sFDawah

How misused: Interpreted the 'Word' (Logos) as an impersonal attribute or created entity of God, analogous to a human's spoken word, rather than a distinct divine Person co-eternal with the Father. This is done to deny the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus.

Scripture's answer: John 1:1, coupled with 1:14 ('the Word became flesh and dwelt among us'), reveals the eternal, divine nature of the Logos, who is God and was with God, distinct yet one with the Father. The Greek 'Logos' (Λόγος) carries philosophical weight beyond a mere 'spoken word,' signifying divine reason, wisdom, and creative power, personified as Jesus Christ. Its grammatical construction ('kai theos ēn ho logos' - 'and God was the Word') emphasizes the Word's divine nature without equating the Word to the Father directly, refuting a simplistic unitarian interpretation.

How misused: Cited as definitive proof that 'the Father is the only true God,' thereby excluding Jesus and the Holy Spirit from divinity and negating the Trinity. This selectively isolates the verse from the broader context of John's Gospel, where Jesus explicitly claims divine prerogatives, equality with the Father, and receives worship.

Scripture's answer: In John 17:3, Jesus prays to the Father as 'the only true God' in the context of eternal life being to 'know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.' This highlights the Father's unique position as the ultimate source of divinity within the Godhead, but does not exclude the Son or Spirit from sharing that divine essence. Throughout John, Jesus claims 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30), asserts pre-existence ('before Abraham was, I am,' John 8:58), receives divine worship (John 9:38), and is called 'my Lord and my God' by Thomas (John 20:28). The verse affirms the Father's uniqueness as the ultimate font of divinity but does not deny the Son's co-equality and co-eternality within the singular divine being. The Greek 'monon alethinon Theon' (μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν) emphasizes the singular nature of God, not necessarily a singular Person to the exclusion of others sharing that nature.

How misused: Used to argue Jesus' ignorance of the timing of the end times as proof he cannot be God, asserting that God must be omniscient in all aspects, including his incarnate state.

Scripture's answer: These verses, 'Concerning that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,' are understood within the Christological doctrine of the Incarnation. As God, Jesus is omniscient. As fully human, he voluntarily submitted to certain human limitations while on earth, without ceasing to be God. This is an example of kenosis (Philippians 2:7), where Jesus 'emptied himself' not of deity, but of the independent exercise of his divine attributes. He could choose not to access or reveal certain divine knowledge in his human state for redemptive purposes, affirming his full humanity while not denying his full deity.

How misused: Claimed that 'Mighty God' and 'Everlasting Father' are merely titles of honor for a prophet, not indicators of divinity, or that the verse does not refer to Jesus at all.

Scripture's answer: Isaiah 9:6 prophesies the coming of a child who will be called 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.' The Hebrew 'El Gibbor' (אֵל גִּבּוֹר) for 'Mighty God' is a divine title unequivocally used for Yahweh elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Isaiah 10:21, Deuteronomy 10:17). Similarly, 'Avi-'ad' (אֲבִי-עַד) 'Everlasting Father' denotes eternality and source, attributes of God alone. This prophecy strongly points to the divine nature of the Messiah, fulfilled in Jesus, and cannot be reduced to mere honorific titles for a non-divine prophet without undermining the plain meaning of the Hebrew.

How misused: Cited to emphasize God's singular oneness and unique saving power, using them to explicitly deny Jesus' divinity and role as savior, claiming the Old Testament allows no other savior besides Allah/God.

Scripture's answer: Deuteronomy 32:39 states, 'See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is no one who can deliver from my hand.' Isaiah 43:1 says, 'I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.' These verses indeed affirm Yahweh's unique sovereignty and saving power. However, Christian theology understands Jesus as the incarnate Yahweh, the one God acting as Savior. The New Testament consistently presents Jesus as the divine Savior (Titus 2:13, Acts 4:12), not a separate deity, but the manifestation of the one God. This is not a contradiction but a revelation of the nature of the one God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

How misused: Claimed that Matthew misquotes Hosea 11:1, making the Bible unreliable. The argument implies Matthew applies the prophecy out of context, undermining its divine inspiration.

Scripture's answer: Matthew 2:15 quotes Hosea 11:1, 'Out of Egypt I called my son,' referring to Israel, and applies it to Jesus' return from Egypt. This is an example of biblical typology, where an earlier event or person in salvation history (Israel's exodus) prefigures a later, greater fulfillment (Jesus' return). Matthew is not misquoting or fabricating but interpreting Hosea's original context (God calling Israel, His 'son') as a foreshadowing of Jesus, the ultimate Son, demonstrating a deeper, divinely intended pattern. This is a common hermeneutical method in ancient Jewish and early Christian interpretation, seeing multiple layers of fulfillment.

How misused: Asserted that the 'three men' who visited Abraham were three angels, not a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ and two angels. This is used to deny any possibility of a divine manifestation or a multi-personal God in the Old Testament.

Scripture's answer: Genesis 18 describes 'the LORD' appearing to Abraham, accompanied by two other men. One of the men is consistently identified as 'the LORD' (Yahweh) (e.g., Gen 18:1, 18:13, 18:17, 18:20, 18:22, 18:26, 18:33). The other two men later proceed to Sodom and are identified as angels (Genesis 19:1). Christian theology traditionally interprets the appearance of 'the LORD' as a theophany or Christophany – a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son of God. Denying this interpretation for a strict unitarian view requires ignoring the explicit identification of one figure as Yahweh himself and the distinct interaction Abraham has with Him compared to the other two figures.

How misused: Claimed that the Great Commission, specifically the Trinitarian formula ('baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'), is a later corruption or addition to the original text, as disciples are not shown baptizing in this exact triune name in Acts.

Scripture's answer: While Acts often records baptisms 'in the name of Jesus' (e.g., Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5), this is understood as baptism into the authority and identity of Jesus, not as a contradiction to Matthew's Trinitarian formula. The early church clearly understood baptism as a Trinitarian act (Didache 7:1, Tertullian, On Baptism 13). Textual criticism has found no significant manuscript evidence to support the claim that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is a later interpolation. The command 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' affirms the singular 'name' (singular noun) of the triune God, rather than three separate names, demonstrating divine unity within Trinitarian distinctness.