In this post I will quote from Eusebius’ History of Church, written around 312-324 AD, where he appeals to the writers, apologists, theologians, fathers, etc. of the Church to prove that the holy Apostles and their successors have always taught that Jesus Christ is God who became man. He will reference apologists and martyrs such as Clement, Irenaeus, Justin and others whose writings he had consulted to prove how they all affirmed the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eusebius also mentions how the heretics were changing the holy Scriptures in order to make them agree with their heresies and false doctrines. Thankfully, true believers were copying the sacred writings as handed down to them from the Apostles and their companions, in order to preserve the true readings of the God-breathed Scriptures.

All emphasis will be mine.   

Chapter 28. Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures.

1. In a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata attempted to revive again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are now examining.

2. For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient. Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words:

3. For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted.

4. And what they say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed in their day. I refer to Justin and Miltiades and Tatian and Clement and many others, in all of whose works CHRIST IS SPOKEN OF AS GOD.

5. For who does not know the works of Irenæus and of Melito and of others which teach THAT CHRIST IS GOD AND MAN? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine.

6. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?

7. So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus. The author of the above-mentioned book, concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words:

8. I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, not long ago, but in our own day.

9. This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a money-changer. Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness.

10. Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and fifty denarii a month.

11. When he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions. For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish.

12. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night. Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was he taken back into communion.

13. We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning them, which run as follows:

They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.

14. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who comes from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshipped.

15. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to say? Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.

16. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly.

17. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different.

18. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.

19. But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets, and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition.

Let this suffice for these things. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book V)

FURTHER READING

Were the Early Church Fathers Trinitarians?

WERE EARLY CHRISTIANS TRINITARIANS?

EXTRA-BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR THE TRINITY

SECOND-THIRD CENTURY CHRISTIAN WORSHIP OF THE TRINITY

63 Church Father Quotes on the Angel of the Lord

This post is meant to supplement the following article I wrote: Adam and Eve: The First of the Polytheists and Associators?.

The Quran insinuates that Adam and Eve committed shirk, which is the sin of ascribing partners with the Muslim deity:

It is He Who has created you from a single person (Adam), and (then) He has created from him his wife (Hawwa (Eve)), in order that he might enjoy the pleasure of living with her. When he had sexual relation with her, she became pregnant and she carried it about lightly. Then when it became heavy, they both invoked Allah, their Lord (saying): “If You give us a Salih (good in every aspect) child, we shall indeed be among the grateful.” But when He gave them a Salih (good in every aspect) child, they ascribed partners to Him (Allah) in that which He has given to them. High be Allah, Exalted above all that they ascribe as partners to Him. (Tafsir At-Tabaree, Vol.9, Page 148) Do they attribute as partners to Allah those who created nothing but they themselves are created. S. 7:189-192 Hilali-Khan

Since shirk is the unforgiveable sin,

Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped). S. 2:22 Hilali-Khan

Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin. S. 4:48 Hilali-Khan

This means the Islamic scripture has basically condemned Adam and Eve to hell!

According to the traditions, Adam and Eve’s crime consisted of their having named a son after Satan, who had appeared to them as a man in order to deceive them into taking his advice in the case of delivering children who would live:

Narrated Samurah bin Jundab: that the Prophet said: When Hawwa became pregnant, Iblis came to her – and her children would not live (after birth) – so he said: ‘Name him ‘Abdul-Harith.’ So she named him ‘Abdul-Harith and he lived. So that is among the inspirations of Ash-Shaitan and his commands.

Grade: Daif (Darussalam) (Al-Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 3077 https://www.alim.org/hadith/tirmidi/47/3077/; see also https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3077; emphasis mine)

And:

It is He Who created you from a single self and made from him his spouse so that he might find repose in her.

The MAJORITY of commentators said that what is mean by ‘a single self’ is Adam, ‘His spouse’ is Hawwa’. ‘So that he might find repose in her’ means be familiar with her at peace. All of this was in the Garden…

Then when it became heavy they called on Allah, their Lord, ‘If You grant us a healthy child, we will be among the thankful!’

‘When it became heavy’ means it became a burden, as used for the fruit of the date palms. It is said that it began to be heavy as the verbs asbaha and amsa are used. ‘They called on Allah, their Lord’: the pronoun ‘they’ refers to Adam and Hawwa’. According to this view it is related in accounts of this ayah that when Hawwa’ became pregnant the first time, she did not know what it was. This is strengthened by the reading marat. She was alarmed by that and Iblis found a way to her.  

Al-Kalbi said, ‘When she became heavy the first time, Iblis came to Hawwa in the form of a man. He asked, ‘What is that in your belly?’ She answered, ‘I do not know!’ He said, ‘I fear it is an animal.’ She told Adam about that and they continued to worry about it. Then Iblis returned to her and said that he had a position with Allah: ‘If I pray to Allah and you bear a human will you name him after me?’ ‘Yes,’ she replied. He said, ‘I will pray to Allah.’ He came to her when she had given birth and said, ‘Give him my name.’ She asked, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Al-Harith,’ he answered. If he had named himself to her, she would have recognized him, and so she called him ‘Abd al-Harith.  

Something similar to this is mentioned in a weak hadith in at-Tirmidhi and elsewhere, and there is a great deal in the Israelite sources which are not firm and should not be relied on by someone who has a heart. Even though Adam and Hawwa had been deluded previously, a believer is not bitten from the same hole twice, ALTHOUGH IT IS RECORDED AND WRITTEN. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘He deceived them twice: in the Garden AND ON THE EARTH.’

when He granted them a healthy, upright child, they associated what He had given them with Him

The meaning of ‘salih’ (healthy) is ‘a balanced child’. Scholars disagree about the interpretation of the shirk here ascribed to Adam and Hawwa’. Commentators said, ‘The shirk was in the naming and attribute, not in worship and lordship.’ The people of meanings said, ‘They did not believe that al-Harith was their Lord by their naming their son ‘Abd al-Harith, but they believed that al-Harith was the reason for the deliverance of their child and so they named him after him, as a man names himself the slave of his guest by way of humility to him, not meaning that the guest is his actual lord. It is as Hatim said:

I am the slave of the guest as long as he stays with me,

although my disposition contains none of the nature of a slave.’ (Aisha Bewley, Tafsir al-Qurtubi [Diwan Press, 2023], Volume 7. Sūrat al-An’ām – Cattle & Sūrat al-A’rāf, pp. 402-403; emphasis mine) 

Despite Muhammad stating that Satan deceived Adam and Eve twice, once in the garden and once upon the earth, the Muslims still tried to find a way of weakening or rejecting these traditions. These authorities clearly saw how much of a problem such narrations posed to their erroneous assumption that prophets are guarded by Allah from committing such heinous sins.

FURTHER READING

Islam and the Sins of the Prophets

In this post I will be citing from the late liberal, critical [N]ew [T]estament scholar James D. G. Dunn’s book Jesus According to the New Testament, published by William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019. The reason for citing this work is because Dunn did not hold to the inerrancy or infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, but thought that they contained errors and historical exaggerations/embellishments. As such, his views in regards to the NT teaching on the Deity of Christ should carry more weight for opponents of Christianity since they are not the rantings of some fanatical inerrantist or fundamentalist. All emphasis will be mine.

PAUL

The fact that Paul spoke of the Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ,” as we saw in Romans 8:9, and equally could speak of “the Spirit of God,” as in Romans 8:14, should not pass without comment. For it means that Paul could think of the Holy Spirit as Christ’s Spirit. Jesus was not simply the Messiah who was anointed by the Spirit of God, but that anointing power of God had become so identified with the one anointed that the Spirit of God could be understood as Christ’s Spirit. Paul’s letter to Rome was written in about the year 56 or 57, and presumably this was not the first time Paul had so identified the Spirit of God with Christ. Which means that well within thirty years of Jesus’s ministry, death and resurrection, God’s Spirit was being thought of as “the Spirit of Christ.” Similarly in Philippians 1:19 Paul expresses his confidence that “the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” would ensure his deliverance. And the implication of the fact that Jesus’s distinctive “Abba! Father!” prayer quickly became the distinctive prayer of Paul and his fellow Christians, understood as inspired by the Spirit (rom 8:16-17; Gal 4:6-7), should not be missed.

What had happened here? Is it simply that Paul was so confident that Jesus had been anointed and empowered by God’s Spirit, so that Christ’s ministry attested the character of the power that had inspired? In which case it was as easy to say Jesus’s Spirit as it was to say God’s Spirit. Was it thus that the Christian concept of God as Trinity first came to expression? Whatever the precise historical details, it cannot be insignificant that Paul so identified the power of Jesus’s mission with the Spirit of God that he could quite naturally speak of the power as the Spirit of Christ. Indeed, as we saw in 2 Corinthians 3:12-18, he could identify “the Lord” both with Jesus and with the Spirit. We cannot, of course, infer that Paul had conception of God as Trinity. But it cannot but be significant that he could speak of the same spiritual reality equally in terms of the Lord, Christ, and the Spirit. Here again Christian theologizing owes an incalculable debt to Paul. (127-128)

As we have seen, Paul does not hesitate to speak of Jesus as Lord. Of course, he was well aware that kyrios (Lord) was the Greek translation of the Hebrew, “Yahweh.” But what is striking is that he was quite happy to take references to Yahweh and refer them to the Lord Jesus–as in Romans 10:9-13, citing Joel 2:32: “Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Very striking too is the fact that Paul draws on one of the strongest monotheistic passages in the whole Bible–Isaiah 45:21-23–and uses its final acclamation, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear,” in his great hymn of praise to Christ (Phil 2:6-11). And in Romans 9:5 Paul’s Greek (or punctuation) can be taken as Paul referring to Christ as God “who is over all.” Paul certainly saw God as fully acting in and through Christ. He freely applied references to Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible to Christ. “In him,” he did not hesitate to assert in another hymn, “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col. 1:19). Indeed, the hymn begins by hailing Christ as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,” in whom “all things in heaven and on earth were created,” “created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:15-17). WOW! How can we refrain from acknowledging that Paul saw in Christ the agency of creation itself. It looks very much, then, that Paul was so convinced that God had acted through Christ that he did not hold back on some occasions from identifying Christ with God. (133-134)

… Titus 2:13, however, raises the intriguing question whether the writer was already willing to speak of Jesus as God (“our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ”); or should we rather translate “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”? The issue is perhaps clarified when we take the full phrase, “the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior”–Jesus’s coming being seen as the manifestation of the glory of the one God. The parallel with John 1:14 (“we have seen his glory …”) suggests that both the Pastorals and John were moving in the same direction in their appreciation of the significance of Jesus.

The title “Savior” is much more prominent in the Pastorals than in the earlier Pauline letters, and is used equally of Christ as it is of God–especially in Titus: “God our Savior” (Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) and “Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6)… (136)

PETER

The clear sense of Christ as the medium through whom worshipers can draw near to God, whose resurrection is the ground of their confidence and hope, and who preeminently brings glory to God, could hardly be clearer. Also noticeable is the fact that 1 Peter could use the title “Lord” EQUALLY for Jesus (1 Pet 1:3; 3:15) AND FOR GOD (1 Pet 1:25; 3:12), so that the reference in 1 Peter 2:3 and 13 can be taken either way without concern. And the fact that 1 Peter is the only New Testament writing apart from Paul that uses the phrase “in Christ” (1 Pet 3:16; 5:10, 14) should not escape notice. And it is 1 Peter which includes the thought that between his crucifixion and resurrection Jesus descended into hell to minister there (1 Pet 3:18-19), a rather puzzling reference which was included in the Apostles’ Creed but was not retained thereafter. (164-165)

Notably, Jesus is referred to REGULARLY as “our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:2, 8, 14, 16) or “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:11; 2:20; 3:18). And, RATHER STRIKINGLY, the letter opens with a reference to “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:1). The writer seems quite ready to refer to the climax of history as “the day of the Lord” (2 Pet 3:10) and as “the day of God” (2 Pet 3:12)… (173)

JOHN

If John’s elaboration of the claims that Jesus is Israel’s long-expected Messiah, and is indeed the Son of God, was striking; even more so is the wholly new claim in the opening paragraph of the Gospel. The astonishing claim is that Jesus not only spoke the word of God, as had the prophets of old, but was the Word of God! It is one of the features of John’s Gospel that immediately catches the attention–that John begins not with the first phase of Jesus’s ministry (as had Mark), nor with his birth (as had Matthew and Luke), but with the Logos/Word as the divine agent or medium of creation. In his bolder reflections Paul had come close to this (as in Phil 2:6 and Col 2:9). It is only with John, however, that we see in precise words the concept of incarnation, of Jesus as the incarnation of God’s creative agency specifically articulated as never before–and with an unexpected boldness in his opening words.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.… He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.… He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.… From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. (John 1:1-18)

It is hard for those who have been long familiar with this passage to appreciate just how exceptional it was when first written. The Word or Logos was of course familiar to both Jew and Greek. Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible would think, for example, of

Gen 15:1 “The word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision.”

Ps 33:6 “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.”

And of course, they would think particularly of the prophets to whom “the word of the Lord came” on many occasions–as in

Isa 55:11 God says, “So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose.”

Jer 2:4 “Hear the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob.”

For those more familiar with Greek thought, the idea of the logos spermatikos, the seed-logos, the creative energy behind the world, and seeded within the human individual, would be nothing new. For John it would no doubt have been familiar that logos could refer both to the word unexpressed and the word expressed. How better to use it than to underlie the significance of Jesus: Jesus as the embodiment of the mind and intention of God, as himself expressing what hitherto had been expressed only in the words of the inspired prophet. What was only implicit in creation was now expressed clearly. In other words, John 1:14, “The Word became flesh and lived among us,” was something totally unexpected and now, making a wholly mind-blowing claim: that Jesus, as God’s Word, has expressed what was hitherto the inexpressible and has made the unknown known.

We should not fail to note the significance of John’s formulation in his claim that it is the Word of God that has been incarnated as Jesus. Not just the creative power of God. Not just the saving acts of God that have delivered Israel in the past, but the word of God, the creative and saving power of God IN A RATIONAL FORM that would engage human intelligence and answer human puzzles and inquiries. The wonder of John 1:14 is that its claim engages the human readers and responds at every level of their being, the word-expressing mind not least. (62-64)

Somewhat surprisingly, the thought of Jesus as the Word of God incarnate is not taken up or followed through in the rest of John’s Gospel–suggesting to some that the prologue (John 1:1-18) was a later edition to the Gospel, as composed by John or by the group around him. Somewhat However, in Jewish thought there was a more familiar way of speaking of God’s interaction with his creation and his people. This was the figure of divine Wisdom, familiar at the time of Jesus particularly in the wisdom literature of Israel’s Scriptures.

Prov 3:19 “The LORD by wisdom founded the earth.”

Prov 8:27, 30 Wisdom cries out: “When he established the heavens, I was there. … Then I was beside him, like a master worker.”

Sir 24:1, 23 “Wisdom praises herself, and tells of her glory in the midst of her people. … All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us.”

Bar 3:9-4:2 “Hear the commandments of life, O Israel; give ear, and learn wisdom. … She [Wisdom] is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever. All who hold her fast will live, and those who forsake her will die. Turn, O Jacob, and take her; walk toward the shining of her light.”

The point should not be missed, that the incarnation of Wisdom in the flesh of Jesus was foreshadowed by the embodiment of Wisdom in “the book of the covenant” with Israel, “the commandments of God.”

In John there are many echoes of what was said of Wisdom. For example:

Wis 9:17-18 “Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high? And thus … people … were saved by wisdom.”

John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. 17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

Sir 15:3 “She [Wisdom] will feed him with the bread of learning, and give him the water of wisdom to drink.”

Sir 24:21 “Those who eat of me will hunger for more, and those who drink of me will thirst for more.”

John 4:14 Jesus says to the woman at the well, “Those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.”

Prov 9:5 Wisdom’s invitation: “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed.”

Sir 15:3 “She [Wisdom] will feed him with the bread of learning, and give him the water of wisdom to drink.”

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”

A striking feature should not be ignored. In Jewish thought the figure of Wisdom was feminine, the Jews realizing from early on that the divine could not be limited to a single gender. The creative power of God, expressed above all in the human species, cannot be restricted to one form of that species.  “God created humankind in his image … male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). “Male and female” is the image of God. So there is no problem in John expressing the incarnation in female terms. The incarnation embodies the creative energy of God in creating male and female. The claim made in John 1:14 could be equally made in terms of Wisdom: “Wisdom became flesh” in and as Jesus. John could hardly have been bolder in his claim that everything the Jewish writers of the Hebrew Bible tried to express by their talk of the Word of God and the Wisdom of God had been summed up in Jesus, THE INCARNATE WORD, THE INCARNATE WISDOM OF GOD. (64-67)

The Christology of Revelation is somewhat surprising, though not when we recall the apocalyptic character of Revelation. The writing is introduced as “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:1). The writer, John, records, “the testimony of Jesus Christ,” a favorite phrase with John, including testimony “to all that he saw” (Rev 1:2). The introductory blessing is “from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:4-5). This ease with which John refers to Jesus and God in similar language is a feature of his writing. The first hymnic passage (Rev 1:7) echoes Daniel 7:13 (“he is coming with the clouds”) and Zechariah 12:10 (“every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”). And John is the only New Testament writer apart from the evangelists to refer to Daniel’s vision of “one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13) to Jesus (Rev 1:13; 14:14). Nor should we miss the powerful self-revelation of Christ which introduces the letters to the seven churches: “I am the first and the last, and the living one, I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades” (Rev 1:17-18).  

Preceding that, the vision of Revelation 1:12-16, of Jesus “with a golden sash across his chest … his head and his hair … white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes … like a flame of fire, his feet … like burnished bronze … and his voice … like the sound of many waters,” draws on the apocalyptic tradition within Judaism where the glorious angel who appears can be almost identified with God. The echoes of the visions of Daniel (7:9, 13) and Ezekiel (1:24-27; 8:2), indicated by the italicized words, are no doubt deliberate. What is striking is the contrast with such apocalyptic tradition at this point. For example, in the Apocalypse of Abraham 17:2 and the Ascension of Isaiah 8:4-5, the glorious angel refuses worship or to be addressed as “my Lord.” And, not surprisingly, Revelation follows the same tradition in regard to the interpreting angel, as is clear particularly in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9. In STRIKING contrast, however, Jesus IS MORE CLEARLY WORSHIPED in Revelation than anywhere else in the New Testament. The hymns to the Lamb in chapter 5 are no different in character from the hymns to God in chapter 4. And in passages such as Revelation 5:13 and 7:10 the Lamb IS LINKED WITH GOD in a common ascription of adoration…

In other words, the inhibitions about worshiping a glorious interpreting angel, which John shared with his fellow apocalyptists, he abandoned in the case of the exalted Christ, the Lamb of God.

This clearly implies that the seer’s running together of the descriptions in Ezekiel and Daniel, of God as seen in vision and of glorious angels, was no accident. His intention was precisely to say that the exalted Jesus was not merely a glorious angel or to be confused with one. The glorious angel was not to be worshiped. BUT THE EXALTED CHRIST WAS! This is of a piece with the fact, again no doubt deliberate on John’s part, that both God AND THE EXALTED CHRIST SAY, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” Nor does John hold back from referring to the exalted Christ as “the holy one,” knowing full well that “the holy one” is used frequently of God in the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, often in the expression “the Holy One of Israel.” Similarly with his affirmation of Jesus as “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev 17:14; 19:16), a title presumably fitting for God ALONE. And some of the descriptions of the exalted Christ’s relation to the throne in the seer’s vision seem to imply that the Lamb was sitting on God’s throne (Rev 3:21; 7:17); it is “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev 22:1, 3). This should probably be seen as one of John’s ways of acknowledging the fullest significance and status of Christ in relation to God without abandoning his more traditional monotheism. To do so without diminishing the glory of the one God was possible within an apocalyptic tradition as nowhere else, since that tradition was quite familiar with angelic agents of God who embodied the person, majesty, and authority of God. (176-178)

JAMES & JUDE

… Also here is the fact that, apart from the two references to the “Lord Jesus Christ” already cited, the two references to the hope for “the coming of the Lord” (Jas 5:7, 8), and the advice on anointing the sick with oil “in the name of the Lord” (Jas 5:14-15), the other references to “the Lord” are probably to God. That, of course, is itself of no little interest since it implies that even in what we might refer to Jesus’s own family circle, Jesus could be referred to as “the Lord” IN THE SAME WAY AS GOD WAS REFERRED TO AS “the Lord.” (159)

Rather differently from James, Jude refers to Jesus six times, introducing himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ” (Jude 1), and referring to Jesus regularly as “our Lord” (Jude 17, 21, 25), but also as “our only Master and Lord” (Jude 4)… (172)

FURTHER READING

Jesus Meets the Criteria for Deity, Addendum

The Use of Exclusive Language and the Deity of Christ [Part 1]

Muhammad – Underneath the Glorious Feet of the Lord Jesus! Pt. 1

How Good Logic Leads To A Rejection Of Islam Pt. 1

The Abuse And Misuse Of Modern Biblical Scholarship, Pt. 2a, Pt. 2b, Pt. 3

Jesus As Wisdom Incarnate [Part 1], [Part 2]

The Quran speaks of Allah extracting seed from the children of Adam in order to make them testify that they would worship none besides him:  

And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their seed (or from Adam’s loin his offspring) and made them testify as to themselves (saying): “Am I not your Lord?” They said: “Yes! We testify,” lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: “Verily, we have been unaware of this.” Or lest you should say: “It was only our fathers aforetime who took others as partners in worship along with Allah, and we were (merely their) descendants after them; will You then destroy us because of the deeds of men who practised Al-Batil (i.e. polytheism and committing crimes and sins, invoking and worshipping others besides Allah)?” (Tafsir At-Tabari). S. 7:172-173 Hilali-Khan

According to the Islamic sources, this is supposed to refer to the time when Allah brought forth all of Adam’s descendants from his loins to make a covenant with them:

And remember when your Lord took from the Children of Adam from their loins min zuhūrihim is an inclusive substitution for the preceding clause min banī Ādama ‘from the Children of Adam’ with the same preposition min ‘from’ their seed by bringing forth one from the loins of the other all from the loins of Adam offspring after offspring in the way that they multiply looking like small ants at the valley of Na‘mān on the Day of ‘Arafa because of their multitude. God set up proofs of His Lordship for them and endowed them with the faculty of reason and made them testify against themselves saying ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said ‘Yea indeed You are our Lord we testify’ to this and this taking of testimony is lest they should say in both instances read third person yaqūlū ‘they say’ or second person taqūlū ‘you say’ on the Day of Resurrection ‘Truly of this Oneness of God we were unaware’ not knowing it! (Tafsir al-Jalalayn https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=7&tAyahNo=172&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; emphasis mine)

(And (remember) when thy Lord) O Muhammad (brought forth) on the Day of the Covenant (from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed) He brought forth the seeds from their reins, (and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord? They said: Yea, verily We testify) we know and acknowledge that You are our Lord. Allah then said to the angels: be witnesses over them; and let you be witnesses over one another. ((That was) lest ye should say) so that you do not say (at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this) covenant (we were unaware) we were not made to make pledge; (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=7&tAyahNo=172&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; emphasis mine)

The hadiths attributed to Muhammad also claim that this was the period when Allah determined which of the seed of Adam would go to heaven and which of them would be tortured in hellfire forever:

The Covenant taken from the Descendants of Adam

Allah stated that He brought the descendants of Adam out of their fathers’ loins, and they testified against themselves that Allah is their Lord and King and that there is no deity worthy of worship except Him. Allah created them on this Fitrah, or way, just as He said…

(So set you (O Muhammad) your face truly towards the religion, Hanifan. Allah’s Fitrah with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalqillah.) (30:30) And it is recorded in the Two Sahihs from Abu Hurayrah who said that the Messenger of Allah said…

<<Every child is born upon the Fitrah, it is only his parents who turn him into a Jew, a Christian or a Zoroastrian. Just as animals are born having full bodies, do you see any of them having a cutoff nose (when they are born)>>. Muslim recorded that `Iyad bin `Himar said that the Messenger of Allah said…

<<(Allah said, `I created My servants Hunafa‘ (monotheists), but the devils came to them and deviated them from their religion, prohibiting what I allowed.>> There are Hadiths that mention that Allah took Adam’s offspring from his loins and divided them into those on the right and those on the left. Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas bin Malik said that the Prophet said…

<<It will be said to a man from the people of the Fire on the Day of Resurrection, `If you owned all that is on the earth, would you pay it as ransom?’ He will reply, `Yes.’ Allah will say, `I ordered you with what is less than that, when you were still in Adam’s loins, that is, associate none with Me (in worship). You insisted that you associate with Me (in worship).’>> This was recorded in the Two Sahihs Commenting on this Ayah (7:172), At-Tirmidhi recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said…

<<When Allah created Adam, He wiped Adam’s back and every person that He will create from him until the Day of Resurrection fell out from his back. Allah placed a glimmering light between the eyes of each one of them. Allah showed them to Adam and Adam asked, `O Lord! Who are they?’ Allah said, `These are your offspring.’ Adam saw a man from among them whose light he liked. He asked, `O Lord! Who is this man’ Allah said, `This is a man from the latter generations of your offspring. His name is Dawud.’ Adam said, `O Lord! How many years would he live?’ Allah said, `Sixty years.’ Adam said, `O Lord! I have forfeited forty years from my life for him.’ When Adam’s life came to an end, the angel of death came to him (to take his soul). Adam said, `I still have forty years from my life term, don’t I?’ He said, `Have you not given it to your son Dawud?’ So Adam denied that and his offspring followed suit (denying Allah’s covenant), Adam forgot and his offspring forgot, Adam made a mistake and his offspring made mistakes.>> At-Tirmidhi said, “This Hadith is HASAN SAHIH, and it was reported from various chains of narration through Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet.” Al-Hakim also recorded it in his Mustadrak, and said; “SAHIH according to the criteria of Muslim, and they did not record it.” These and similar Hadiths testify that Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored, brought forth Adam’s offspring from his loins and separated between the inhabitants of Paradise and those of the Fire. Allah then said…

(and made them testify as to themselves (saying): “Am I not your Lord?” They said: “Yes!”) Therefore, Allah made them testify with themselves by circumstance and words. Testimony is sometimes given in words, such as…

(They will say: “We bear witness against ourselves.”) (6:130) At other times, testimony is given by the people themselves, such as Allah’s statement…

(It is not for the Mushrikin, (polytheists) to maintain the mosques of Allah, while they testify against their own selves of disbelief.) (9:17) This Ayah means that their disbelief testifies against them, not that they actually testify against themselves here. Another Ayah of this type is Allah’s statement…

(And to that he bears witness (by his deeds).) (100:7) The same is the case with asking, sometimes takes the form of words and sometimes a situation or circumstance. For instance, Allah said…

(And He gave you of all that you asked for.) (14:34) Allah said here…

(lest you should say), on the Day of Resurrection…

(we were of this) of Tawhid…

(unaware. Or lest you should say: “It was only our fathers aforetime who took others as partners in worship along with Allah,”) (7:172-173) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/7/172/; emphasis mine)

And:

Narrated Abu Hurairah: that the Messenger of Allah said: When Allah created Adam He wiped his back and every person that He created among his offspring until the Day of Resurrection fell out of his back. He placed a ray of light between the eyes of every person. Then He showed them to Adam and he said: ‘O Lord! Who are these people?’ He said: ‘These are your offspring.’ He saw one of them whose ray between his eyes amazed him, so he said: ‘O Lord! Who is this?’ He said: ‘This is a man from the latter nations of your offspring called Dawud.’ He said: ‘Lord! How long did You make his lifespan?’ He said: ‘Sixty years.’ He said: ‘O Lord! Add forty years from my life to his.’ So at the end of Adam’s life, the Angel of death of came to him, and he said: ‘Do I not have forty years remaining?’ He said: ‘Did you not give them to your son Dawud?’ He said: Adam denied, so his offspring denied, and Adam forgot and his offspring forgot, and Adam sinned, so his offspring sinned.

Grade: HASAN (Darussalam) (Al-Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 3076 https://www.alim.org/hadith/tirmidi/47/3076/; see also https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3076; emphasis mine)

Pay close attention to the foregoing narratives admitting that Adam caused all of his seed to forget and deny due to his later forgetting and denying that he had assigned forty years of his earthly life to his descendant David. This is obviously Muhammad’s version of the biblical doctrine of “Original Sin”!

Finally:

Narrated Muslim bin Yasar Al-Juhani: that ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab was asked about this Ayah: And when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their seed and made them testify as to themselves: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes! We testify, lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: ‘Verily, we have been unaware of this (7:172).’ So ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab said: I heard the Messenger of Allah being asked about it. So the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah created Adam, then He wiped his back with His Right Hand, and his offspring came out of him. So he said: I created these for Paradise, and they will do the deeds of the people of Paradise. Then He wiped his back, and his offspring came out of him. So He said: I created these for the Fire, and they will do the deeds of the people of the Fire. A man said: ‘Then of what good is doing deeds O Messenger of Allah!’ The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Verily, when Allah created a man for Paradise, He makes him perform the deeds of the people of Paradise, until he dies doing one of the deeds of the people of Paradise. So Allah will admit him into Paradise. And when He created a man for the Fire, He makes him perform the deeds of the people of the Fire until he dies doing the deeds of the people of the Fire. So Allah will enter him into the Fire.’

Grade: Daif (Darussalam) (Al-Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 3075 https://www.alim.org/hadith/tirmidi/47/3075/; see also https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3075; emphasis mine)

As if this Islamic view of predeterminism weren’t troubling enough, the sound reports have Muhammad also proclaiming that Allah extracted from Adam’s loins all of his black offspring for the express purpose of torturing them in hell forever!

Narrated AbudDarda’

Allah’s Messenger said: Allah created Adam when He had to create him and He struck his right shoulder and there emitted from it white offspring as if they were white ants. He struck his left shoulder and there emitted from it THE BLACK OFFSPRINGS as if they were charcoal. He then said (to those who had been emitted) from the right (shoulder): For Paradise and I do not mind. Then He said to those (who had been emitted) from his left shoulder: They are for Hell and I do not mind.

Transmitted by Ahmad. (Al-Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 38 https://web.archive.org/web/20210118020318/https://www.alim.org/hadith/tirmidi/38/)

And:

Abu Darda’ reported God’s messenger as saying, “God created Adam when He created him and struck his right shoulder and brought forth his offspring white like small ants. And he struck his left shoulder and brought forth his offspring BLACK as though they were charcoal. Then He said to the party on his right said, ‘To paradise, and I do not care’, and He said to the party in his left shoulder ‘To hell, and I do not care’.”

Ahmad transmitted it.

Grade: Isnād HASAN (Zubair `Aliza’i)

Reference: Mishkat al-Masabih 119

In-book reference: Book 1, Hadith 112 (Mishkat Al Masabih, English translation with explanatory notes by Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ahsraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprint 1990], Volume I, Chapter IV, Book I. Faith, pp. 31-32: https://sunnah.com/mishkat:119)

Finally:

There is a hadith from the Prophet that expresses other than these two views. Malik related in his Muwatta’ that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was asked about this ayah and said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah being asked about it and the Messenger of Allah said, “When Allah Almighty created Adam, He stroked his back with His right hand, and removed progeny from him and said, ‘I created these for the Garden and they will act with the behaviour of the people of the Garden.’ Then He stroked his back again, and he brought forth progeny from him and said, ‘I created these for the Fire and they will act with the behaviour of the people of the Fire.’” A man asked, “Then of what value are good deeds?” The Messenger of Allah said, “When Allah creates someone for the Garden, he makes him do the actions of the people of the Garden, and by it He brings him into the Garden. When He creates someone for the Fire, He makes him do the actions of the people of the Fire, so that he dies on one of the actions of the people of the Fire, and by it, He brings into the Fire.”’ Abu ‘Umar said, ‘This is a hadith with a broken isnad because Muslim ibn Yasar did not meet ‘Umar.’ Yahya ibn Ma’in said that Muslim ibn Yasar is not known. Between him and ‘Umar was Nu’aym ibn Rabi’ah whom an-Nasa’i mentioned, and Nu’aym is not known for having knowledge. Nonetheless the meaning of this hadith is SOUND from the Prophet from many firm paths from the hadiths of ‘Umar ibn Khattab, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib, Abu Hurayrah and others…

There is disagreement about the place where the contract was made when they were brought out, and four things are said. Ibn ‘Abbas said that it was on the plain of Na’man, a valley in ‘Arafah. It is also related from him that it was in Barahba, a land in India where Adam descended. Yahya ibn Sallam said that Ibn ‘Abbas said about this ayah, ‘Allah brought Adam down in India. Then he stroked his back and brought forth from it every soul that He will create until the Day of Rising. Then He said, “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “We testify.”’ Yahya said that al-Hasan said, ‘Then he put them back in the loins of Adam. Al-Kalbi said that it was between Makkah and Ta’if. As-Suddi said, ‘In the lowest heaven when he descended from the Garden to it. He stroked his back and produced from the right side of his back progeny WHITE like pearls and said to them, “Enter the Garden by My mercy,” and He produced from the left side of his back BLACK PROGENY and said to them, “Enter the Fire, and I do not care.” Ibn Jurayj said, “Every emerged created WHITE for the Garden and BLACK FOR THE FIRE.”

Ibn al-‘Arabi said, ‘It is asked, “How can it be permitted to punish people when they have sinned, or punish them for what He Himself willed from them and wrote for them AND DROVE THEM TO?” we say, “On what basis is that forbidden? Is it logically or legally?” If it is said that it is because the merciful and wise among us are not permitted to do that, we answer that it is because above him is a Commander who commands him and One who forbids him. Our Lord is not asked about what He does but they will be asked. It is not permitted to compare creation with the Creator. The actions of Allah’s slaves are not comparable to the actions of the Deity. In reality, all actions belong to Allah and creation belongs entirely to Him. That which the Adamic creature feels which gives rise to intrinsic kindness, genetic compassion and love of praise comes about because he anticipates gaining benefit from feeling that. The Creator is free of all that and it is not permitted to consider it.’ (Aisha Bewley, Tafsir al-Qurtubi [Diwan Press, 2023], Volume 7. Sūrat al-An’ām – Cattle & Sūrat al-A’rāf, pp. 379-381; emphasis mine)  

Hence, not only has the Muslim god decided from before creation who would be predestined to hell, he also determined beforehand to specifically create all black people to be tormented in everlasting hellfire! And none shall dare question him for choosing to create black offspring for hell and for then making them do evil so that he can have a basis for torturing them in the most brutal manner imaginable!  

Such a capricious and racist deity is not the true God revealed in the Person of the Lord Jesus as proclaimed in the only Scriptures that this true God has ever inspired, the Holy Bible.  

FURTHER READING

The Creation and Purpose of Hell Pt. 1

The Problem of Divine Sovereignty, Predestination, Salvation and Human Free Will

BLACK SKIN

Muhammad enslaved people, owned and sold slaves, including several black slaves.

Original Forgiveness – Did Original Sin Really End with Adam? Pt. 1, Pt. 2

Original Sin in Islam Revisited