THE BIBLICAL GOD VERSUS THE MORMON GODS

I begin a series of posts where I contrast the teachings of God’s only inspired Revelation, the Holy Bible, with the beliefs of Mormonism.

THE ISSUE OF CREATION

Not only does Mormonism butcher the Holy Scriptures by misinterpreting them, it even goes as far as to rewrite God’s Word in order to make it fit with their polytheistic, idolatrous beliefs.

This is clearly seen by how Mormonism perverts the Genesis account of creation. In Genesis it is a single divine Being who creates the heavens and earth. In contrast to this, Mormonism reformulates the language of Genesis so that it now points to a multiplicity of gods coming down together to make and fashion creation according to an agreed upon plan.

MORMONISM

Paul says there are Gods many &c it makes a plurality of Gods any how— with[ou]t. a rev[elatio]n. I am not going to give the God of Heaven to them any how— you know & I testify that Paul had no allusions to it— I have it from God & get over it if you can— I have a witness of the H. G— & a test[imony] that Paul had no allusion to the Heathen G. in the text—— I will shew from the Heb. Bible & the 1st. word shews a plurality of Gods— & I want the apostate & learned men to come here— & prove to the contrary an unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew— Berosheit &c In the begin[ning]: rosheit— the head— it sho[ul]d. read the heads of— to organize the Gods— Eloi, heam Eloi. God is sing[ular] heam, renders Gods I want a little learning as well as other fools all the confusion is for want of drinking ano[the]r. draught the head God— organized the heavens & the Earth— I defy all the learning in the world to refute me—

In the begin the heads of the Gods organized the heavens & the Earth— now the learned Priest— the people rage— & the heathen imagine a vain thing— if we pursue the Heb further— it reads

The Head one of the Gods said let us make man in our image I once asked a learned Jew once— if the Heb. language compels us to render all words ending in heam in the plural— why not render the first plural— he replied it would ruin the Bible— he acknowledged I was right, I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe it— hear & judge for yourself— & if you go away satisfied— well & good— in the very beginning there is a plurality of Gods— beyond the power of refutation— it is a great subject I am dwelling— on— the word Eloiheam ought to be in the plural all the way thro— Gods— the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us— & when you take a view of the subject it sets one free to see all the beauty holiness & perfection of the God— all I want is to get the simple truth— naked & the whole truth— men say there is one God— the Far. Son & the H. G are only 1 God— it is a strange God any how 3 in 1. & 1 in 3. it is a curious thing any how— Far. I pray not for the world but I pray for those that thou givest me &c &c [p. [2]] (The Joseph Smith Papers, Discourse, 16 June 1844–A, as Reported by Thomas Bullock, Page 2; bold emphasis mine)

It read first “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods’; that is the true meaning of the words, Baurau, signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can learn you no more than what I have told you. Thus, the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council. I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh ye lawyers! ye doctors! and ye Priests! who have persecuted me; I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods, and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The Grand Counselors sat at the head in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time. (Ibid., History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844], Page 1972; bold emphasis mine)

Pearl of Great Price

Abraham

CHAPTER 3

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Bold emphasis mine)

Here we see that Mormonism teaches the preexistence of human souls/spirits, that humans existed as spirit beings before coming into the world to become flesh. One of these preexistent souls was Abraham himself

There’s more.

CHAPTER 4

The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon—Their plans for the six days of creation are set forth.

1 And then the Lord said: Let US go down. And THEY went down at the beginning, and THEY, that is THE GODS, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.

3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.

4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.

5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.

6 And the Gods also said: Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters.

7 And the Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordered.

8 And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the second time that they called night and day.

9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the earth come up dry; and it was so as they ordered;

10 And the Gods pronounced the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, pronounced they, Great Waters; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.

12 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

13 And it came to pass that they numbered the days; from the evening until the morning they called night; and it came to pass, from the morning until the evening they called day; and it was the third time.

14 And the Gods organized the lights in the expanse of the heaven, and caused them to divide the day from the night; and organized them to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years;

15 And organized them to be for lights in the expanse of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so.

16 And the Gods organized the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; with the lesser light they set the stars also;

17 And the Gods set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to cause to divide the light from the darkness.

18 And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.

19 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that it was night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that it was day; and it was the fourth time.

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

22 And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas or great waters; and cause the fowl to multiply in the earth.

23 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time.

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.

26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

28 And the Gods said: We will bless them. And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 29 And the Gods said: Behold, we will give them every herb bearing seed that shall come upon the face of all the earth, and every tree which shall have fruit upon it; yea, the fruit of the tree yielding seed to them we will give it; it shall be for their meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, behold, we will give them life, and also we will give to them every green herb for meat, and all these things shall be thus organized.

31 And the Gods said: We will do everything that we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and they numbered the sixth time.

CHAPTER 5

The Gods finish Their planning of the creation of all things—They bring to pass the Creation according to Their plans—Adam names every living creature.

1 And thus we will finish the heavens and the earth, and all the hosts of them.

2 And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will rest on the seventh time from all our work which we have counseled.

3 And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time they would rest from all their works which they (the Gods) counseled among themselves to form; and sanctified it. And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth.

4 And the Gods came down and formed these the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were formed in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens,

5 According to all that which they had said concerning every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Gods had not caused it to rain upon the earth when they counseled to do them, and had not formed a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

8 And the Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose spirit they had put into the body which they had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the Gods to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life, also, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10 There was a river running out of Eden, to water the garden, and from thence it was parted and became into four heads.

11 And the Gods took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it.

12 And the Gods commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

14 And the Gods said: Let us make an help meet for the man, for it is not good that the man should be alone, therefore we will form an help meet for him.

15 And the Gods caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and they took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof;

16 And of the rib which the Gods had taken from man, formed they a woman, and brought her unto the man.

17 And Adam said: This was bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; now she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man;

18 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

19 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

20 And out of the ground the Gods formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that should be the name thereof.

21 And Adam gave names to all cattle, to the fowl of the air, to every beast of the field; and for Adam, there was found an help meet for him.

THE HOLY BIBLE

ONE ALMIGHTY CREATOR AND SUSTAINER

Contrary to Mormon theology, God’s true Word testifies that there is a single divine Being, namely Jehovah God Almighty, and that he alone created the heavens and earth.

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads… And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Genesis 2:4-10, 15-25

“Then the Levites, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said, Stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise. Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” Nehemiah 9:5-6

“Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. Which ALONE spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. 10 Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.” Job 9:5-10

Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again? Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit.” Job 10:8-12

“Did not HE that made me in the womb make him? and did not ONE fashion us in the womb?” Job 31:15

“Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:1-7

Note that the sons of God, i.e., angels, were nothing more than passive observers who beheld Jehovah lay the foundation of the earth all by himself.

“This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord. For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth; to hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death; to declare the name of the Lord in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem; when the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord. He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days. I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast THOU laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of THY hands. They shall perish, but THOU shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt THOU change them, and they shall be changed: but THOU art the same, and THY years shall have no end.” Psalm 102:18-27

“Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: HE calleth them all by names by the greatness of HIS might, for that HE is strong in power; not one faileth… Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.” Isaiah 40:26, 28

I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; even every one that is called by MY name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him… The beast of the field shall honour ME, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen. This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise.” Isaiah 43:6-7, 20-21  

“Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and HE that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF;” Isaiah 44:24

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded… For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God HIMSELF that formed the earth and made it; HE hath established it, HE created it not in vain, HE formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. Isaiah 45:12, 18

Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” Isaiah 48:13

“But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” Jeremiah 10:10-12

“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Malachi 2:10

“For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.” Hebrews 3:4

MULTI-PERSONAL CREATOR

At the same time, the God-breathed Scriptures attest that the one true all-powerful, immutable Creator and Sustainer is a multiplicity of divine Persons:

“And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in HIS OWN image, in the image of God created HE him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:26-27  

These next examples are most remarkable since they employ the plural forms of asa (“make”), bara (“create”) and baal (“husband”) to describe the one Jehovah as plural Makers, Creators and Husbands!

“But none saith, Where is God my maker (‘ō·śā – masculine plural participle), who giveth songs in the night;” chapter Job 35:10

“Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints. Let Israel rejoice in him that made (‘ō·śāw – masculine plural participle) him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.”

“Remember now thy Creator (bō·wr·’e – masculine plural participle) in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;” Ecclesiastes 12:1

“For thy Maker (‘ō·śa – masculine plural participle) is thine husband (ḇō·‘ă·la – masculine plural participle); the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.” Isaiah 54:5

THE TRIUNE CREATOR

The Holy Bible reveals that this multi-Personal God is actually a Trinity, eternally subsisting in three, and only three, divine Persons. I.e., the Father, the Son who became enfleshed as the Man Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

THE FATHER

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” Acts 17:24-31

“but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him…” 1 Corinthians 8:6a

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11:3

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Revelation 4:11

THE SON

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men… He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 1:1-4, 10, 14

“… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6b

“and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:” Ephesians 3:9

“who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” Colossians 1:13-20

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high… And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him… But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord [the Son], in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” Hebrews 1:1-3, 6, 8-12

THE HOLY SPIRIT

The inspired writings depict the Spirit as giving life and breath to all creatures, being the One sent to animate, sustain and revive all creation:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2

“By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.” Job 26:13

“all the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;” Job 27:3

The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” Job 33:4

“If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” Job 34:14-15  

“Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.” Psalm 104:29-30

The following chart will help the readers appreciate the marked contrast and deliberate perversion of the Genesis account of creation by the Mormons’ false prophets and writings.

  The Holy Bible    Mormonism
  “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in HIS OWN image, in THE IMAGE OF GOD created HE him; male and female created HE them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that HE had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” Genesis 1:26-31   “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended HIS work which HE had made; and HE rested on the seventh day from all HIS work which HE had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it HE had rested from all HIS work which God created and made.” Genesis 2:1-3   “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:4-7   “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him… And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and HE took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made HE a woman, and brought her unto the man.” Genesis 2:18, 21-22      And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let US go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and WE will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So the Gods went down to organize man in THEIR own image, in the image of the Gods to form THEY him, male and female to form THEY them. And the Gods said: WE will bless them. And the Gods said: WE will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And the Gods said: Behold, WE will give them every herb bearing seed that shall come upon the face of all the earth, and every tree which shall have fruit upon it; yea, the fruit of the tree yielding seed to them WE will give it; it shall be for their meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, behold, WE will give them life, and also WE will give to them every green herb for meat, and all these things shall be thus organized. And the Gods said: WE will do everything that WE have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning THEY called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that THEY called day; and THEY numbered the sixth time.” Abraham 4:26-31   “And thus WE will finish the heavens and the earth, and all the hosts of them. And the Gods said among THEMSELVES: On the seventh time WE will end OUR work, which WE have counseled; and WE will rest on the seventh time from all OUR work which WE have counseled. And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time THEY would rest from all THEIR works which THEY (the Gods) counseled among THEMSELVES to form; and sanctified it. And thus were THEIR decisions at the time that THEY counseled among THEMSELVES to form the heavens and the earth.” Abraham 5:1-3   “And the Gods came down and formed these the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were formed in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens, According to all that which THEY had said concerning every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Gods had not caused it to rain upon the earth when THEY counseled to do them, and had not formed a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Abraham 5:4-7   “And the Gods said: Let US make an help meet for the man, for it is not good that the man should be alone, therefore WE will form an help meet for him. And the Gods caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and THEY took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof; And of the rib which the Gods had taken from man, formed THEY a woman, and brought her unto the man.” Abraham 5:14-16  

Lord Jesus willing, there shall be more posts contrasting Mormon beliefs with God’s only inspired Revelation, the Holy Bible, in the very near future.

FURTHER READING

JOSEPH SMITH THE FALSE PROPHET DEBATE

NOTES FOR MORMON DEBATE

AL-QURTUBI ON QURANIC ABROGATION

In this short post, I will cite what one of Sunni Islam’s greatest commentators, namely, al-Qurtubi, claims in respect to the Quranic doctrine of abrogation. But first, I quote what he wrote in relation to the Quran being the uncreated word of Allah:

The word ‘Qur’an’ designates the Words of Allah Almighty and means ‘recited’. This is a common linguistic usage in Arabic as ‘maktūb’ (written) is a book. It is also said that it is a verbal noun.

We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar that in the sea there are imprisoned shayṭāns who were shackled by Sulaymān who are close to emerging and reciting something to people. Sūrat al-Isrā’ uses the word ‘Qur’an’ to mean ‘recitation’ (17:78) The Arabs often use a verbal noun for a passive participle. This common usage is known legally and the Qur’an is a name for the Word of Allah so that it can be said that the Qur’an which is recited is not created. That means what is recited, not the recitation itself. Sometimes the word is also used for the bound book (muṣḥaf) in which the words of the Qur’an are written down. The Prophet said, ‘Do not travel to the land of the enemy with the Qur’an,’ meaning a copy of the Qur’an. It is derived from the root qara’a, to collect something. It is said that it is a name for the Book of Allah without any derivation, like Torah and Gospel. This is related from ash-Shāfi‘ī. What is sound is that all of it is derived. (Tafsir al-Qurtubi: Juz’ 2: Sūrat al-Baqarah 142– 253, translated by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley [Diwan Press, 2019], Volume 2, p. 158; bold emphasis mine)

With that said, here’s what this renowned exegete stated in respect to Q. 2:106 as it relates to abrogation:

106 Whenever We abrogate an āyah or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or equal to it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Whenever We abrogate an āyah or cause it to be forgotten,

This is a very important āyah about judgments. Its cause was that the Jews envied the Muslims when they turned away from Jerusalem and faced the Ka‘bah, and they attacked Islam for that, saying that Muḥammad commanded his Companions to do one thing and then forbade it, and maintained that the Qur’an was of his own making. They contradicted one another and so Allah revealed: ‘If We replace one āyah with another one…’ (16:101) and this āyah.

This subject is very important and scholars must be aware of it. Only ignorant fools deny it because of the effect of events on rulings and recognition of the lawful and unlawful. Abu-l-Bakhtarī said, ‘‘Alī entered the mosque while a man was causing the people there to become frightened. He asked, “What is this?” They answered, “A man who is reminding people.” He said, “He is not a man who reminds people. He says, ‘I am so-and-so son of so-and-so, so acknowledge me.’” He sent for him and asked, “Do you know the abrogating from the abrogated?” “No,” he replied. He said, “Then leave our mosque and do not admonish people in it.”’

There are two aspects to abrogation or supersession (naskh). The first is transfer, like from one Divine Book to another. According to this, all the Qur’an is ‘abrogated’ in the sense that was taken from the Preserved Tablet and sent down to the House of Might in the lowest heaven. This has nothing to do with this āyah. The second form of abrogation is invalidation and removal, which is what is meant here. This, in turn, is divided into two types.

The first is supersession, which is the invalidation of something and its removal, and then putting something else in its place. The verb, nasakha, is used for the sun replacing the shadow when it takes its place. That is its meaning in this āyah. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim we find: ‘There is no Prophethood at all which is not superseded by the next (tanāsakha).’ The community has moved from one state to another. Ibn Fāris said that naskh refers to the Book, and it means to remove a command before it is acted on and then supersede it with something else, like an āyah revealed about a matter and then superseded by another. The verb is used for the sun replacing shade, old age replacing youth and the succession of heirs by successive deaths. There is a succession of ages and generations.

The second type of abrogation is the removal of a thing without replacing it with something else, as wind obliterates (nasakha) a track. This meaning is seen in the words of Allah: ‘Allah revokes (yansakhu) what Shayṭān insinuates’ (22:52), i.e. removes it and so it is not recited nor does it have a replacement elsewhere in the Qur’an.

Pertinent to this matter is what is related from Ubayy and ‘Ā’ishah to the effect that Sūrat al-Aḥzāb (33) was originally the same length as Sūrat al-Baqarah as will be later clarified. Evidence for this is also found in what Abū Bakr al-Anbārī transmitted that Sahl ibn Ḥunayf said while in the assembly of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab. He said that a man stood up in the night to recite a sūrah of the Qur’an but was unable to recite any of it. Another man rose and could not recite any of it either. So in the morning they went to the Messenger of Allah. One said, ‘I stood in the night to recite a sūrah of the Qur’an and I could not recite any of it.’ The other stood up and said, ‘The same thing happened to me, Messenger of Allah!’ Yet a third rose and said, ‘And the same thing happened to me, Messenger of Allah.’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘It was part of what Allah abrogated yesterday.’

Some modern groups of those who are called Muslims deny that such an occurrence is possible. They are veiled from the consensus of the Salaf that it occurs in the Sharī‘ah. Some Jewish groups also reject that and they are veiled from what comes in the Torah since they claim that Allah told Nūḥ when he left the Ship, ‘I make every animal edible for you and your descendants. I allow all of them for you, like plants, except for blood. Do not consume it.’ Then He forbade many animals to Mūsā and the tribe of Israel. There is also the fact that Ādam married a brother to a sister, and Allah forbade that to Mūsā and others. Ibrāhīm was ordered to sacrifice his son and then told not to do it. Mūsā commanded the tribe of Israel to kill those of them who worshipped the Calf and then stopped that. There are many examples of this. This is transfer from one act of worship to another and one ruling to another for the sake of best interest.

Intelligent people do not disagree that the laws of the Prophets are intended to meet the best interests of people in the dīn and this world. It would have been obliged in the beginning had He not known the end of matters. The One Who knows that changes things addressed according to the change in what is in their best interests, just as a doctor takes note of the changes in his patient. Allah takes note of that in His creation by His will and volition. There is no god but Him. What He asks of them changes, but His knowledge and will do not change. That is impossible in respect of Allah.

The Jews considered supersession and initiation to be the same and therefore they did not permit it and were misled. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘The difference between abrogation and initiation is that supersession is transferring an act of worship from one form to another so that something lawful becomes unlawful or something unlawful becomes lawful. As for initiation, it is leaving what was previously obliged as when you say, ‘Go to so-and-so today,’ and then you say, ‘Do not go to him.’ You decide to turn from the first statement. This is connected to people’s imperfections. Know that the real Abrogator is Allah Almighty. What He says is called abrogation since abrogation occurs by it, one judgment being replaced by another. It is said that the fast of Ramaḍān superseded the fast of ‘Ashūrā’, replacing one form of worship with another.

The sayings of our scholars differ regarding the definition of naskh. That which intelligent people who follow the Sunnah hold is that it is the removal of an established legal ruling by a further instruction which comes later in time. That is the definition of ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and Qāḍī Abū Bakr, who added, ‘If it were not for that, the prior ruling would remain firmly in place.’ So they retain the linguistic definition which means ‘removal’ while avoiding the logical consequence of taking that literally. That which was abrogated, according to our Imams, the people of the Sunnah, constitutes a firm judgment in itself.

Our scholars disagree about whether reports are subject to abrogation. Most say that abrogating is specific to commands and prohibitions and that reports cannot be affected by abrogation since it is impossible to attribute falsehood to Allah. It is said that when a report contains a legal ruling, then supersession is permitted. It might be imagined that making what is general specific is abrogation, but that is not the case because specification does not remove the general (‘āmm). If something moves the general ruling to something else, then that is abrogation, not specification. If someone refers to it as abrogation, that is metaphorical rather than actual. One should know that there are reports in the Sharī‘ah which appear to be general and all-inclusive but are then limited later so that that their generality is removed. It is like Allah’s words: ‘If My slaves ask you about Me, I am near. I answer the call of the caller when He calls on Me.’ (2:186) The literal meaning of this āyah is that he answers everyone who calls on Him in any case, but this is limited elsewhere as when He says: ‘If He wills, He will deliver you from whatever it was that made you call on Him.’ (6:41) Someone without intelligence must suppose that this is abrogation in reports, but that is not the case. It is part of restriction of the unrestricted.

Our scholars say that abrogation is permitted from what is onerous to what is easier. A case in point is the abrogation of the ruling on standing firm in jihād when the odds are ten to one by that of standing firm when they are two to one. But it is also permitted to move from the easier to the harder, as happened when the fast of ‘Ashurā’ and some other days were exchanged for Ramadan as will be mentioned. And like can be abrogated by like, as happened in the case of the qiblah changing from Jerusalem to the House of Allah in Makkah. Matters can also be abrogated without being replaced, like giving ṣadaqah before conversing with the Prophet. The Qur’an can be abrogated by the Qur’an, the Sunnah by a mutawātir hadith, and a single hadith by another single hadith.

Astute Imāms also say that the Qur’an can be abrogated by the Sunnah. An example of that is the words of the Prophet: ‘There is no bequest to an heir.’ It is acknowledged by Mālik but ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abu-l-Faraj al-Mālikī rejected it. The first is a sounder approach by the evidence that all is the judgment of Allah Almighty and from Him, even if the names differ. Flogging was also dropped in the ḥadd punishment for the adulterer who is stoned. That was only dropped by the Sunnah which the Prophet g made clear.

They also say that the Sunnah can be abrogated by the Qur’an. That happened when the qiblah was changed when the original qiblah was not mentioned in the Qur’an. The āyah we are looking at here is another case: it demands that women should not be returned to the unbelievers when that had been part of the treaty that the Prophet g made with Quraysh. Astute scholars agree that it is logically permitted for the Qur’an to be abrogated by a single hadith but they disagree about whether it actually occurs. Abu-l-Ma‘ālī and others believe that it happened when the people of the Mosque of Qubā’ changed their qiblah but others reject that. It is not proper to abrogate a text through analogy since one of the preconditions of analogy is that it does not differ from a definitive text.

All of this occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet. The Community agree that there is no abrogation after his death, once the Sharī‘ah was firmly in place. This is why there is a consensus that there is no abrogation after the end of Revelation. When we find a consensus which is apparently contrary to a text, it is known that the consensus relied on an abrogating text which we do not know about. An opposed text is not acted upon and, therefore, it must have been abrogated even though it remains a sunnah which is read and reported. An example of this is the āyah of the ‘iddah (waiting period of a widow) of a year which is recited in the Qur’an. Reflect on this. It is something important. There is abrogation of a ruling while its recitation is left, like the giving of ṣadaqah before conversing with the Prophet (58:12). The opposite can also occur when the recitation is abrogated but not the ruling, which happened in the case of the āyah of stoning. It is also possible for both recitation and ruling to be abrogated. What astute scholars believe is that if someone has not heard about the abrogation, he continues to act according to the first ruling. They also permit abrogation of a ruling before it is acted on, as in the story of Ibrāhīm sacrificing his son and the obligation of the prayer being fifty prayers before it was made five.

There are means for recognising an abrogating text. One is when the expression indicates it, like the words of the Prophet, ‘I used to forbid visiting graves. Now you may visit them. I forbade drinking except from skins, now you may drink from every container, but do not drink intoxicants.’ Another indication is when the transmitter mentions the date, as when he says, ‘It was the year of the Ditch,’ when it is known that what was abrogated occurred before it. Another indication is when it is stated: ‘Such-and-such a ruling is abrogated.’ Yet another means is when the entire Community agree that the ruling is abrogated.

Most recite ‘abrogate’ as ‘nansakh’ which is the normal usage. Ibn ‘Āmir recites ‘nunsikh’ from Form IV.

or cause it to be forgotten,

It is said that this means: ‘omit it’. It is removed from you so that you do not read or remember it. ‘nunsihā’ (forgotten) is also recited with a hamzah (nunsi’hā) meaning ‘to defer’, meaning ‘We defer its sending down or its abrogation to a later date.’

We bring one better than it or equal to it.

This means ‘more beneficial for people’. The benefit is immediate if the abrogating ruling is easier and in the Next World if it is harder. It is also said that it is superior in that it has a greater benefit and reward since there is no disparity in the worth of the Words of Allah. (Tafsir al-Qurtubi: Juz’ 2: Sūrat al-Baqarah 142– 253, translated by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley [Diwan Press, 2019], Volume 2, pp. 364-370; emphasis mine)

FURTHER READING

THE FARCE THAT IS SHABIR ALLY: THE CASE OF ABROGATION

The Farce of Quranic Abrogation

THE QURAN IS NOT GOD’S WORD Pt. 1

AL-QURTUBI’S EXPOSITION ON SELECT PASSAGES

Al-Qurtubi’s Explanation of Mary’s Conception

Colossians 2:9: The Fullness of Deity

COLOSSIANS 2:9

9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
C o m m e n t a r y
The Apostle Paul has just cautioned the Colossian believers not to be taken captive by the philosophies and traditions of men which are not grounded in Christ (v. 18). 

There are various views about the so-called “Colossian Heresy” against which Paul was writing.  It is possible that there was a specific heresy (so Calvin, Dibelius, Moule, etc.) or Paul may have been writing more generally (so Hooker).  What is clear is that Paul is unequivocally asserting Christ’s supremacy over whatever teachings might take the Colossians captive – teachings not grounded in Christ.   In verse 9, Paul gives the first of two reasons why Christ is superior to any human philosophy or tradition (verse 10a contains the second):  “For” (Greek hoti with a causal sense: “because”) in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily.  Christ is superior to the teachings of men and the elemental “powers” of the universe because in His incarnation, every aspect of the nature of the true God – all His attributes and power – found in Christ’s body a congenial and permanent home.    

This verse – perhaps more than any other verse in Paul’s writing – teaches that Christ was God in the flesh.  The word translated “Deity” signifies the “essence of being God” – what makes God, God (see Grammatical Analysis, below).  And it was not a mere quality or limited sub-set of attributes – for Paul tells us that “all the fullness” of Deity dwelled in Christ.  And this fullness did not merely sojourn for a time in Christ’s consciousness, but rather “dwelled” there (Greek katoikeo: “to take up permanent residence”).  It is a timeless present tense verb (Harris, Colossians, p. 98) – “continues to live.”  And this dwelling was “bodily,” in Christ’s physical body.  This points to the incarnation, surely, but also to the resurrected Christ as well, who is now our mediator, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).  As Robertson puts it: “The fullness of the Godhead … dwells ‘in the once mortal, now glorified body of Christ'” (RWP).
G r a m m a t i c a   A n a l y s i s
`oti en autw katoikei pan to plhrwma thV qeothtoV swmatikwV  

hOTI EN AUTÔ KATOIKEI PAN TO PLÊRÔMA TÊS THEOTÊTOS SÔMATIKÔS

For in him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily    

KATOIKEÔ (2730)  

Live, dwell, reside, settle (down) (BAGDThayer)  

More technically used, the verb refers to the permanent “residents” of a town or village, as distinguished from those “dwelling as strangers” or “sojourners” (Moulton & Milligan)  

Verb Indicative Present Active (Friberg

The present indicative indicates an action occurring while the speaker is speaking.  

PAS (3956)  

The whole, all (the) (BAGDThayer)  

PLÊRÔMA (4138)  

Sum total, fulness, even (super)abundance (BAGD)  

Fulness, abundance (Thayer)  

The plêrôma statements in Colossians present the full unity of the person and work of God and Christ, yet in such as way that neither the distinctness of person nor monotheism is imperiled.  The differences between Ephesians and Colossians show that plêrôma is not here a technical term, and the fact that plêrês or plêroô may be used instead supports this conclusion.  In part the plêrôma sayings relate to Christ’s headship of the church.  From him as the bearer of the divine fullness (col. 1:18ff) vital powers flow into the church, so that he may be said to fill it (TDNT).  

THEOTES (2320)

Deity, divinity, used as an abstract noun for qeoV (BAGD)  

Deity, i.e., the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9…Syn. qeothV, qeiothV: qeot. deity differs from qeiot. divinity as essence differs from quality or attribute (Thayer)  

Divinity … The one God, to whom all deity belongs, has given this fullness of deity to the incarnate Christ. (TDNT)  

Deity, divine nature, divine being…’all the fullness of divine nature’ Col 2:9…The expression ‘divine nature’ may be rendered in a number of languages as ‘just what God is like’ or ‘how God is’ or ‘what God is’ (Louw & Nida). 

Louw & Nida do not semantically distinguish theotestheiotes, and theios, treating them each as synonymous with “diving nature” as they define it here.  

SÔMATIKÔS (4985)   Bodily, corporeally … Col 2:9 (prob. to be understood fr. 2:17 [cf. swma 4] as=in reality, not symbolically) (BAGD)  

Bodily, corporeally … yet denoting his exalted and spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven, Col 2:9, where see Meyer [Bp. Lightft.] (Thayer)  

Bodily-wise, corporeally, in concrete actuality (Moulton & Milligan)  

The sômatikôs in this statement denotes the corporeality in which God encounters us in our world, i.e., the real humanity of Jesus, not a humanity that is a mere cloak for deity (TDNT).

Pertaining to a physical body … ‘In him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily’ or ‘in physical form’ Col 2:9.  It is also possible to interpret sômatikôs in Col 2:9 as meaning ‘in reality,’ that is to say ‘not symbolically’ (Louw & Nida)
O t h e   V i e w   C o n s i d e r e d 
Jehovah’s Witnesses  

Latter Day Saints  

Jehovah’s Witnesses  

Greg Stafford offers a comprehensive argument against the traditional view of Colossians 2:9 (Stafford, pp. 152-160). He suggests that Trinitarians read too much into this verse – and the word theotes in particular – and that this verse need not mean anything beyond the fullness of a divine quality dwelling in Christ – not by Christ’s inherent nature, but by the Father’s decree.  I shall examine Mr. Stafford’s key points, below:  

objection:  

Mr. Stafford writes:   Rhodes also objects to the translation of Colossian’s 2:9 in the NWT, stating: “Colossians 2:9 is not saying that Jesus has mere divine qualities.  Rather, it is saying that the absolute ‘fullness of Deity’ dwells in Christ in bodily form” (Rhodes, p. 81).  In support of his interpretation Rhodes cites several scholars whose views are similar to his.  For example, he says: “Greek scholar J. H. Thayer – whose Greek lexicon is called ‘comprehensive’ by the Watchtower Society – says that the Greek word in Colossians 2:9 refers to ‘deity, that is the state of being God, Godhead'” (IBID, pp. 81-82).   First, it should be noted that the words Rhodes attributes to J. H. Thayer are not the words of J. H. Thayer!  They are the words of Karl Grimm, the Lutheran lexicographer whose work Thayer translated from Latin to English…Of course, the reason our critics like to attribute words to Thayer is because they operate under the questionable assumption that Thayer was a Unitarian.  Thus, they argue, “Well, even this Unitarian, one who would tend to be sympathetic to your view, argues for a Trinitarian understanding of Colossians 2:9! [See Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, p. 79 – note 75] (Stafford, pp. 152-153).  

Response

Rhodes, indeed, mentions several scholars who support the consensus view of theotoes, including Lightfoot, (“The totality of the divine powers and attributes”), Trench (“all the fullness of absolute Godhead…He was, and is, absolute and perfect God”), Bengal (“not merely the Divine attributes, but the Divine Nature itself”), Moule (“as strong as possible; Deity, not only Divinity”), Reymond (“the being of the very essence of deity”), Warfield (“the very deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness”), and Thayer.  These scholars do indeed support Rhodes’ views and quite strongly.   Mr. Stafford is correct that the words Rhodes attributes to Thayer were originally Grimm’s.  However, not only does Thayer translate them without contradictory comment, he adds the following:  “Syn. qeothV, qeiothV: qeot. deity differs from qeiot. divinity as essence differs from quality or attribute”  He then refers the reader to two of the other scholars Rhodes lists: Lightfoot and Trench. 

Thus, Thayer clearly believed Grimm’s definition to be correct.  Rhodes fundamental point is that the ‘comprehensive’ Grimm-Thayer lexicon (in addition to the other scholars he cites) provides strong support for the meaning of theotes he advocates, a point which Mr. Stafford does not contest.   

objection:  

Mr. Stafford writes:   Really, though, considering the use of theotes in other Greek sources, one would be justified in defining it as “the quality of being a god” (Broyles, p. 224).  Especially so in view of the OT concept of God…and in view of the fact that God gives his Son a divine nature (Stafford, p. 153, note 73).  

Response

One would be justified in defining theotes in this way if one were referring to the pagan gods in classic Greek texts that Broyles was writing about:   By qeoV the Greeks always meant an individual god – as qeoV zeuV- even if they were not always careful to have in mind any particular god….The plural means the individual gods taken collectively…In historical times the gods were conceived in human form, having human natures and passions, capricious and independent, not subject to old age and death, and powerful to an enormous degree.  qeoteV is the quality of being such a god (Broyles, pp. 223 – 224).  

Broyles then quotes the same passage in Plutarch which Lightfoot, Trench, and others have used to illustrate the difference in semantic nuance between theotes and theitoes, that is, between essence and attributes (see Thayer’s definition of theotes in the Grammatical Analysis, above, and the discussion of theotes and theiotes, below).    

We may first note that Mr. Stafford’s quotation omits the word “such.”  Broyles no more says that theotes may be defined as “the quality of being a god” than he says that theos may be defined as “a god having a human nature.”  Broyles says that theos refers to pagan gods when used by pagans, and that theotes is the quality of being such a god.  What type of god?  A personal god. An individual.  Broyles argues that theotes emphasizes the individual personality, rather than the “inscrutable Deity behind all gods” (IBID, p. 225), which Broyles sees as the pagan usage of to theion.   However, when dealing with Paul’s use of the term, Broyles recognizes that Paul is not referring to pagan gods:   It is qeoteV that Paul uses in Colossians 2:9…”In him the fulness of godhead dwells embodied.”  Paul’s diction specifies the divine personality as opposed to the divine properties (IBID, p. 224).  

Thus, in this context, theotes refers to the quality of being the one God.  Broyles concludes that centuries of development among Greeks made theotesto theion, and theiotes “suitable for expressing the ‘god-ness’ in Christ and the mystery of the infinite-personal God” (IBID, p. 229).  He does not define theotes as “the quality of being a god” in the way Mr. Stafford implies; instead, he notes that, like theostheotes arose in a pagan culture and was used to refer to “a god” in that context.  Broyles’ article actually supports the argument Mr. Stafford is arguing against – namely, that there is a distinction between theotes and theiotes, and that in Paul’s usage, the former signifies the full measure “godhead” (which Broyles defines as “Deity,” “Godhood,” or “God-ness” – the quality of being the one, true God) that dwells in Christ bodily.   

objection:  

Mr. Stafford writes:   The term theotes (of which theotetos in Col 2:9 is a genitive flexion) closely resembles, in spelling, the term Paul uses in Romans 1:20, namely theiotes (NWT: “Godship”).  James White asserts a distinction between these two terms (theotes and theiotes) such that theotes (in Col 2:9) is “different from the weaker term used at Romans 1:20” (theiotes) [White, p. 85].  White is apparently not aware of the extensive study by H.S. Nash, who a century ago demonstrated quite convincingly that the two terms theiotes and theotes do not have the distinction in meaning attributed to them by White (Stafford, pp. 153-154).  

Response

White, like Rhodes, rests his argument on a number of scholarly sources, including the Grimm-Thayer lexicon (White, by the way, makes the distinction between Grimm’s words and Thayer’s, which Stafford demands of Rhodes), Trench, and Warfield.  White may well know of Nash’s study, as do J. Stafford Wright (NIDNTT) and  Gerhard Schneider (EDNT).  Both Wright and Schneider reference Nash’s study, yet advocate the distinction in meaning argued by White and others.  The distinction may be inferred from BAGD, which defines theiotes as “divinity, divine nature” but theotes as “deity, divinity” (1); and also from the TDNT, which defines theiotes as “divinity,” but theotes as “divinity, Godhead.”  Both lexicons refer to Nash’s study.  Though they  perhaps regard the two terms as more synonymous than do Wright and Schneider, nonetheless, BAGD and TDNT both suggest that the two terms inhabit somewhat different semantic ranges, with theotes shading more towards “deity” (2).

Thus, if modern lexicographers who are familiar with Nash’s work draw a semantic distinction between theiotes and theotes, White cannot be faulted (3).   We may, however, fault Mr. Stafford for stacking the deck – resting his entire response to White’s point on Nash’s article, while failing to consider contrary evidence from the lexical sources mentioned.  Mr. Stafford might have at least mentioned EDNT, since he quotes its definition of eudokeo just a few pages later (Stafford, p. 160).  

But what of Nash’s article?  Does it prove that theotes and theiotes are completely synonymous and that the former may convey nothing more than a “divine quality” and not the essence of Godhood, as Trinitarians argue?   Nash argues that theiotes and theotes began life as completely synonymous abstract nouns just prior to NT times. He provides examples from various extra-Biblical texts which, he believes, demonstrate that the two terms were used more or less interchangeably until several hundred years after NT times, when theotes gradually superceded theiotes because of it’s etymological derivation from theos, which made it a more suitable term in Christian usage.    

It should be emphasized that Nash does not suggest that theotes may not signify deity in the traditional sense; he rather argues that theiotes may also be used in this same sense (4).  Nash acknowledges that there is a subtle distinction between the terms, with theotes being more logically precise (5), but  he strenuously argues that the theological distinction between natural and revealed religion which some scholars – notably Trench – derive from the semantic distinction is anachronistic when applied to Paul’s usage (6).  Even granting Nash his argument, it is clear from the examples he provides of Christian usage, theiotes and theotes are used exclusively to denote the deity/divinity of the true God, and never is used of secondary “divine” beings (7). 

When Stafford quotes Nash to suggest that theotes may simply signify a general sort of “divinity” shared by lesser gods, he is doing so with Nash’s argument from pagan usage:   But the reference to the “fullness” of divine attributes dwelling in Christ does not necessarily make him equal with God, and certainly does not imply a Trinitarian concept of deity.  Nash points to several uses of theotes in philosophical literature where theotes is actually used of demons who mediate between gods and men.  In one of his citations, Nash notes that “the rank of the deities in question, at the highest, is not above that of a demi-god, yet [theotes] is the term used [Nash, p. 12]. 

So the term is not elsewhere restricted in its application to the highest god or gods of pagan pantheons (Stafford, p. 158, emphasis added).   Of course pagan philosophers may ascribe deity to lesser gods or demons, but they could also ascribe theos to these gods as well.  The issue is not what referents the words theotes and theiotes may modify, but rather the sense the two words may convey – deity vs divinity in the traditional view.  In any event, Nash’s examples of Christian usage make it clear that when used by a Christian writer, theotes refers to the deity belonging to the one God alone.  The context of Colossians 2:9 makes it clear that the one God is in view – as Mr. Stafford himself argues:  “For God to allow the fullness of His divine attributes and qualities to reside in Christ fits perfectly with Christ’s mediatorial and reconciliatory role in God’s purpose (Stafford, p. 159).  Thus, by Mr. Stafford’s own argument, what resides in Christ bodily is all the fullness of the “attributes and qualities” of the one God.   There is nothing in Nash’s article that suggests that theotes in Colossians 2:9 has the lesser meaning for which Mr. Stafford argues.  It signifies deity – and all the fullness of it.   

objection:  

Mr. Stafford writes:   Those who attempt to create a situation whereby Trinitarianism is made to agree with Colossians 2:9 try to disassociate what is said in 2:9 from what is said in 1:19. The reason for this is not hard to find.  Colossians 1:19 tells us, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (NIV).  The Greek word translated “pleased” is eudokew (eudokeo).  In the Word Biblical Commentary we are told that the verb ‘be pleased (eudokew ) which often appears in the OT to denote the good pleasure of God (ps 44:3; 147:11; 149:4) is particularly used to denote divine election (O’Brien, p. 52, emphasis added)….The Scriptures will not sustain the view that Almighty God’s powers and attributes are something contingent upon the “will” or “decree” of another (Stafford, pp. 159-160).  

Response

I agree with Mr. Stafford on three points:  1) Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 are speaking about the same thing; 2) the implied subject of eudokeô is “God” (NIV) or “the Father” (NASB); and 3) that Almighty God’s deity is not dependent upon the “will” or “decree” of another.  In reference to point 3, though, I will note that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Father is seen as the ‘source’ of deity for both the Son and Spirit, and this formulation is considered to be orthodox, for the Son and Spirit share equally with the Father in the divine nature (8). 

Thus, even if Mr. Stafford is correct and we are to take Paul to be teaching that the Son derives His deity from the Father, this does not – in and of itself – present an insurmountable problem for the Trinity.   A simpler solution to the problem Mr. Stafford raises, however, is found in the context of Colossians 1:19 itself and the implications of it’s thematic link with 2:9.  Paul moves from speaking about the pre-existent Son of God in verses 15-17 to the incarnate and exalted Son in verses 18 – 20.  Thus, when Paul speaks of the fullness dwelling in Christ, it is most natural to understand the reference to be to the indwelling of God’s fullness in Jesus of Nazareth, who – by divine election and at the Father’s good pleasure – was Emmanuel (“God with us”). 

Mr. Stafford argues that we should understand the fullness in verse 2:9 in light of the fullness in 1:19, and I agree with him (9).  But the opposite is also true:  we should understand the fullness in 1:19 in light of 2:9. In 2:9, the fullness of deity dwells in Christ bodily.  As Mr. Stafford notes:    “It is unclear whether we should take the references to the dwelling of the ‘fullness’ of theotes in Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 as referring to the historical person of Christ while he lived on the earth, or after his resurrection…It may be that we should take the references as beginning with his sojourn in the flesh on earth and continuing after his ascent to heaven” (Stafford, pp. 154 – 155).    

Thus, even by Mr. Stafford’s own reasoning, the good pleasure of the Father was that His Son should dwell permanently in the physical body of Jesus of Nazareth.  Mr. Stafford suggests that commentators who see the link between 1:19 and 2:9 probably do so “because they do not see the problem involved with eudokeô” (Stafford, p. 160). 

The more likely reason is that there is no problem with eudokeô.  When we understand Paul’s reference to be to the incarnation, there is no dichotomy between Paul’s teaching and the Trinity.  O’Brien, whom Mr. Stafford quotes with regard to eudokeô, says: “God in all his divine essence and power had taken up residence in Christ” (O’Brien, Colossians Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 53), with the clear implication that Christ’s physical life on earth is in view.  He is more explicit elsewhere: “Colossians 2:9 applies the words of the hymn to the Colossian situation, making clear how the entire fullness of deity dwells in Christ, that is, in bodily form by his becoming incarnate” (O’Brien, “Letter to the Colossians,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 151).(10). 

This view is echoed by a number of other commentators (11).   Colossians 2:9 presents one of the clearest declarations of Christ’s deity in the New Testament.  Attempts to weaken the force of “deity” or to argue for Christ as a “functional” manifestation of God’s attributes and power must contend with Paul’s language – which, when read in context and with an appreciation for the meaning of each key term – exalts Christ as preeminent in all things, because in His physical body, all the fullness of the nature of God made a permanent and congenial home.  I pray that all who read this will find Him.  

Soli Deo Gloria     _________________________________________

Notes  
1.  The distinction is even clearer in the third edition of the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG):   theiotes: The quality or characteristic(s) pert. to deity, divinity, divine nature, divineness   theotes:  The state of being God, divine character/nature, deity, divinity   See also Bauer’s Greek-German lexicon (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Grieschish-deutsch Wörterbuch, 1958), which served as the basis of BAGD:   theiotes: d. Göttlichkeit, d. göttliche Natur   theotes:  d. Gottheit, d. Gottsein   Göttlichkeit means “divinity;” Gottheit means “deity, godhead.”  Gottsein is literally “God-Being, God-Essence.”  The same definitions are repeated  in the most recent edition of Bauer’s Wörterbuch (Bauer and Aland, Grieschish-deutsch Wörterbuch, 1988).  
2.  Most lexicons define theiotes and theotes as meaning “divinity,” but recognize only theotes as meaning “deity” or “godhead.”  While “deity” and “divinity” are synonyms in English (just as theiotes and theotes are in Greek), there is a difference in semantic range.  The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in demonstrating both the overlap and the distinction in meaning between the two terms:   divinity (1) Character or quality of being divine; (2) a divine being, a god; (3) an object of adoration; (4) divine quality, virtue or power.  Godlikeness   deity (1) The estate or rank of a god, Godhood, the personality of a god, Godship; (2) the divine quality, character, or nature of God.  Godhood, divinity, the divine nature and attributes, the Godhead; (3) the condition or state in which the Divine Being exists; (4) a divinity, a divine being, a god; (4) an object of worship; (5) a supreme being as creator of the universe.   Notice that while each of the four definitions of “divinity” are also present among the definitions of “deity,” the same in not true for “deity.”  “Deity” may signify the “estate or rank” or “personality” or “Godship” of a god. (#1).  It may mean the “condition or state” of divine existence (#3).  It is precisely these senses that White argues are contained within theotes and are lacking in theiotes, with strong concurrence from the modern lexicons cited.  
3.  Commentators who also acknowledge a distinction in meaning between the two terms include O’Brien (Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 111-112); Lohse (Colossians and Philemon, p. 100); Boice (EBC); Wright (Colossians and Philemon, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 103); Hendriksen (Exposition of Colossians and Philemon, New Testament Commentary, p. 111); Bruce (The Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 101);and Dunn (The Epsitles to the Colossians and to Philemon, A Commentary on the Greek Text, p. 151).  Harris is more cautious, saying that “If there is a valid distinction between the two words” theotes signifies “deity;” theiotes “divinity” (Colossians, p. 98).  Elsewhere, he writes: “Nash has subjected [the] traditional distinction to a penetrating analysis and concluded ‘that the two terms covered a common field, that they fought for existence, and that theotes triumphed'” (Jesus as God, p. 287, note 48).   But in this view, Harris does not regard theotes as signifying anything less that absolute deity; he expresses the meaning of Col 2:9 as follows: “Jesus possesses all the divine essence and attributes” (Ibid, p. 288).  
4.  Nash notes that if the traditional view were correct, we should see it evidenced in the works of the Greek Fathers.  Instead, he finds that Origen, Athanasius, Arius, Didymus, Eusebius, Theodore, and Chysostom all used theiotes and theotes interchangeably to refer to the deity of God the Father and of Christ (c.f., Nash, pp. 17-25).  We may note here that the NWT renders theiotes in Rom 1:20 as “Godship” – clearly treating it as synonymous with “deity” – though the translators rendered theotes in Col 2:9 as “the divine quality.”  If Mr. Stafford’s assertion is correct and there is no distinction in meaning between the terms, we may ask why the NWTTC chose to translate the two terms differently.  
5.  Nash says he “concedes” to the traditional view: “theotes possessed an inherent capacity for the expression of religious emotion, as well as logical precision, superior to the emotional and logical qualities of theiotes” (Nash, p. 28).  
6.  “The Rabbi in St. Paul was not at all likely to distinguish between the Being or Personality or Nature of God on the one side, and His attributes or majesty or glory on the other.  And if the scholar in Paul did not travel that way, certainly the prophet in him, the creative Christian element, did not” (Nash, p. 5).  
7.  Nash notes that even Arius is not said to have done so by his opponents: “There is no hint that Arius drew any distinction between theotes and theiotes, but rather plainly suggested that Arius applied the word theiotes to the Father Himself.  Asterius is soon after quoted to the same effect” (Nash, p. 17).  
8.  “Gregory of Nazianzus explains the position by saying, ‘The Three have one nature, viz. God, the ground of unity being the Father, out of Whom and towards Whom the subsequent Persons are reckoned’ (Or, 42, 15).  While all subordinationism is excluded, the Father remains in the eyes of the Cappadocians the source, fountain-head or principle of the Godhead.  Their thought (as we have already seen when discussing the Holy Spirit) that He imparts His being to the two other Persons, and so can be said to cause Them” (Kelly, pp. 264-265).  
9.  In response to James White’s discussion of Mr. Stafford’s view of Col 1:19 and 2:9  (White, p. 207, note 39), Mr. Stafford says:  “There is nothing in the context of these two texts that should make us think Paul is using the same word in relation to Christ with two different senses (Stafford, p. 155, note 79).  White’s point is that plêrôma tes theotikos (fullness of deity) defines plêrôma, whereas the other verses in which plêrôma appears, the fullness is not qualified by a genitive adjunct – and thus is undefined.  While I understand Mr. White’s point, I respectfully disagree with him (but per contra, in support of White’s view, see Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, p. 69).  As Mr. Stafford notes: “It is actually uncommon in reading through different commentaries and articles that discuss issues connected with 1:19 and 2:9 to find a scholar who tries to disconnect what is said in the two passages” (Stafford, p. 160).  
10. Even J.D.G. Dunn, who argues against the pre-existence of God’s Son in his Christology in the Making, sees the incarnation being virtually implicit in 1:19: “The object here is simply to claim that divine fullness is evident in Christ’s ministry on earth, above all in his death and resurrection, and that that is another way of explaining his preeminence in all things (1:18).  The thought is not yet of incarnation, but it is more than inspiration; rather it is of an inspiration (in Greek, “God-possessed” – entheosenthousiasmos) so complete (“all the fullness”) as to be merging into the idea of incarnation” (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and To Philemon, A Commentary on the Greek Text, p. 102).  
11. E.g.,  Harris (Colossians, p. 51); Matthew Henry (Concise Commentary); Peake (Colossians, Expositor’s Greek Testament, p. 508); Bruce sees it as a reference to Christ’s exaltation (The Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 72) as does MacArthur (Colossians & Philemon, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, p. 52) and The Bible Knowledge Commentary;  H.C.G. Moule sees the immediate reference to the incarnation, but with implications for a timeless fullness (Colossians and Philemon Studies, p. 87).   

Latter Day Saints  

In support of the LDS view of a corporate “Godhead” comprised of three distinct Gods, Richard Hopkins offers the following comments on Colossians 2:9:  

objection:  Mr. Hopkins argues as follows:    

The word God in the New Testament comes from the Greek word theos, which designates an “object of worship.”  No Biblical text demands that this word refer to a singular Person or Being except when the word is used to identify a specific individual who bears that title.  Thus, the Bible teaches that there are three entirely separate individuals who are so perfectly organized and aligned in will, purpose and thought that they may be referred to as “One.”  They constitute a single, universal authority over all things, a single “God.”   The term “God,” used of the Three collectively in this manner, is best rendered Godhead.  That term is derived from Paul’s writings.  He referred to theios (“the godhead” or “that which is divine”) in Acts 17:29, theiotes (“divinity”) in Rom 1:20, and theotes (“Deity”) in Col 2:9.  The KJV translators wisely rendered all three of these words “Godhead,” and thereby correctly captured the sense of composite unity comprised in the Bible’s teaching about the oneness of God” (Hopkins, pp. 93-940, emphasis in original).  

Response:  Mr. Hopkins concludes that the Bible teaches a composite unity of the “Godhead” (“Thus the Bible teaches…”) on the basis of an argument from silence (“No Biblical text demands…”).  The fact that no Bible text may demand that theos refer to a single individual (which is itself a questionable assertion), this is not positive evidence that theos does, in fact, refer to the composite “Godhead,” as Mr. Hopkins understands the term.  While theos may refer to any of the members of the Trinity individually, it is questionable that any occurrence of theos in the New Testament refers to “the Trinity” in either the Trinitarian or LDS sense (1).  To support his position, Mr. Hopkins would need to provide examples of theos in classic or Koine Greek in which it clearly refers to a collective of two or more gods.  The standard Geek lexicons – both classical and Biblical – define theos as an individual God or god (2).  As Stephen Broyles notes:  

“By qeoV the Greeks always meant an individual god – as qeoV ZeuV – even if they were not always careful to have in mind any particular god” (3).  

When Mr. Hopkins says that “Godhead” is the best definition of theiostheiotes, and theotes, (all meaning “divinity” or “deity,” as Mr. Hopkins correctly notes in his parenthetical definitions), he commits what D.A. Carson has termed the fallacy of “Semantic Anachronism” (4). The word “Godhead” is an old Anglo-Saxon word meaning “deity” or “Godhood” (5). 

The suffix –head (frequently spelled in middle English –hede or –hed) has been replaced in current English usage by –hood or –ness (e.g., “manhede” = “manhood;” “boldhede” = “boldness”).  The older forms of these words slowly became obsolete, with the exception of Godhead (= “Godhood”) and maidenhead (= “maidenhood”).  The translators of the KJV were actually using the same term that had been used by Wycliffe, Tyndale, and other English Bibles for over 200 years.  While the term “Godhead” came to be virtually synonymous with “the Trinity” (and so a “composite unity” in Mr. Hopkins’ understanding of the term), it did not have this meaning for the KJV translators (let alone Wycliffe or Tyndale), and it is only in later creedal statements and confessions that it began to take on the meaning it has today.  Mr. Hopkins has assumed the modern, technical definition of “Godhead,” rather than the definition it had at the time the first English Bibles were translated. When the translators rendered Colossians 2:9 as “for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” they meant “all the fullness of the Deity” – the plenitude of the qualities or character of being God.   If we follow Mr. Hopkins exegesis to its logical conclusion, Jesus would have all the fullness of the three Gods of the LDS trinity in Him bodily – to paraphrase Joseph Smith: “a strange God anyhow” (6). _________________________________________ 
Notes  
1.  So Harris: “In the NT qeoV regularly refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity” (Jesus as God, p. 47 n112); and Rahner: “Nowhere in the New Testament is there to be found a text with ò qeoV which unquestionably to be referred to the Trinitarian God as a whole existing in three Persons.  In by far the greater number of texts ò qeoV refers to the Father as a Person of the Trinity” (Theological Investigations, p. 143).  
2.  c.f.,  BAGDLouw & NidaThayerMoulton & MilliganLSJ.    
3.  Broyles, “What Do We Mean by ‘Godhead,'” Evangelical Quarterly, 50.4 [1978], pp. 223-224.  
4.  “This fallacy occurs when a late use of a word is read back into earlier literature” (Carson, Fallacies, p. 33).  
5.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines “Godhead” as:  “The character or quality of being God or a god; divine nature or essence; deity.”  For a thorough discussion of the term “Godhead,” see Broyles (op. cit.).   6.  Joseph Smith, “Sermon by the Prophet – the Christian Godhead – Plurality of Gods,” History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 473-479).

ALLAH TORTURES JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN PLACE OF MUSLIMS

The aim of this post is to gather together in one place the different versions of a report attributed to Muhammad where he claims that his deity will torture Jews and Christians in hell for the sins committed by Muslims. The purpose for me doing so is to show just how sadistic, evil, and wicked Muhammad’s Allah truly is.

I begin with the following narrative:

Superiority of the believers in the Oneness of Allah and the punishment of the Jews and Christians

8) Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: UNLOAD the sins from them AND PUT THE SAME OVER the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.

(This Hadith IS SOUND and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim). (110 Hadith Qudsi (Sacred Hadith), translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, revision and commentaries by Ibrahim m. Kunna [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors], pp. 19-20 https://islamicstudies.info/hadith/110-Ahadith-Qudsi.pdf – see also https://ahadith.co.uk/110ahadithqudsi.php; capital and underline emphasis mine)

There’s more:

432. Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari reported: Messenger of Allah said, “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will deliver to every Muslim, a Jew or a Christian and say: ‘This is YOUR RANSOM from Hell-fire.”‘

Another narration is: Messenger of Allah said, “There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with sins as heavy as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them”.

[Muslim]. (Al-Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya bin Sharaf An-Nawawi Ad-Dimashqi, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), The Book of Miscellany, 51. Chapter: On Hope https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:432; bold and capital emphasis mine)

(20) CHAPTER. Disbelievers are sent to Hell as SACRIFICE to the Muslims

1937. Abu Musa narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “When it is the Day of Resurrection, Allah will deliver every Muslim a Jew or Christian and say: ‘THAT IS YOUR SACRIFICE FROM HELL-FIRE.’” (The Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Muslim (Arabic–English), Compiled by Al-Hafiz Zakiuddin Abdul-Azim Al-Mundhiri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: February 2000], Volume 2, 62– The Book Of Repentance And Allah’s Great Mercy, pp. 1033-1034)

And here is a different translation of the above hadith, along with a couple of others from Sahih Muslim:

Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY

Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your RESCUE from Hell-Fire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6665 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=037&translator=2&start=0&number=6665)

Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit IN HIS STEAD a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6666)

Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with AS HEAVY SINS AS A MOUNTAIN, and Allah would FORGIVE THEM and He would PLACE IN THEIR STEAD the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle? I said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6668)

This next one is even more heinous and sadistic since it has Allah laughing over the fact that Jews and Christians will be tortured in hell in the place of Muhammadans:

In a slightly more detailed version, Abu Musa leads us to an explanation of the reason for God’s laughter:

The Prophet said: “On the Day of Resurrection our Lord, to Him belong glory and greatness, shall be revealed to us, laughing (yataglla dahikan). And He will say: ‘Rejoice, you Muslims! For I have REPLACED each one of you destined to go to Hell with a Jew or a Christian’.”17 (Livnat Holtzman, “‘Does God Really Laugh?” – Appropriate and Inappropriate Descriptions of God in Islamic Traditionalist Theology,’” Laughter in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times (Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture), ed. Albrecht Classen [De Gruyter, Berlin/New York; 1st edition, 2010], Chapter 2, p. 172; bold and capital emphasis mine)

17 Al‐Agurri, Kitab alsariah, 295, hadith no. 641; Al‐Agurri, Kitab altasdiq, 76. (Ibid.)

The foregoing Islamic scholar quotes a lengthier version of the aforementioned hadith elsewhere:

The Messenger of God said: When the Day of Resurrection comes God will bring all the nations together in the same plateau. And when He sees fit to separate between His creatures, He will present to each nation [the idol] that they used to worship. The people will follow their idols until they will be pushed into the fire. Then our Lord the Blessed and Exalted will come to us as we stand in a high place, and say: ‘Who are you?’ and we will say: ‘We are the Muslims.’ He will say: ‘What are you waiting for you? They (i.e. the Muslims) will say: ‘We are waiting for our Lord the Blessed and Exalted.’ He will say: ‘How will you recognize Him when you have never seen Him?’ And they will say: ‘He has no equal.’ Then, He will be revealed to them laughing, and say: ‘Rejoice, oh you Muslims! For I have already replaced each one of you destined to go to Hell with a Jew or a Christian.’59 (Holtzman, Anthropomorphism in Islam: The Challenge of Traditionalism (700-1350) [Edinburgh University Press LTD, 2019], 1. The Narrator and the Narrative: A Literary Analysis of Ahadith al-Sifat, pp. 33-34; bold emphasis mine)

She cites other versions of this report:

When the Day of Resurrection arrives, [the idols] that each nation used to worship in this world will be presented before them. Each nation will approach [the idol] that they used to worship in this world, and only the monotheists (ahl al-tawhid) will remain. Someone will then say to them: ‘What are you waiting for, when everyone else has already gone?’65 And they we will answer: ‘We have a lord whom we used to worship in the material world, but we have never seen him.’ They will be asked: ‘Will you know him when you see him?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ They will be asked: ‘So, how will you recognize him, when you have never seen him?’ They will answer: ‘Because there is nothing similar to him.’ Suddenly, the curtain will be drawn in front of them, and they will see God, the mighty and powerful. Immediately they will prostrate themselves on the ground – all, but a group of people who will want to prostrate themselves but will be unable to do so, because their backs will be stuck and erect like cattle’s horns. This [scene] will be exactly as described in the Quranic verse: ‘On the day when the dread event unfolds and they are told to prostrate themselves, they will be unable.66 So God will say to them: ‘Raise your heads up, because for each and every one of you I marked A SUBSTITUTE who is either a Jew or a Christian, to be sent INSTEAD OF YOU to Hell.’67 (Ibid., p. 36; bold and capital emphasis mine)

According to his avowal, Sa’id ibn Abi Burda accompanied his father in the delegation to the caliph al-Walid. As Ahmad ibn Hanbal remarked, Sa’id never denied that ‘Umar asked his father to swear on the authenticity of the hadith that he recounted to him. Following the material in Ahmad ibn Habnbal’s Musnad and Muslim’s Sahih, Ibn ‘Asakir added that Sa’id never denied nor affirmed this incident.98 According to Sa’id, after completing his business with ‘Umar, Abu Burda awakened Sa’id in the middle of the night and led him through the streets of Damascus. They arrived at ‘Umar’s house, which was situated between the vegetable market and the cheese market, and knocked on the gate of the house. The gatekeeper informed Abu Burda that ‘Umar had already retired to bed, but Abu Burda insisted on informing ‘Umar that he was waiting for him at the gate. Soon after, permission was granted for Abu Burda and his son to enter the house. ‘Is something wrong, Abu Burda?’ – asked ‘Umar whose sleep was interrupted. ‘Everything is fine’ – answered Abu Burda. ‘What is that you want?’  – asked ‘Umar. Abu Burda explained: ‘I finished my business, but I remembered a hadith that my father had told me. And here it is: The Messenger of God said: When the people will be gathered for Judgment Day, a Jew or a Christian will be brought, and [a voice] will say:  Oh Believer! This is the SACRIFICE that will REDEEM YOU from Hell!’99 ‘Umar asked: ‘Did you hear it from your father?’ Abu Burda confirmed this… (Ibid., pp. 43-44; capital emphasis mine)

I [Qudama ibn Hamata al-Dabbi] was sitting at ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s when suddenly Abu Burda, the son of Abu Musa came in, and told ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz that he once heard his father tell the following hadith on the authority of the Prophet, who said, ‘In the Day of Resurrection, the Jew and the Christian will be brought and a voice will say: “Oh Muslim, this is THE SACRIFICE that will REDEEM YOU from Hell”.’ ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz said to Abu Burda: ‘Allah, there is no god but Him! Did you hear your father tell this hadith on the authority of the Messenger of God?’ [Abu Burda] said: ‘Allah, there is no god but Him! My father indeed told me this hadith, and he in his turn heard it from the Messenger of God.’ [Qudama said]: I then saw ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz prostrate himself in adoration three times.107 (Ibid., p. 45; capital emphasis mine)  

59. Al-Ajurri, Kitab al-Shari’a, p. 279, hadith 608; Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 32, pp. 422-4, hadith 19654; Ibn Khuzayma, Kitab al-Tawhid, pp. 577-8, hadith 340; al-Darimi, Radd, p. 92, hadith 180; Gimaret, Dieu a l’image de l’homme, p. 268…

67. Al-Ajurri, Kitab al-Shari’a, p. 278, hadith 607. For a different version, see al-Ajurri, Kitab al-tasdiq, p. 80; al-Tabarani, Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir, vol. 9, p. 418…

98. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 21, p. 166.

99. Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 32, pp. 375-6, hadith 196000.

100. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 26, p. 47 (the biography of Abu Burda).

101. Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 32, pp. 375-6, hadith 196000.    

102. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 25, pp. 134-5 (the biography of Talha ibn Yahya Talha ibn ‘Ubayd Allah)…

104. Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa’l-ta’dil, vol. 7, pp. 127-8; Ibn Habban, al-Thiqat, vol. 7, p. 341 …

107. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 49, pp. 301-2. (Ibid., pp. 61-64)

If the foregoing doesn’t convince the readers that Muhammad’s Allah is actually Satan himself, and not the God revealed in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, then I am afraid nothing will.

FURTHER READING

Islam’s Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement And the Ransoming of Sinners

Allah’s Unbound Cruelty and Injustice

Is Allah Impotent and Untrustworthy?

Islam’s Divine Insurance Scam

Reexamining Islam’s Divine Insurance Scam Pt.1Pt. 2

Islam’s Morally Grotesque Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement

Addressing Williams’ False Allegations Pt. 6

Islam’s Doctrine of Imputation of Righteousness and Vicarious Death

No Atonement in Islam? Responding to Another Typical Muslim ObjectionDo They Bear Another’s Burdens Or Not?