

Scripture's answer: Philippians 2:6-7 says Jesus 'emptied himself' (ekenōsen) by taking 'the form of a servant' and 'being born in the likeness of men.' This 'kenosis' refers not to shedding divinity, but to voluntarily restraining the independent exercise of divine prerogatives and taking on human limitations, while retaining His essential divine nature. He 'set aside' the prerogatives of divine status, not the divine essence itself, to fully identify with humanity.

How misused: Interpreted in a strictly unitarian sense, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one,' as an absolute numerical oneness that inherently precludes any multiplicity of persons within the Godhead, thus directly opposing the Trinitarian concept as polytheistic.

Scripture's answer: While Deuteronomy 6:4 affirms monotheism ('Yahweh ehad'), the Hebrew word 'ehad' (one) does not exclusively mean absolute singularity but can denote a compound unity, as seen in 'one flesh' (Genesis 2:24, referring to husband and wife) or 'one cluster' (Numbers 13:23). Christianity affirms one God in three persons (compound unity), which does not contradict ‘ehad’ but qualifies its nature, maintaining strict monotheism against polytheism while allowing for internal distinctions within the single divine being.

How misused: Used to claim God is 'the first and the last; besides me there is no god,' implying exclusivist unitarian monotheism that makes any concept of the Trinity, particularly the Son's co-eternity and divinity, contradictory.

Scripture's answer: Isaiah 44:6 confirms Yahweh's unique divinity and eternality. However, the New Testament applies 'the First and the Last' also to Jesus (Revelation 1:17, 2:8, 22:13), demonstrating that the attributes ascribed to Yahweh in the Old Testament are also ascribed to Jesus, signifying His co-equality and co-eternity with the Father, not a contradiction of monotheism but an expansion of its understanding through revelation of the divine persons.

How misused: These passages are used to argue that because Jesus displayed human limitations and functions, He could not be fully God. This creates a false dichotomy between Jesus's human nature and His divine nature.

Scripture's answer: Christian theology affirms Jesus as fully God and fully man, without confusion of the natures. His human limitations (hunger, sleep, growth) are attributes of His human nature, which He fully embraced in the Incarnation. His divine nature, however, remained always omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. The two natures coexist in one person (hypostatic union), meaning that while His human nature experienced limitations, His divine nature did not, and His identity is that of the God-Man.

How misused: Attacked indirectly by claiming the Bible has been 'corrupted' through translations and revisions, thereby undermining any claim to divine inspiration or preservation. This implies a lack of God's ability to maintain His word.

Scripture's answer: 2 Peter 1:20-21 affirms that 'no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation' but 'men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.' This refers to the divine origin of Scripture. While translation involves human effort, textual criticism and scholarship overwhelmingly confirm the remarkable preservation of the Bible's core message across thousands of manuscripts, affirming its reliability despite minor textual variations. The claim of total corruption is unsubstantiated and denies God's providential care for His word.

How misused: The speaker claims the authors were 'anonymous figures,' implying they were not the named apostles or their close associates, thereby undermining the authority and eyewitness credibility of the Gospels.

Scripture's answer: While the canonical Gospels are technically anonymous in the sense that the authors do not identify themselves within the text, early Christian tradition, dating back to the second century, consistently and unanimously ascribed their authorship to Matthew (apostle), Mark (associate of Peter), Luke (associate of Paul), and John (apostle). This traditional attribution, supported by external historical evidence (e.g., Papias, Irenaeus), is widely accepted as reliable, granting them apostolic authority and eyewitness credibility through their direct or indirect connection to the apostles.