Tag: bible

NWT: A PERVERTED TRANSLATION

In this post I will furnish another example how the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is a perversion of God’s Word, a diabolical translation produced for the express purpose of robbing Christ of his Deity and undermining the Trinity.

THE HOLY SPIRIT OF JEHOVAH JESUS

The Apostle Peter writes that it was actually the Spirit of Christ who inspired the [O]ld [T]estament prophets to announce his coming to suffer for the salvation of the world and the subsequent glories that would follow:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, made careful searches and inquiries, inquiring to know what time or what kind of time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He was predicting the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been declared to you through those who proclaimed the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.” 1 Peter 1:10-12 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

To say that the prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit of Christ to speak and record the revelations of his coming is truly astonishing in light of the fact that the Hebrew Bible is emphatically clear that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah’s Spirit. The OT is also emphatic that it was the Spirit of Jehovah who instructed the prophets, and not the Spirit of another!

“So Pharʹaoh said to his servants: ‘Can another man be found like this one in whom there is the spirit of God?’” Genesis 41:38

“These are the last words of David: ‘The word of David the son of Jesʹse, And the word of the man who was raised on high, The anointed of the God of Jacob, The pleasant singer of the songs of Israel. The spirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue. The God of Israel spoke; To me the Rock of Israel said: “When the one ruling over mankind is righteous, Ruling in the fear of God,”’” 2 Samuel 23:1-3

“And you gave your good spirit to give them insight, and you did not hold back your manna from their mouth, and you gave them water when they were thirsty… You extended patience to them for many years and kept warning them by your spirit through your prophets, but they refused to listen. Finally you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.” Nehemiah 9:20, 30

“Do not cast me out from your presence; And do not take your holy spirit away from me.” Psalm 51:11

“‘Come near to me, and hear this. From the very start I have not spoken in secret. From the time it happened I was there.’ And now the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has sent me, and his spirit.” Isaiah 48:16

The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, Because Jehovah anointed me to declare good news to the meek. He sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And the wide opening of the eyes to the prisoners,” Isaiah 61:1

“But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit. He then turned into their enemy, And he fought against them. And they remembered the days of old, The days of Moses his servant: ‘Where is the One who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is the One who put within him His holy spirit… Just like livestock when they go down into the valley plain, The spirit of Jehovah made them rest.’ This is how you led your people, To make a majestic name for yourself.” Isaiah 63:10-11, 14

“And you will have to know that I am in the midst of Israel And that I am Jehovah your God—there is no other! My people will never again be put to shame. After that I will pour out my spirit on every sort of flesh, And your sons and your daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, And your young men will see visions.  And even on my male slaves and female slaves I will pour out my spirit in those days.” Joel 2:27-29

“As for me, I am filled with power by the spirit of Jehovah, And with justice and might, To tell to Jacob his revolt and to Israel his sin.” Micah 3:8

“They made their heart like a diamond and would not obey the law and the words that Jehovah of armies sent by his spirit through the former prophets. So there came great indignation from Jehovah of armies.” Zechariah 7:12

Nor is this the only place where the Holy Spirit is said to be the Spirit of Jesus Christ, God’s Son:

“Moreover, they traveled through Phrygʹi·a and the country of Ga·laʹti·a, because they were forbidden by the holy spirit to speak the word in the province of Asia. Further, when they came down to Mysʹi·a, they made efforts to go into Bi·thynʹi·a, but the spirit of Jesus did not permit them.” Acts 16:6-7

“However, you are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in you. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this person does not belong to him. But if Christ is in union with you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. If, now, the spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in you. So, then, brothers, we are under obligation, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh; for if you live according to the flesh, you are sure to die; but if you put the practices of the body to death by the spirit, you will live. For all who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: “Abba, Father!’ The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children. If, then, we are children, we are also heirs—heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ—provided we suffer together so that we may also be glorified together.” Romans 8:9-17

“But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: ‘Abba, Father!’ So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God.” Galatians 4:4-7

“for I know that this will result in my salvation through your supplication and with the support of the spirit of Jesus Christ.” Philippians 1:19

With the foregoing in view, the only way that Jewish believers such as Peter could ever identify the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ, and state that it was Christ’s own Spirit who inspired the prophets, is if these monotheistic Jews actually thought of and confessed Jesus as Jehovah God Almighty who became a human being.  

Note the logic behind my argument:

  1. The Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets is the Spirit of Jehovah, and of no other.
  2. The Spirit of Christ is the One who inspired the prophets.
  3. Jesus is, therefore, Jehovah God who became flesh (even though he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit).

Since both premises are biblically valid the conclusion, therefore, is valid as well.

Knowing this, the Society has deliberately mistranslated the verse in 1 Peter by rendering the Greek sentence where the Spirit is expressly said to be that of Christ in such a way as to disconnect the Holy Spirit from Christ.

Here’s their translation of the text in question:

“They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.” 1 Peter 1:11

That the Society has deliberately perverted what Peter actually wrote can be easily proven from their very own Greek Interlinear and the other Bible versions that they make available on their own website. I quote these sources here for the benefit of the readers:

ἐραυνῶντες εἰς ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας

eraunontes eis tina e poion kairon edelou to en autois pneuma Christou promartyromenon ta eis Christon pathemata kai tas meta tauta doxas  

“searching into what or what sort of appointed time was making evident THE IN THEM SPIRIT OF CHRIST witnessing beforehand about the into Christ sufferings and the after these things glories.” (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/1-peter/1/#v60001011)

“Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” (King James Version https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/king-james-version/books/1-peter/1/#v60001011)

“searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.” (American Standard Version https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/american-standard-version/books/1-peter/1/#v60001011)

“searching to find out what time or what sort of time Christ’s spirit in them was pointing to in testifying beforehand the sufferings to which Christ was destined and the glory after these;” (The Bible in Living English https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/byington/books/1-peter/1/#v60001011)

“Searching into what particular or what manner of season the Spirit of Christ which was in them was pointing to when witnessing beforehand as to—The sufferings for Christ And the glories after these,—” (The Emphasized Bible https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/rotherham/Bible-Navigation/1-peter/1/#v60001011)

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the the Society chose to willfully mistranslate the inspired words of the blessed apostle because they did not want their members to come to the realization that Peter was identifying Jesus Christ as Jehovah Incarnate.

Such a deliberate perversion of God’s inspired Scriptures is a clear-cut sign that the NWT is a diabolical version produced for the express purpose of hiding the explicit, unambiguous testimony of Scripture that the true God is Triune in nature, and that Jesus is Jehovah God the Son who is essentially coequal to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Unless stated otherwise, scriptural references are from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (2013 Revision).

FURTHER READING

THE NWT BIBLE: A DIABOLICAL PERVERSION OF SCRIPTURE, PT. 2

PETER & THE DEITY OF CHRIST

ADDENDUM

I post a slew of mainstream and lesser known English translations of 1 Peter 1:11 in order to help the readers appreciate the travesty of the NWT in hiding the inspired Apostle’s explicit testimony to the Deity of Christ.

“… the Spirit of Christ within them…” CSB

“… the Spirit of Christ within them…” CEB

“… the Spirit of the Messiah in them…” CJB

“The Spirit of Christ was in them…” CEV

“… the Spirit of Christ in them…” DLNT

“… the Spirit of Christ in them…” DRA

“The Spirit of Christ was in those prophets…” ERV

“… Christ’s Spirit showed those prophets…” EASY

“… the Spirit of Christ in them…” EHV

“… the Spirit of Christ in them…” ESV

“The Spirit of Christ was in the prophets…” EXB

“… the Spirit of Christ kept referring to…”GW

“… Christ’s Spirit in them…” GNT

“The Spirit of Christ was in the prophets…” ICB

“… the Spirit of the Messiah in them…” ISV

“… the Spirit of Christ working in them…” PHILLIPS

“… the Spirit of Christ in them…” LEB

“… the Spirit of Christ within them…” TLB

“… The Messiah’s Spirit let them in on some of it…” MSG

“… the Spirit of Christ, who was within them…” MEV

“… the Spirit of Christ who was in them…” MOUNCE

“… the Spirit of Christ kept referring to…” NOG

“…the Spirit of Christ within them…”NABRE

“… the Spirit of Christ within them…” NASB

“… the Spirit of Christ within them…”NCB

“The Spirit of Christ was in the prophets…” NCV

“… the Spirit of Christ within them…” NET

“… the Spirit of Christ in them…” NIV

“… the Spirit of Christ who was in them…” NKJV

“The Spirit of Christ in them…” NLV

“… the Spirit of Christ within them…” NLT

“… the Spirit of Christ that was in them…” NMB

“… that the Spirit of Christ within them…” NRSVUE

“… the Messiah’s spirit within them…” NTFE

“… the Ruach of Moshiach in them…” OJB

“… the Spirit of Christ (Who testified before) was in them…” RGT

“… the Spirit of Christ within them…” RSV

“… the Ruach of Messiah within them…” TLV

“… the indwelling Spirit of the Anointed…” VOICE

“… the Spirit of Christ, which was in them…” WEB

“The Spirit of Christ in them…” WE

“… the Spirit of Christ signified in them…” WYC

“… the Spirit of Christ that was in them…” YLT

PETER & THE DEITY OF CHRIST

In this post I will furnish another case to illustrate why translations matter. I will be focusing on the inspired witness of the letters that the Spirit moved Peter to compose, commonly known as the Petrine Epistles.

These letters explicitly state that they were composed by Peter, and that the blessed Apostle even used an amanuensis (secretary/scribe) for at least one of them:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as exiles, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen.” 1 Peter 1:1

Through Silvanus, our faithful brother as I regard him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and bearing witness that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.” 1 Peter 5:12-13 

Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received the same kind of faith as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:” 2 Peter 1:1

“This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,” 2 Peter 3:1

The 2nd letter also refers to the time when Peter saw Christ transfigured on the Mountain:

“For we did not make known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, following cleverly devised myths, but being eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased’—and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.” 2 Peter 1:16-18 – Cf. Matt. 17:1-13; Mark 9:1-9; Luke 9:29-36

Unless noted otherwise, the translation I will be employing is the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) since this version is based on the critical Greek NT text, collated from the earlier papyri and major codices. I call this the Critical Text (CT). It is not based on the Byzantine or Majority Text (MT), or even the Received Text (Textus Receptus [TR]), from which the King James Version was produced. In the conclusion, I will mention the major variant reading which impacts the Christology of one specific verse from Peter’s epistles.   

SPIRIT OF YHWH JESUS

To begin with, Peter identifies the Holy Spirit who spoke to and through the prophets in revealing the future sufferings and glorification of the Messiah as the Spirit of Christ:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, made careful searches and inquiries, inquiring to know what time or what kind of time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He was predicting the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been declared to you through those who proclaimed the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.” 1 Peter 1:10-12

For a Jew to describe the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of a fellow Jew is truly astonishing seeing that the Holy Spirit who inspired the OT prophets is clearly identified as the Spirit of YHWH God Almighty!

“You gave Your good Spirit to give them insight, Your manna You did not withhold from their mouth, And You gave them water for their thirst… However, You bore with them for many years, And testified to them by Your Spirit by the hand of Your prophets, Yet they would not give ear. So You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.” Nehemiah 9:20, 30

The Spirit of Yahweh spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue. The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me, ‘He who rules over men as a righteous one, Who rules in the fear of God,’” 2 Samuel 23:2-3 

“Draw near to Me, hear this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. So now Lord Yahweh has sent Me, and His Spirit.”” Isaiah 48:16

The Spirit of Lord Yahweh is upon me Because Yahweh has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to captives And freedom to prisoners,” Isaiah 61:1

“On the other hand I am filled with power— With the Spirit of Yahweh— And with justice and might To declare to Jacob his transgression, Even to Israel his sin.” Micah 3:8

“And they made their hearts diamond-hard so that they could not hear the law and the words which Yahweh of hosts had sent by His Spirit by the hand of the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from Yahweh of hosts.” Zechariah 7:12

In light of the above, the only way that Peter could say that the Holy Spirit is Christ’s Spirit is if he believed that Jesus is indeed YHWH God Incarnate.

TASTING THE KINDNESS OF YHWH JESUS

The Apostle speaks to the believers who have tasted the kindness of the Lord Jesus in contrast to those that had rejected Him, the living Stone chosen by and precious to God:   

“if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord (egeusasthe hoti chrestos ho Kyrios). And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,” 1 Peter 2:3-4 

Here, Peter has applied to the risen Jesus the very language of the Psalmist, who invites mankind to taste for themselves how good YHWH truly is:

O taste and see that Yahweh is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!” Psalm 34:8

Taste and see that the Lord is good (geusasthe hoti chrestos ho Kyrios): blessed is the man who hopes in him.” Psalm 33:9 LXX

Once again, the only way that a Jewish monotheist could ascribe a text about YHWH to the Man Jesus is if that Jewish believer had become convinced of the fact that the risen Christ was no mere Jewish Man. Rather, this simply hammers the point that the blessed Apostle must have believed that Jesus is in actual fact YHWH God who became a human being.

THE JUST GOD WHO SAVES

The foregoing helps us appreciate why Peter in his second epistle could speak of Jesus being the God and Savior of believers:

“Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received the same kind of faith as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (dikaiosyne tou Theou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou):” 2 Peter 1:1

The inspired Apostle is again (are the readers surprised at this point?) alluding to an OT text where YHWH is said to be the only just God and Savior of the world:

“Declare and draw near with your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has made this heard from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:21-22

Note what the Greek says:

“If they will declare, let them draw nigh, that they may know together, who has caused these things to be heard from the beginning: then was it told you. I am God (ego ho Theos), and there is not another beside me; a just [God] and a Saviour (dikaios kai Soter); there is none but me.” Isaiah 45:21 LXX

Peter employs the same Greek grammatical construction in several places throughout his inspired letter, which no one seriously doubts are references to the risen Christ:

“for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou) will be abundantly supplied to you.” 2 Peter 1:11

“For if they are overcome, having both escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou) and having again been entangled in them, then the last state has become worse for them than the first.” 2 Peter 2:20 – Cf. 3:2, 18

The language employed in the aforementioned texts echoes the way the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible describes YHWH God:

“Then when she had become majestic, after calling upon the all-seeing God and savior (Theon kai sotera), she took along two of her attendants;” D:2 

“Then, when she had become majestic, and after calling upon the all-knowing One and savior God, she took along with her two attendants;” 5:2 (Esther, translated by Karen H. Jobes, in A New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS], including corrections and emendations made in the second printing (2009) and corrections and emendations [Oxford University Press , 2014], p. 433; emphasis mine)

“[A Psalm] of David, before he was anointed.] The Lord (Kyrios) is my light and my Saviour (soter mou); whom shall I fear? the Lord is the defender of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?… Turn not thy face away from me, turn not thou away from thy servant in anger: be thou my helper, forsake me not; and, O God my Saviour (ho Theos ho soter mou), overlook me not.” Psalm 26:1, 9 LXX

“Behold, the Lord is my God, my savior (ho Theos mou soter mou Kyrios); I will trust in him and will not be afraid, because the Lord is my glory and my praise and he has become my salvation (soterian).” Isaiah 12:2 (Esaias, translated by Moisés Silva, in NETS, p. 834; emphasis mine)

“So Jacob ate and was filled, and the beloved one kicked; he grew fat, he became thick and broad: then he forsook the God that made him, and departed from God his Saviour (Theou soteros autou).” Deuteronomy 32:15 LXX

I again reiterate this point. The only way that Jewish monotheists such as Peter would dare to confess Christ as the Lord, God and Savior of the believers is if they/he had become convinced that Jesus is YHWH God in the flesh.

THE LORD WHO IS ETERNALLY PRAISED

Seeing that the Apostle clearly viewed Jesus as YHWH God who became Man, it should therefore not surprise the readers that he concludes his second epistle with a doxology to the risen Lord, which is an ascription of eternal glory and praise that one is supposed to give to God alone:

“that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior (tou Kyriou kai Soteros) spoken by your apostles… but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou). To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:2, 18

Contrast this with the doxologies that Peter offers to God the Father:

“whoever speaks, as one speaking the oracles of God; whoever serves, as one serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and might forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Peter 4:11

“And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself restore, strengthen, confirm, and ground you. To Him be might forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Peter 5:10-11

This again highlights the fact that Peter must have viewed Christ as being essentially coequal with the Father, and therefore worthy of the same glory, honor and praise which the Father is supposed to receive from all believers.

REVERENCING YHWH JESUS

The next examples are also remarkable:

“For this is contained in Scripture: ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes upon Him will not be put to shame.’ This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This has become the chief corner stone,’ and, ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.’ They stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this stumbling they were also appointed.” 1 Peter 2:6-8

“But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their fear, and do not be troubled (ton de phobon auton me phobethete mede tarachthete), but sanctify Christ as Lord (Kyrion de, ton Christon hagiasate) in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and fear,” 1 Peter 3:14-15 

Peter has taken (surprise!) the very description which Isaiah attributes to YHWH, and applied it to the risen Christ.

Note what the blessed prophet wrote in regards to reverencing YHWH, the Stone and Rock that causes unbelievers to stumble:

“You are not to say, ‘It is a conspiracy!’ In regard to all that this people call a conspiracy; And you are not to fear what they fear, and you shall not tremble. It is Yahweh of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your cause of trembling. Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Isaiah 8:12-14

Now compare the way the Greek versions (known as the Septuagint [LXX]) render the Hebrew of Isaiah:

“Let them not say, [It is] hard, for whatsoever this people says, is hard: but fear not ye their fear, neither be dismayed (ton de phobon autou ou me phobethete oude me tarachthete). Sanctify ye the Lord himself (Kyrion auton hagiasate); and he shall be thy fear. And if thou shalt trust in him, he shall be to thee for a sanctuary; and ye shall not come against [him] as against a stumbling-stone, neither as against the falling of a rock: but the houses of Jacob are in a snare, and the dwellers in Jerusalem in a pit.” Isaiah 8:12-14 LXX

The Greek of both Isaiah and Peter are virtually identical, making the identification of Jesus as YHWH absolutely certain and inescapable… unless, of course, one takes into consideration the fact that there is a variant reading, which affects the meaning of this citation from Peter.

This now brings me to my final point.

A VARIANT THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE

As noted, 1 Pete 3:15 is a passage which is affected by a variant reading, one that directly impact the issue of whether Christ is being identified as YHWH.

I will cite a slew of translations from both the Critical Text (CT) stream, and the Majority Text/Received Text (MT/TR), which will help the readers see the difference that exists in the manuscripts (MSS).

CT

“but treat the Messiah as holy, as Lord in your hearts; while remaining always ready to give a reasoned answer to anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you — yet with humility and fear,” CJB

“But keep the Lord Christ holy in your hearts. Always be ready to answer everyone who asks you to explain about the hope you have.” ERV

“Instead, always remember that Christ is your Lord. Let him rule how you live. People may ask you, ‘Why do you trust God to help you?’ You must always be ready to answer them about that.” EASY

“But regard the Lord, the Christ, as holy in your hearts. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you.” EHV

“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” ESV

“Instead, exalt the Messiah as Lord in your lives. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you to explain the hope you have.” ISV

“But dedicate your lives to Christ as Lord. Always be ready to defend your confidence in God when anyone asks you to explain it. However, make your defense with gentleness and respect.” NOG

“But respect Christ as the holy Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to answer everyone who asks you to explain about the hope you have,” NCV

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,” NIV

“Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your hope as a believer, always be ready to explain it.” NLT

“But reverence in your levavot Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach as Adoneinu, prepared always for a hitstaddekut (an apologetic defense) to everyone coming to you with a she’elah (question), ready with a word concerning the tikvah in you,” OJB

“but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;” RSV

“But hallow ye the Lord Christ in your hearts, and evermore be ye ready to [do] satisfaction to each man asking you reason of that faith and hope that is in you, but with mildness and dread,” WYC

MT/TR

“but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” AKJV

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. Always be ready to give an answer to every man who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, with gentleness and fear.” MEV

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;” NKJV

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear,” WEB

As the readers can see, English versions based on the CT all have Christ as the Lord whom believers are to regard and revere as holy. On the other hand, the reading found in the MT/TR have the term God (Theon) as opposed to the word Christ (Christon). Therefore, according to the MT/TR it is the Lord God whom believers are to revere.

The NET has a textual note here explaining the MSS evidence for the two variants:

tc Most later mss, including some significant ones (P 5 81 436 442 1735 2344 2492 M) have θεόν (theon, “God”) instead of Χριστόν (Christon; “Christ”) here. But Χριστόν is widely supported by excellent and early witnesses (P א A B C Ψ 33 1175 1243 1611 1739 1852 latt sy co), and as a less common idiom better explains the rise of the other reading. (NET Bible https://netbible.org/bible/1+Peter+3; emphasis mine)

Hence, whether 1 Peter 3:15 is a place in the Petrine writings where Christ is identified as YHWH God Almighty depends on whether a person believes that the original readings of the inspired autographs are to be found in the CT. If so, then this is another case where Peter identifies his Lord as YHWH God Incarnate.

If, however, the individual believes that the original inspired words are located within the MT/TR then 1 Peter 3:15 must be jettisoned since according to these MSS this verse does not describe the risen Christ as YHWH.

Unless stated otherwise, scriptural references are from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB).

FURTHER READING

TEXTUAL CRITICISM & CHRIST’S DEITY

Justin Martyr’s “Subordinationism”

The Definitive Case against

Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes

Seventy-five years ago, Angelomorphic Christology or Angel-Christ theology was pretty much unknown. Its scholarly reemphasis and popular rediscovery has solved numerous alleged problems with interpretation of the Old and New Testaments from both a scholarly and popular point of view. This, like many other alleged issues with Angel-Christ, is at the heart of misunderstanding Justin Martyr today. Again: Angel of the Lord is Jewish-Hebrew and Jewish-Greek code for an aspect of God that comes to lower heavens and earth to visit and to convey a message. The Angel of the Lord is about a function so that the Hebrew angel (MLK) does not suppose that something is created or mortal or temporal but only that it functions as a messenger from God. This explanation among Christians was early and defined by Tertullian (Against Praxeas) as early as the late 100s AD. The main alleged problem stems from the Anglican divine Schaff and his mistranslation of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56:

[Justin:] I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, “another God”[1] and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them (Κἀγὼ πάλιν· Ἃ λέγω πειράσομαι ὑμᾶς πεῖσαι, νοήσαντας τὰς γραφὰς, ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ λέγεται Θεὸς καὶ κύριος ἕτερος ὑπὸ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, διὰ τὸ ἀγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις).

The Greek hypo/ὑπό (subject to) is typically alleged to embrace subordinationism. Justin’s context of his thought on God confronts three angels on this question, challenging any Jewish reading Genesis, chapter 18. Notice that the new CUA translation, based upon the critical edition (that is, the scientific edition) of the Greek of Dialogue with Trypho.[2] The updated translation is far superior as to the preposition “subject to.” The newest translation reads: “There exists and is mentioned in Scripture another God and Lord under the Creator of all things.” The advantage of this translation is that it is reconcilable with Justin’s Jewish argumentation in Greek with the worldview of a Greek-speaking Jew of the second century. What do I mean?

Notice: “Creator of all things.” Where, I ask, in the Greek-Jewish Bible (Septuagint) and Greek commentators (here: Philo of Alexandria)[3] is the creator of things? Is he in heaven above or on earth below? In heaven there is God and on earth is the Angel of the Lord, identified thus:[4]

[Judges 13:21 (Septuagint)]: And the angel appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife: then Manoah knew that this was an angel of the Lord22And Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God (Hebrew: When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord. 22 “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”)[5]

This is just one of many examples where God’s presence on earth in most ancient books of the Old Testament is often designated by Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is below God, in the heavens or on the earth, and visits under or underneath the heavenly throne.[6] The Angel of the Lord is visible in some way as sensible to the patriarchs and other Israelites. Hence he appears (as Philo the Jew and Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, relate to their imagination or mental phantasy).

Argument for the Grammatical: “Accusative of Position”

Hypo/ὑπό/Under is correctly used to translate the Biblical location: under the vault of heaven… God – when he is called Angel – is to be found under God’s throne (in heaven) or under heaven and this explains the accusative of place (in Justin’s dialogue about the Greek Jewish reception of the Greek Old Testament in the second century to Greek-speaking Jews). This explanation reflects very well the usage of hypo in the best Greek dictionaries (lexica):

Liddell-Scott dictionary above might easily interpret the Angel-Christ to be in some place underneath God in heaven and even literally “under the sun” or “under the earth.” Notice that a subordination interpretation is possible, but also, as I will argue a 1st-century and more likely interpretation meaning: “next to” or at “the right or left of,” which I will argue is the real meaning of Justin’s phrase.

 Just like Justin Martyr’s argument to Trypho the Jew around AD 150,Philo the Jew around AD 50 explains that Jews hold for the three divine realities that appeared to Abraham to have three names, where the first is named: “Being” who corresponds to Justin’s “Creator” but it is the divine or God called: “Lord” who is seen physically (that is by a brain phantasy or imagery-vision in the prophet’s mind). Philo’s homily On the Godhead (Armenian/Greek retroversion) reads:

After this it is said: Three men stood above him (Genesis 18:2). . . . This [Creator] appears to his own disciple and righteous pupil surrounded on either side[7] by his powers, the heads of armies and archangels,[8] who all worship the Chief Leader in the midst of them (Isaiah 6:1–3). The One in their midst is called Being; this name, “Being,” is not his own and proper name, for he himself is unnamable and beyond expression, as being incomprehensible. . . . Of his two body-guards on either side, one is God (theos), the other Lord (kyrios), the former being the symbol of the creative, the latter of the royal virtue. Concerning the three men, it seems to me that this oracle of God has been written in the Law: I will speak to you from above the mercy seat, from between the two Cherubim (Exodus 25:21). As these powers are winged, they fittingly throne on a winged chariot [Ezekiel 1] over the whole cosmos. . . . In the midst of whom he is found [the text] shows clearly by calling them “cherubim.” [one at the right the other at the left] One of these is ascribed to the creative power and is rightly called God; the other to the sovereign and royal virtue and is called Lord. . . . This vision woke up the prophet Isaiah and caused him to rise.[9]

The two seraphim (in Isaiah 6:1-3) and two cherubim (in the temple on the ark of the covenant) are below or under the God on his throne and God’s mercy seat, respectively. The Angel of the Lord by definition is something that “appears” or is seen in is a vision in the prophets’ imagination/phantasy. Therefore, the Angel of the Lord is visibly below/hypo/υπο the location of the creator or God on his throne. The images of two cherubim-angels below the Mercy Seat are below the place whereon the Creator sits, so that God sits over or above the two cherubim (For Origen of Alexandria, in the tradition of Philo, these are the Angel and the Spirit). So, we cannot be dealing with Greek philosophical claims of subordinationism but rather Jewish language referring to the position of God and his angels in the Bible.

Because Justin Martyr uses Philo of Alexandria according to the critical or scientific edition of the Greek text, let us compare Justin’s source: Philo the Jew (around 50 AD), That the Worse is Wont to Attack the Better:

XLIV. Why, that the wise man is called the God of the foolish man, but he is not God in reality, just as a base coin of the apparent value of four drachmas is not a four drachma piece. But when he is compared with the living God, then he will be found to be a man of God; but when he is compared with a foolish man, he is accounted a God to the imagination and in appearance, but he is not so in truth and essence. (ὅτι ὁ σοφὸς λέγεται μὲν θεὸς τοῦ ἄφρονος, πρὸς ἀλήθειαν δὲ οὐκ ἔστι θεός, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ ἀδόκιμον τετράδραχμόν ἐστι τετράδραχμον· ἀλλ’ ὅταν μὲν τῷ ὄντι παραβάλληται, ἄνθρωπος εὑρεθήσεται θεοῦ, ὅταν  δὲ ἄφρονι ἀνθρώπῳ, θεὸς πρὸς φαντασίαν καὶ δόκησιν, οὐ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὸ εἶναι, νοούμενος).

Just like the citation from Schaff and CUA above (I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things), we see that vocabulary and theme are similar here. Ancient people think that: a wiseman “ is and is said to be” God in comparison to a fool. But the suppose this due to “imagination and appearance.” This is the same kind of exposition of the Angel of the Lord. He is a wiseman that is thought to be God. However, says Philo, human beings are not really God even if they appear and are thought to be in our brains, since this does not correspond to their “essence/being” and “truth.” For his part, Justin repeats this phraseology but adjusts the Angel of the Lord to be God “in existence/being” and “is said to be God.” This ostensibly means that Jesus is – unlike Philo’s wisemen – merely a man but is God. This is exactly what both Philo and Justin would imply by someone below the heavens being and being called God by essence. When the Angel of the Lord by Justin is compared to God, he is found to be another divine or divine. This phraseology (rather unique in Greek) is under discussion by Justin and Trypho who both are using Philo the Jew’s works. An Angel of the Lord is both called and is God  by both Justin and argued to be such by Philo above in On the Godhead (above).So, within a 1st-2nd century context, Justin is arguing that “there is” and “there is called” “divine”  someone who in truth and this proven since he is the someone “below” the mercy seat (the angel of the Lord) and the divine being sent “below the heavens” where God is the highest physically imagined being and, for both Philo and Justin is the essentially or so-called ontologically highest being in the universe as well.

Since Justin Martyr (as per the critical edition in Greek) is thoroughly imbued with the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Dialogue with Trypho, it is worthwhile mentioning that the Angel of the Lord Christ the High priest should in theory be paired with some aspect of himself that is lower than God in heaven ontologically (as people say) or as far as the dignity of some aspect of his being. Indeed, we find this in New Testament Christology:

there is some aspect of the Angel of the Lord that is lower (see Hebrew and Psalm: “you have made him a little lower than the angels”). Within 1st century Christology and Jewish exegesis this already makes sense that there is something even metaphysically lower (anything visible or that is lower than the high part of the heavenly throne/vault).

Hebrews 2:5-9LXX Psalm 8:4-5:
For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. 6 But one testified in a certain place, saying: “What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? 7 You have made him a little lower than the angels (ηλαττωσας αυτον βραχυ τι παρ αγγελους) You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands. 8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the Son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and

Above, we see that there is an invitation by the Angel of the Lord beneath the place where the angels dwell and that Jesus’s flesh or human nature is somehow “less than” or “lower than” the angels. Really, we can take Justin’s “under” to mean that Jesus is underneath the heavenly throne and underneath the higher places where the angels dwell, or we take it in the sense that Jesus in his flesh is inferior to some power or virtue of angels (since flesh is corruptible or mortal or what not). It doesn’t really matter. The distinction between the divine and the non-divine aspect of Jesus was part of primitive Christology. Against either of these possibilities is the context of Justin who is trying to argue not an advanced Christology but something quite primitive (theologically) to a Jewish dialogue partner and he argues by interpreting three visible angels of Genesis 18 to be divine. How does Justin really help Trypho by using the term “under” since Trypho is clearly not a subordinationist in comparison to Justin (especially for today’s scholars)? In response, Justin’s citation from Genesis notes that the three Angels are “above” so that Abraham had to look up to see them (like Psalm 8:4). The Psalm 8:4 (above) reflects the primitive notion in Genesis that Angels are “above” humans. Angels of the Lord are located above Abraham and he is “under” them. Justin’s argument is that there are three angels and that the one of interest (the Christ-Angel) is located in position to, or in relation to, the Creator-Angel. Elsewhere, in his First Apology Justin makes sure to identify these three men as: Father, Son, and Spirit, as someone first, second, and third in an order (taxis). See Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13.3:

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Cesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third order, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, τοῦ γενομένου ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐπὶ χρόνοις Τιβερίου Καίσαροςἐπιτρόπου, υἱὸν αὐτὸν τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ μαθόντες καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει ὅτι μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν ἀποδείξομεν.)

Justin’s mention of three Angels and his belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit form an array or taxis, which is probably military in meaning due to his reference to the militant Angels of the Lord in Joshua, as elsewhere (like Philo). For example, in the Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 63, when identifying the Angel-Christ he not only equates the Angel of the Lord (Judges 13) with Christ as God but with the Angel-Warrior of Armies:

Listen, therefore, to the following from the book of Joshua, that what I say may become manifest to you; […] Joshua was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and sees a man [compare Genesis 18: “three men”] standing over against him. And Joshua approached to Him, [..] And He said to him, I am Captain of the Lord’s armies: […] And Joshua fell on his face on the ground, and said to Him, Lord, what do You command Your servant? And the Lord’s Captain says to Joshua, Loose the shoes off your feet; for the place whereon you stand is holy ground [This is the Angel of the Lord on Sinai].

We now have sufficient context to understand the Jewish-Biblical references and Jewish mode of argumentation. The Angel-Christ is a military figure as well as an Angel who provides military strategy. In fact, Justin his Dialogue with Trypho (chapters 11 and 13) by noting: “He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm” (viz., right hand) and ““And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed (Isaiah 53:1ff)? We have announced Him as a child before Him.” In effect, the military arm of God, or Angel of the Lord, is nothing less than a warrior God on earth. In first-century Greek, when military men are arrayed in due order within a military unit, the word hypo takes on a military meaning, not a philosophical meaning or even a the typical “accusative of place” meaning: under. Instead, let’s take a look at first-century Greek used in a military context when three  or more soldiers are lined up in array: We turn to the “how to be a general” (or Captain for the Old Testament) manual of the first-century Greek writer: Onosander (contemporary to Philo and near contemporary with Justin) in his Strategicus:

First arming the soldiers, he should draw them up in military formation that they may become practiced in maintaining their formation; that they may become familiar with the faces and names of one another; that each soldier may learn by whom he stands*** (τίς ὑπὸ τίνα) and where and after how many. In this way, by one sharp command, the whole army will immediately form ranks (ἐν τάξει). Then he should instruct the army in open and close order; in turning to the left and right (ἐπὶ λαιὰ καὶ δεξιά); the interchange, taking distance, and closing up of files; the division into files; the arrangement and extension of files to form the phalanx; withdrawing of files for greater depth of the phalanx; battle formation facing in two directions, when the rear guard turns to fight an encircling enemy; and he should instruct them thoroughly in the calls for retreat.

***one person next to another or one at the left/right of another: See the Liddell-Scott translation above: “next to whom.”

In effect, what Justin Martyr, within the context of his time, dialogue partner, religious texts, and imagery of military usage is committed to is a general of an array of angels.[10] These three angel appear in an ordered way to Abraham and they stand above him one next to the other so that we can see how future readings in the Old Testament by the Psalms, Jesus and Apostles altogether put Jesus to the right of the Creator-Captain and the Spirit to the left of the Creator-Captain who appears according to Justin to Abraham. The meaning of “hypo/next to” hear seems in a military, Jewish, and organization context to signify that the angels for Justin form in Genesis 18 one line with a central figure and another man at the left and the other man at the right hand. Jesus as Justin’s “other God” or “other divine one” (theos) is at the right of the Creator and is his equal in the army as soldiers of equal rank arrayed together. As such, there is no sense in which I need to admit that Justin’s Angel-Christ is either “subordinate to” or “under” the Creator in some sort of moral or so-called ontological sense. If anything the context argues them all to be of equal military rank.

Finally, immediately after the time of Justin, we see below that the anonymous Ps-Clement identifies someone claiming equality with God in both “existing” and “being called” divine (Just like the phraseology of Philo and Justin). Anyone who shares the creator’s rule or has a common name with him (theos) is equal to him. Each Angel of the Lord for Justin shares the common name “theos,” as too for the Jew Philo. Justin designates Philo’s God: “Being,” as: “Creator.” For his part, Ps-Clement (3rd century just after Justin), in chapter XXXVII, writes:

Whom to Know is Life Eternal. But if you art thankful, O man, understanding that God is your benefactor in all things, you may even be immortal, […]  you are able to become incorruptible, if you acknowledge Him whom you did not know, if you love Him whom you forsook, if you pray to Him alone who is able to punish or to save your body and soul. Wherefore, before all things, consider that no one shares His rule, no one has a name in common with Him—that is, is called God. For He alone is both called and is God [Both Philo and Justin use this phrase in Greek]. Nor is it lawful to think that there is any other, or to call any other by that name. And if anyone should dare do so, eternal punishment of soul is his (οὐδεὶς αὐτῷ συνάρχει, οὐδεὶς τῆς αὐτοῦ κοινωνεῖ ὀνομασίας,τοῦτο ὃ δὴ λέγεται θεός. μόνος γὰρ αὐτὸς καὶ λέγεται καὶ ἔστιν, ἄλλον δὲ οὔτε νομίσαι οὔτε εἰπεῖν ἔξεστιν· εἰ δέ τις τολμήσειεν, ἀιδίως τὴν ψυχὴν κολασθῆναι ἔχει).

The Genesis-Angels for Justin share their rule with each other and thus they are all God or divine (theos) in common with him. According to this Jewish-Christian language – like Ps-Clement – this makes both the Creator and the “second God” of Justin potentially equal within the historical context of the first- and second-century interpretations of Angel of the Lord appearances.

CONCLUSION

The term “under” or “hypo” is not subordinationist within the register or Jewish-Greek usage of terms, since hypo references location (e.g., beth-el; the house of the Lord) of Philo’s Cherubim (cf. Isaiah 6:1-3) and God’ throne (a throne which the Son of Man can sit upon). In fact, hypo almost certainly is meant to convey: “next to” as in the Son of Man or Angel of the Lord (Seraph) at the right hand of the Creator. Thus, I offer a version of the Dialogue of Trypho retranslated:

Here [in Genesis where a row of three angels are mentioned] exists and is mentioned in Scripture another God [at the right of the middle angel] and Lord next to [at the right hand of] the Creator of all things.

Appendix: On the Usage of “Another God” and “Other God” by Justin Martyr

The critical edition of Justin’s works in Greek reveal that, with the exception of one minor citation from an historical book of the Deuterocanon,[11] Justin Martyr did not cite any of the Deuterocanonal books of the Bible to his dialogue partner Trypho. Furthermore, Justin used extensively Philo’s Questions and Answers on Genesis, as in the Appendix of the critical/scientific Greek edition:[12]

Trypho seems to represent a Jewish community that was, by and large, knowledgeable of Philo in both Alexandria and Rome. Since Trypho was originally from Palestine, and since Segal has demonstrated that the “two powers” debate or the Jewish arguments about whether there is “another God” existed in Hebrew discourse, then it is not surprising that Trypho and Justin are dialoguing – both from Palestine/Syria areas –  about this doctrine that must have been available to both of them. Their Greek-Jewish tradition of interpretation often (but not always) reechoes in later Rabbinic literature like the third-century Mishnah. As Segal first identified, “second God” is a Jewish (not Christian) tradition that predates Philo, since Rabbis who are almost certainly unacquainted with him subsequently battle this tradition in Hebrew (and less so in Aramaic). Let us set up the argument as follows:

  • The Old Testament books that were canonized after Rabbi Akiva (c. 150), in their Greek versions, do not condemn the Greek technical term: “another God” (heteros theos), but generally oppose the terminology of “other gods” (heteroi theoi).[13]
  • Opposition to Jewish theology favoring “other God” terminology can be clearly found first in late-deuterocanonical literature that translates Hebrew or Aramaic texts:[14]
    • LXX Judith 8:20-21 (KJV; 114-77 BC?): “But we know none other god (ἕτερον θεὸν), therefore we trust that he will not despise us, nor any of our nation.”
    • LXX Baruch 3:36 (KJV; translated 165-1 BC): This is our God (theos), and there shall not be another (heteros) be accounted of in comparison of him
    • LXX Daniel 3:96 (both Old Greek and Theodotian; translated after 120 BC + 2nd c. AD): Wherefore I publish a decree: Every people, tribe, or language, that shall speak reproachfully against the God of Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenago, shall be destroyed, and their houses shall be plundered: because there not another God (heteron theon) who shall be able to deliver thus.

This reaction in these texts could be read to date the “second God” vocabulary as early as 2nd century BC. Philo’s tradition is apparently in opposition to the traditions of these translators who are precluding the vocabulary. However, Philo does not cite the broader Deuterocanon as Scripture, possibly being closer to Origen’s testimony of Jewish canon in Alexandria. As such, he naturally is a representative of the “second God” or “heteros theos” Jewish tradition without preoccupation of the broader LXX tradition opposing the term.

Because Justin Martyr is dialoguing with someone who takes Philo’s works and tradition as authoritative, we notice that he uses a canon that does not reflect what we know of Alexandrian Judaism (without the broader selection of Judith-Baruch-Daniel)[15] and therefore he argues for the “other God” tradition since it is acceptable or authoritative for Philo and has not yet presumably been formally condemned as in the Mishnah and Rabbinic commentaries. This is key to a passage of Philo in On Questions and Answers in Genesis II:

(62) Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god (ἑτέρου θεοῦ), saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis  9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word[16]; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature.[17] But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defense of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.

“It is clear that Philo uses and approves of the term ‘second God’ which the rabbis later would find repugnant, because it allows him to maintain the truth both of his philosophy and of his scripture.”[18]

What I propose as knew is that the translator Theodotion (See Daniel 3:96) proves definitively (viz., philologically) the existence of  Rabbinic opposition to the notion of “another God” (heteros theos) by the mid-2nd century AD. Furthermore, given a very late dating of the LXX Judith-Baruch-Daniel, we can suppose increasing opposition to this terminology in the last decades of the BC era.

So, is Justin Martyr a subordinationist by reference to “another God”? Thus far, the answer must be “clearly no.” Instead, both men born in the area of Syria-Palestine are familiar with the “other God” tradition that has not been condemned by Rabbis yet, though it has been implicitly chastised by translators of the Deuterocanon, including the contemporary Jewish translator Theodotion. Still, ought we not think that “other God” theology can be taken as dividing God into superior and inferior parts? That is, doesn’t this create for Jews of the time a higher and lower God of power and thus implicitly commit Jews to subordinationism? The answer must still be negative. Justin Marty clearly signals that he is dealing with Biblical motifs, not metaphysics. He contrasts explicitly Philonian “another God” (heteros theos) theology against “other God” (allos theos) theology in his opening remarks to Trypho in chapter 11:

[Justin:] There will be no other God (allos theos),[19] O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing, but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we believed in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have believed.[20]

Here, “other God” means that some other being or separately or independently existing or co-existing thing is anathema. This is due to a common Greek-speaking Jewish common reception of LXX Isaiah 43:10, so dear and important to 1st-century Jews and Christians: Some “Other God (allos theos) has not come before me and there shall not be one after me. I am God,” and LXX Isaiah 45:21: “I am God, and there is no other (allos).” Philo, who embraced the “another God” (heteros theos) also rejected the “other God” (allos theos). For example, Philo rejects “other God” in Allegorical Interpretation III, 26.82:

XXVI. (82) But Melchisedek shall bring forward wine […] For reason is a priest, having, as its inheritance the true God, and entertaining lofty and sublime and magnificent ideas about him, “for he is the priest of the most high God” (LXX Genesis 14:18). Not that there is any other god (allos theos) who is not the most high; for God being one, is in the heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is no other besides Him” (LXX Deuteronomy 4:39).

 Again, Philo taught in On the Birth of Abel and the Sacrifices Offered by Him and by His Brother Cain, 92: “neither is there any other god (allos theos) of equal honor with him.” Justin likewise emphasizes that nothing else divine exists even from eternity. This excludes any sort of dual principle, one higher and the other lower, since there is only one principle or one source of deity for both Jews and Christians. However, using Angel-Christ theology, Justin identifies the Jewish interpretation that God’s Angel or “strong hand and high arm” are the means on earth by which God manifested himself. This is explicitly made clear to be Jesus, who is the “another God” or “another divine reality” (heteros theos). Let us see again the same chapter in Justin:

Isaiah himself said, when he spoke thus: “The Lord shall make bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the nations and the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God.” (Isaiah 52:10) […] “And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed (Isaiah 53:1ff)? We have announced Him as a child before Him, as a root in a dry ground. He has no form or comeliness, and when we saw Him He had no form or beauty; but His form is dishonored, and fails more than the sons of men. He is a man in affliction, and acquainted with bearing sickness, because His face has been turned away; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.”

For Justin and for Jewish exegesis, the right arm of God is the Angel of the Lord. This Angel of the Lord is not some “other God” (allos theos) but is “another divine” (heteros theos) or “another God” in Philonian terminology. As such, Justin commits himself to the absolute unity of God so that whatever God’s arm is, or his word is,, or his angel is, it cannot mean a co-eternal and different being but rather some eternal aspect of God that must be identified as there with the “Father” and “Creator” but which is means by which the Father and Creator comes down to the lower heavens and earth to reveal himself to created angels and the human race.

In the next century, in Palestine the extreme unitarian Heraclides and the loose Trinitarian Origen will both agree (around AD 244-249) that indeed Philo’s “heteros theos” is an orthodox expression to indicate the relationship between the Father and the Son:

Origen said: “Jesus Christ, ‘though he was in the form of God’ (Philippians 2:6), while still being distinct from God in whose form He was, was God before He came into the body: yes or no?” Heraclides said: “He was God before.” Origen said: “Was He God before He came into the body or not?” Heraclides said: “yes, He was.” Origen said: “Was He another God (heteros theos) from this God in whose form He was?” Heraclides said: “Obviously distinct from the other and, while being in the form of the other, distinct from the Creator of all.” Origen said: “Is it not true, then that there was a God, the Son of God and only begotten of God, ‘first born of all creation’ (Colossians 1:15), and that we do not hesitate to speak in one sense of two Gods, and in another sense of one God?”[21]

As Heraclides and Origen discuss the Philonian idea first taken philologically from Exodus 34:14, they seem to agree with Philo that the Word is both distinct from the Creator/Father but also God in every way. As such an extreme unitarian and a robust Trinitarian were able to agree on the orthodoxy of this phraseology:

Thus we do not fall into the opinion of those who, cut off from the Church, have fallen prey to the illusory notion of unity (monarchias), abrogating the Son as distinct from the Father and also, in effect, abrogating the Father; nor do we fall into the other impious doctrine which denies the divinity in Christ. What, then, is the meaning of such sacred texts as: “Before me no other God (allos theos) was formed (Isaiah 43:10)? … “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). (Dialogue with Heraclides,4.5-13)

In conclusion, “another God” is a technical term condemned by LXX books, but which Justin Martyr never cited to Trypho against the term because no general condemnation was authoritative in Greek for the Palestinian Jews like Trypho. So, Trypho must have been familiar with Philo’s “second God” or “other God” Jewish theology, as embraced by Philo, and was known too by Justin who is a reader of Philo, and is acceptable to Trypho. The reason that this vocabulary is not subsequently embraced by Christians and the church Fathers lies in the fact that it is suspect and even condemned by the received versions of Baruch, Judith, and Daniel. Justin’s usage betrays acceptance of its technical orthodoxy as understood by the Philonic school of interpretation.

The Theological Influences in the Reception of LXX Exodus 34:14:

For you shall not offer worship to another God (theôi heterôi), for the Lord, who is God, he is a jealous name and he is someone jealous.” 200 BC Alexandria

LXX Baruch: anti-heteros theos 165 BC Palestine(?)

LXX Isaiah: anti-allos theos‘Ca. 145 BC Alexandria

OG Daniel: anti-heteros theos 135-120 BC Judea

LXX Judith: anti-heteros theos 114-77 BC Israel

Philo: pro-heteros theos + anti-allos theos AD 50 Alexandria

Trypho-Justin Martyr: pro-heteros theos+ anti-allos theos AD 135 Palestine-Syria             

Thedotion Daniel: anti-heteros theos AD 190 Judea

Clement: anti-heteros theos+ anti-allos theos AD 180 Alexandria

Origen: Dialogue with Heracleides: Pro-heteros Theos+ anti-allos theos around AD 250 Palestine-Alexandria               


[1] See Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, (Leiden, 1977), 177: “Philo can use the same argument and the same term “second God” (Greek: deuteros theos, Latin: secundus deus).” I provide the passage in question in the Appendix below.

[2] Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec Tryphon: Éditin critique, traduction, commentaire,ed. Philippe Bobichon, Paradosis: Études de littérature det de théologie anciennes 47.1-2 (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 1993).

[3] Nonetheless, Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, (Leiden, 1977), 43, interprets the most ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Rabbi’s (typically dated to the centuries after Philo as supporting Philo’s claims that his interpretations reflect mainline Jewish ideas about God having both manifestations on earth as aspects of God, as well as personified attributes.

[4] See Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, 76-79, for the Hebrew-Rabbi tradition that heaven and earth refer to two Gods; thus, even the Semitic traditions had schools taking the Scriptures in the sense of Justin Martyr.

[5] Slight emendation of Manoe to Manoah is my own.

[6] See Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, 168:

Philo’s understanding of the word “place” [beth] is logos. Therefore, the mystic, here Moses, does not see God himself, but the logos, “the place where God stands,” who is manifested in the narration at Ex. 24:10 f. as a human figure astride the world.

[7] So the first militaristic “Seraph is next to the throne” that might be rendered in military terms: “o Seraphin hypo ton thronon.”

[8] See below that 1st-century military ordering of these two angels means that there is a line of equals standing in array with one angel at the right and left or next to each other of the central angel not below each other!

[9] I have simply taken this from Bogdan Bucur’s article “I saw the Lord…”, who cites: Folker Siegert, “The Philonian Fragment De Deo: First English Translation,” Studia Philonica 10 (1998): 1–33. The Greek terms are taken from Siegert’s Greek retroversion in his original publication, Wohltätig verzehrendes Feuer, quoted above. See also Francesca Calabi, God’s Acting, Man’s Acting: Tradition and Philosophy in Philo of Alexandria (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 73–110.

[10] For the Hebrew context that supports Justin’s and Trypho’s militaristic reading of the Angels of the Lord, see Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…,33-35. Here the Military Leader God (and Angel) who was seen at Sinai can be equated to the “Old Man” in white in Daniel 7:9 and his interplay with the “Son of Man.”

[11] 1-2 Ezrah is apparently accepted by Trypho in his Jewish community. See Philippe Bobichon, Index Scripturaire, in Dialogue avec Tryphon: Édition critique, traduction, commentaire,Paradosis: Études de littérature det de théologie anciennes 47.1-2 (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 1993), 2:1040.

[12] Ibid., Index Auteurs…,in Dialogue,2:1101.

[13] An interesting exception almost seems to occur in LXX  Exodus 34:14, a central text for Jews: “For you shall not offer worship to another God (theôi heterôi), for the Lord, who is God, is a jealous name and he is jealous.” Both to onoma/the name and ho theos/God are together jealous. Does this mean that there is “one” and “the other” or God and his name who are jealous? Philo never cites nor alludes to this passage in his works. This strange redundancy would not be lost on Greek readers who would note that Angel of the Lord is also the Divine Name or the Name that dwells in the Temple. Here Philo and others would see that the terminology “other God” as applied not to idols (which must be burnt) but only to the Divine Name. the “Divine Name” or “Angel” is therefore the “other God.” For the equivalence of “Angel of the Lord” and “Divine Name,” see Charles Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology…, (Leiden, 1998), 70-78.

[14] For dating and information on each LXX book, I consulted J. Aitken (ed.), T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (London: Bloomsbury, 2015).

[15] Canticle of Canticles is not quoted to Trypho, but the controversial Ezekiel is. Esther and Sirach are not cited – though a contested book until this time. This means that the Jewish tradition behind Origen-Eusebius and St. Athanasius’s Epistle 39 are probably unrelated to Justin and Trypho’s agreed upon Jewish list of books acceptable for debate.

[16] See Segal, Two Powers in Heaven…, 162: Philo’s terminology bears striking resemblance to the early rabbinic designation MQWM for God. His concept of logos is similar to the rabbinic doctrine of God’s Shekhinah, each of which is often used to explain the same difficult scriptures.

[17] Ibid.: When “place” refers to something divine revealed to man, as it did in the passage above, for Philo, it may mean God’s image, His logos. It is, in fact, impossible for man to see God and live (Ex. 33:20). However, Moses and the elders see the image of God or everything “that is behind me” (Ex. 33:23). These are equivalent to the logos which as a second God can also be given the title “Lord.” (kyrios = YHWH).

[18] Segal, The Two Powers in Heaven…, 165.

[19] Justin condemns “allos theos” also in Dialogue 50.1, 56.4-11.

[20] I have slightly modified “trust” into “belief.”

[21] Origen, Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul, ed. R. Daley, Ancient Christian Writers 54 (New York, 1992), 58.

15 Eerie Similarities Between Islam & Mormonism

By Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity. Here’s the video for this post: 15 Reasons Why Islam and Mormonism are Fake.

Two men. Two alleged prophets. One from the deserts of Arabia, the other from the hills of New York. Both claimed to bring the final, ultimate truth. But what if I told you these two religions—Islam and Mormonism—share shocking, almost eerie similarities? And what if these parallels expose them both as man-made fabrications? Today, we’re going to uncover 15 parallels between Islam and Mormonism that disprove both religions. Stay tuned, because this is going to get crazier and crazier as the list continues.

If you’ve always wanted to learn more about Islam and Mormonism, you gotta watch this entire video front to back. We’ll cover everything from conveniently lost prophecies and demonic manipulations to special marriage privileges and polygamy. We’ll also be comparing the parallels in these false religions to what we see in Jesus, our Lord and true prophet.

Before we get started, though, I want to mention two quick things. First, this video isn’t an attack on individual Muslims or Mormons—many of them are good people who live extremely moral lives. Our focus is on the prophets and historical claims of these religions and how they ultimately backfire.

Second, if you’re enjoying this content, consider subscribing and supporting us on Patreon. Without your help, we can’t continue to expose the intellectual side of Christian belief and bring you the thought-provoking material you love. And right now, you might not know this, we’re actually running at a deficit—our monthly expenses exceed our monthly support. If you see value in our work, please pause this video and pledge your support through our Patreon page, linked in the description. Your support really does make a huge difference, no matter what amount you give.

With that said, let’s jump into Parallel #1: the absolutely discrediting claim of lost prophecies foretelling their coming.

Parallel 1: The Phantom Prophecy Problem

If you don’t pay attention to any other parallel in this video, you have to pay attention to this one. In fact, I’ve already produced an entire video on this parallel alone because it’s THAT problematic. I’m calling it the Phantom Prophecy Problem. Basically, the idea is that both Muhammad and Smith claimed that prophecies from earlier scriptures foretold their coming. But—and this is key—you can’t actually find these prophecies because, conveniently, they’ve been “lost” from the original sources. But don’t worry, because BOTH prophets claimed that God re-revealed the lost prophecies about them to them.

In the Quran, Muhammad doesn’t just say that Jesus prophesied his coming. Surah 7:157 explicitly claims that Muhammad is mentioned in both the Torah and the Gospel: “Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel.” Moreover, in Surah 61:6, Muhammad claims that Jesus himself said, “I am the messenger of Allah… bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” Ahmad is a variation of the name Muhammed. The problem here is that there is no reference in any recorded history, either from Christian or non-Christian sources, of Jesus ever predicting a new prophet named Ahmed or anything remotely like that, despite how monumental and important a prediction like that would have been. This would be like Kanye West claiming that Beethoven prophesied his coming as the world’s next greatest musician, but somehow no one ever thought to write it down. No records, no fan scribbles, not even a vague mention on a napkin—despite how massive that would have been!

Alright, let’s transition and talk about Joseph Smith. A lot of Mormons don’t even know this, but Joseph Smith did the same exact thing. He claimed he was foretold in Genesis 50:33, a verse that shows up nowhere in any ancient manuscript—not in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, nor the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, this verse was completely absent from every known source until Smith conveniently added it to his Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. The so-called prophecy also appears in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi chapter 3), where it states that a seer named Joseph—just like Smith—would be raised up in the latter days. But, just as with Muhammed, there’s absolutely no historical evidence for the existence of verse 33 in Genesis 50–Chapter 50 has always ended at verse 26. No Jewish scholars, Christian writers, early church fathers, or pagan historians mention an extended version of Genesis 50. It doesn’t exist.

Now, let’s talk about why this is so problematic. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith are essentially saying, “Look guys, I was prophesied in earlier sources, but you can’t check those earlier sources, because those prophecies have been lost. But don’t worry because God re-revealed that ancient prophecy about me, directly to me, again. Just trust me bros.

Alright, let’s talk about how these stories compare with Jesus. Christianity doesn’t rely on lost prophecies. Jesus’ coming was foretold openly and clearly all over the Hebrew Scriptures, with centuries of verifiable prophecy leading up to His birth, life, death, and resurrection. Just read Isaiah, who prophesied the birth of a servant who would be called “mighty God” and “Prince of Peace”; who was “despised and rejected,” “pierced for our transgressions”; and who was “raised and lifted up.” (Is. 9; 52-53) In Christianity, there are no claims of lost texts or concealed verses—everything is out in the open. The prophecies about Jesus are transparent and traceable. That’s what sets Christianity apart from these other religions. Jesus didn’t need to create a myth about lost prophecies—His entire life was an open fulfillment of the real prophecies found in earlier manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Transition: This is just the beginning of the eerie similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith. But trust me, it gets crazier. If you stick around, you’ll hear about demonic encounters, secretive revelations, and even prophets claiming divine permission for more than just spiritual matters. We’re talking about personal wealth, polygamy, and shocking marital practices—all justified by these so-called revelations. Each parallel we uncover is more disturbing than the last, so buckle up. By the end of this, you’ll see just how deep these similarities run—and why neither of these prophets can be trusted.

Parallel 2: Both Prophets Were Manipulated By Demons

Let’s talk about how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith had some pretty concerning run-ins with demonic forces that left a serious mark on their ministries.

Starting with Muhammad, according to Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad was so convinced that he had been possessed by a jinn during his first revelation that he actually considered throwing himself off a mountain. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for a future prophet, is it? But it doesn’t stop there. There’s also the infamous Satanic Verses incident, where Muhammad somehow ended up reciting verses praising pagan gods. And when people started asking questions, Muhammad pulled the old “Satan made me do it” card, claiming that Satan had tricked him into speaking those words.

According to Shahab Ahmed, in his book Before Orthodoxy, “the early Muslim community believed almost universally that the Satanic verses incident was a true historical fact. As far as the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community in the first two hundred years was concerned, the Messenger of God did indeed, on at least one occasion, mistake words of Satanic suggestion as being of Divine inspiration. For the early Muslims, the Satanic verses incident was something entirely thinkable.” In other words, Muhammad literally confused Satan’s voice with God’s, and the early Muslims didn’t seem too bothered by that. Imagine your prophet mixing up God and Satan—no big deal, right?

Now, let’s move on to Joseph Smith, who also couldn’t seem to avoid dark forces in his life. Before his First Vision, Smith claimed he was overcome by a dark power, leaving him completely paralyzed and surrounded by thick darkness (this first-hand account can be found in the official Mormon Scriptures, namely in the Pearl of Great Price). And this wasn’t a one-off occurrence—Smith reported several encounters with demonic forces, conveniently happening right before his biggest revelations.

Now, let’s contrast that with Jesus Christ. When Satan came to tempt Jesus during His 40-day fast (Matthew 4:1-11), Jesus didn’t fall for any of his tricks. He didn’t mistake Satan’s voice for God’s or become paralyzed. In fact, He stood firm and sent Satan packing without breaking a sweat. Jesus wasn’t just good at resisting demonic influence; He dominated it. Jesus was well-known as an exorcist, regularly casting out demons with authority. Wherever He went, the demonically possessed trembled, and unclean spirits obeyed His commands. Whether He was healing the afflicted or casting out evil spirits, Jesus demonstrated total control over the spiritual realm. So while Muhammad and Smith were out there getting confused and paralyzed by dark forces, Jesus was showing unmatched power and authority over them. In short, Jesus is pretty based—there’s no comparison.

Transition: So, let’s recap: both prophets had ‘prophecies’ no one can find and, oh yeah, were manipulated by demons. Honestly, you couldn’t make this stuff up—except they actually did. But it wasn’t just spiritual issues that influenced them. They borrowed heavily from the world around them, mixing in pagan elements like it was a recipe for the next best-seller. Let’s check out how their ‘divine revelations’ look suspiciously human.

Parallel 3: Influence from Surrounding Pagan or Non-Religious Elements

Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith appear to have incorporated elements from their surrounding cultures into their religious systems. In Muhammad’s case, we’ve already covered the Satanic Verses and his praising three Arabian pagan gods. But there’s more! The Kaaba, originally a center for pagan worship, somehow became the holiest site in all of Islam. According to Surah 22:26-30, Muhammad reformed the rituals associated with the Kaaba, transforming it into an Islamic symbol while keeping practices like the pilgrimage intact. 

Similarly, Joseph Smith drew heavily from the literature and folklore of his time in crafting the Book of Mormon. Scholars have documented striking parallels between the Book of Mormon and contemporary works, suggesting that Smith was far more influenced by 19th-century American culture than by divine revelation.

One key example is Ethan Smith’s 1823 book, View of the Hebrews, which speculated that Native Americans were descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. This idea strongly resembles the narrative of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon, who are described as a people descended from ancient Israelites who migrated to the Americas.  Additionally, the names and terms used in the Book of Mormon show clear signs of influence from other contemporary sources. For example, the name “Nephi,” one of the main figures in the Book of Mormon, has no known roots in ancient Hebrew or any other ancient language. But it does appear in popular travel literature of the time. The Travels of Marco Polo, a well-known book in Joseph Smith’s day, includes a reference to “Nephi,” a name for a region in Arabia. Another example is the name “Mormon” itself, which might have been inspired by “Mormo,” a mythical figure mentioned in The Wonders of Nature, a book that was widely circulated in the early 19th century.

In contrast, Christianity maintained its consistency with the Hebrew Scriptures, and the idea of incorporating pagan elements would have been morally repugnant to the Jews of that time. The Hebrew Scriptures strongly opposed paganism, making it highly unlikely that Christianity borrowed from any pagan influences. Moreover, our earliest Christian writings come from Paul, a devout Jew at the time of his conversion, who would have been adamantly opposed to incorporating any pagan ideas into the faith. His writings make it clear that Christianity is a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, not a synthesis with surrounding pagan cultures like we see in Islam and Mormonism.

While some atheists desperately claim that the Christian Scriptures contain pagan elements, these claims have been thoroughly rebutted, and I’ve linked videos in the description where these arguments are addressed in depth. The consistency of Christian teachings with the Hebrew Bible, along with the influence of devout Jews like Paul and Jesus’ disciples, makes it clear that Christianity didn’t borrow from surrounding pagan cultures to deliver its message.

Transition: Well, who knew prophets could have influencers too? But we’re not done yet. These guys didn’t just borrow ideas—they also conveniently retreated from society right before their biggest revelations. Let’s see what their solitude brought them.

Parallel 4: Private Revelations

Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith shared a rather curious habit: when the moral decay of their societies became too much for them, they both decided to retreat into complete isolation. And wouldn’t you know it—during these private moments of solitude, they both just so happened to receive brand-new divine revelations. Muhammad famously withdrew to the Cave of Hira, where he meditated on the idolatry in Mecca, and—right on cue—the angel Gabriel showed up with the first revelations of the Quran. According to Islamic Sira (biographies of Muhammad), this all happened in secret, far from prying eyes.

Joseph Smith, not one to be outdone, took his retreat to a grove of trees, where he claimed to have a face-to-face meeting with God the Father and Jesus Christ. And what did they tell him? Well, apparently, they informed him that all existing churches were wrong, and he was to restore the true faith. Again—this earth-shattering revelation also happened in private. So, in both cases, these prophets emerged from their private retreats as the exclusive bearers of God’s message.

Now, let’s contrast that with Jesus Christ. Did He retreat into a cave or a secluded grove to receive His revelations? Nope. Jesus did the exact opposite—His entire ministry was public, surrounded by thousands of witnesses. His teachings were delivered to crowds, His miracles performed in full view of anyone watching, and His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, including by his enemies. The truth claims of Christianity aren’t based on secretive, private revelations in a cave or a forest. They’re rooted in verifiable public events, where people saw, heard, and experienced the works of Jesus in real time. Jesus didn’t need to hide away to make His message stick—He did everything out in the open, letting His actions speak for themselves.

So here’s the issue with Muhammad and Joseph Smith: they became prophets in private. They went in as ordinary men and came out proclaiming they were the chosen ones with no witnesses to back it up. Why all the secrecy? Well, it sure makes it easier to claim exclusive access to God’s revelation when no one else was around to verify it. Meanwhile, Christianity is based on public, historically grounded events, making it a whole different ballgame from the secretive dynamics of Islam and Mormonism. There’s no need to hide in a cave when truth is on full display.

Transition: So, let’s sum it up so far: lost prophecies, demons pulling the strings, a little mix of paganism, and surprise, surprise—‘revelations’ coming after a nice solitary retreat. Pretty suspicious lineup so far, right? But, trust me, this next part takes things up a notch. Let’s talk about how these prophets claimed supernatural abilities—like translating languages they didn’t even know. Yes, that also happened.

Parallel 5: Both Prophets Claimed Supernatural Translation Abilities

Here’s an interesting one: both Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed to pull off miraculous translations without actually knowing the languages of the texts they were supposedly translating. Muhammad, famously illiterate, somehow managed to recite the Quran in flawless Arabic. According to Islamic tradition, this was made possible because the Quran was revealed to him directly by Allah through the angel Gabriel (Surah 96:1-5), despite the fact that Muhammad couldn’t read or write. To top it off, Surah 7:157 highlights his illiteracy as a miraculous sign of the Quran’s divine nature. Or maybe, just maybe, Muhammad’s followers later wrote stuff down and said it was from Allah?

Now, Joseph Smith didn’t let a minor detail like not knowing ancient languages stop him either. He claimed to have translated the Golden Plates, which were written in what he called “Reformed Egyptian”—a language no one’s ever heard of before or since. But here’s where it gets even more crazy: he used seer stones (also known as “Urim and Thummim”) to translate. His method? Simple. He’d put these stones inside a hat—yes, a hat—and peer into it to dictate the Book of Mormon. No need to actually study the plates or even know the original language. And just to make things even more convenient, once he was done, the Golden Plates were conveniently whisked away by an angel, making it impossible for anyone else to verify their existence—or even his ability to translate. It’s like the ultimate “trust me, bro” moment in religious history.

Now, let’s talk about how this compares to Christianity. The Christian Scriptures weren’t brought about by magic hats or mysterious stones. Instead, they were written by ordinary men, living in real-world contexts, in ordinary languages like Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. These weren’t secretive, mystical texts—they were documents penned by people like Moses, David, John, and Paul, who lived and worked in their communities. Their writings were passed down to be shared and studied, with no need for secret divine dictations or magical translation tools.

Christianity’s Scriptures are backed by thousands of manuscripts—from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Codex Sinaiticus—which have been preserved and studied for centuries by scholars. No disappearing plates, no mystical rituals—just real documents, accessible to anyone willing to engage with them. The Bible’s origins aren’t shrouded in secrecy; they’re grounded in historical reality and ordinary human language, standing up to scrutiny for millennia.

Transition: Supernatural translations without even knowing the language? Sounds legit, right? I mean, who needs years of study when you’ve got magic stones or an angel doing the heavy lifting. But the fun doesn’t stop here. Let’s move on to the pièce de résistance: brand-new scriptures. Because why =fulfill existing prophecies when you can just rewrite everything?

Parallel 6: Introduction of New Scriptures

Here’s a parallel that really highlights the difference in approach between Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Jesus Christ. Both Muhammad and Smith introduced entirely new scriptures that were meant to supplement or even replace the Bible as the final word of God. Muhammad claimed that the Quran was the ultimate revelation, the corrective text meant to supersede all previous scriptures. In Surah 5:48, the Quran states that it came to confirm previous revelations and to act as a criterion over them—essentially establishing itself as the definitive religious text for all time. Interestingly, the Quran even asserts that Jesus brought His own book, the Injeel, but there is no historical record of Jesus ever writing or producing any scripture during His ministry. As scholar Gabriel Said Reynolds points out, this presents a serious problem for Islamic claims about Jesus.

Similarly, Joseph Smith introduced the Book of Mormon, subtitled “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” According to Smith, this book restored lost truths and was to be used alongside the Bible. But Smith didn’t stop there—he also produced the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, establishing entirely new scriptures to guide his followers. Both Muhammad and Smith believed the existing scriptures were incomplete or corrupted and that something new was needed to provide ultimate guidance for their followers.

By contrast, Jesus Christ didn’t introduce any new scriptures during His ministry. We have no historical evidence that he ever claimed to have received a corrective text directly from God. And here’s why that’s important: Jesus didn’t need to. His mission wasn’t to replace or rewrite the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), but to fulfill them. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were understood by His followers as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies—not an addition or a correction of them. Jesus didn’t discard the Old Testament; He consistently referred to it, quoted it, and explained how His actions fulfilled it (for example, see Matthew 5:17). This shows a continuity with what came before, not a need to rewrite or introduce a new foundation.

Here’s the key point: a true prophet would do exactly what Jesus didlive out, fulfill, and continue the established scriptures, showing that God’s revelation was already unfolding according to His plan. This requires integrity, courage, and a genuine connection to the divine. A false prophet, on the other hand, would take the much easier route—like Muhammad and Joseph Smith—and claim that the old scriptures were corrupted or incomplete, using that as an excuse to introduce something entirely new. Why? Because it’s far simpler to rewrite history or claim to “correct” an ancient text than it is to prove your legitimacy through the fulfillment of long-standing prophecies.

Transition: So, now we’re adding new books to the Bible. If you can’t find your prophecy, why not just create an entire new set of scriptures? Makes absolute perfect sense… if you’re making it up. And don’t think it stopped there. Both prophets also left behind quite the mess when they died. Family schisms, anyone? Let’s dig into how their followers couldn’t even agree on who should take over.

Parallel 7: Familial Schisms Following Their Deaths

It’s almost funny how after their deaths, both Muhammad and Joseph Smith left their followers in what can only be described as a family feud. In Islam, when Muhammad passed away, his followers didn’t exactly agree on who should lead the growing movement. The Shia believed that leadership should stay within the family, insisting that Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, was the rightful successor. To them, it was practically a family business, and leadership was something that needed to be kept in the bloodline. On the other hand, the Sunni majority took a more democratic approach, saying, “Nah guys, let’s try and avoid blatant nepotism.” They appointed Abu Bakr, a close companion of Muhammad, as the first caliph. And just like that, Islam split into two major factions, all because of a good old-fashioned succession crisis.

Mormonism didn’t fare much better. After Joseph Smith was assassinated, the question of who would take the reins wasn’t exactly clear. Enter Brigham Young, who led the majority of Smith’s followers out to Utah to start what became The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). But not everyone was on board with Young’s leadership. Some believed that the rightful successor should be Joseph Smith’s son, Joseph Smith III, because, you know, nepotism. This group formed what’s now called the Community of Christ, claiming that the prophetic line should stay in the Smith bloodline.

In both cases, we see a remarkable pattern: followers divided into factions, with some arguing that family ties were the divine criteria for leadership. It’s almost as if these religions were running like dynasties, where bloodline mattered more than the message. These family squabbles led to long-lasting sectarian splits, showing just how fragile the foundations were when the prophets themselves weren’t around to keep the peace.

Now, let’s contrast that with Christianity. When Jesus Christ died, He didn’t leave the leadership in the hands of His cousins or relatives. There was no internal bickering about whether His cousin should take over. Instead, He entrusted His apostles, particularly Peter, with the mission to lead and spread His teachings (Matthew 16:18). The early Christian community stayed united under apostolic leadership, with the succession of authority based on spiritual calling rather than family connections. No “keep it in the family” nonsense in Christianity. While Islam and Mormonism were busy tearing themselves apart over familial succession, Christianity kept its eyes on the mission, not the genealogy.

Transition: Let’s talk about how both prophets managed to use their religious authority to pad their bank accounts. Yep, it’s time to follow the money.

Parallel 8: Acquisition of Tremendous Wealth Through Religious Means

Here’s something definitely worth noting: both Muhammad and Joseph Smith didn’t just build religious movements—they built their bank accounts. Muhammad, for example, didn’t shy away from using his leadership role to acquire substantial wealth. Thanks to his successful military campaigns, the spoils of war started piling up, and wouldn’t you know it, a special portion was set aside just for him. According to Surah 8:41, Allah commanded that Muhammed was to be given special access to one-fifth of all the spoils from war. While his followers fought in battle, Muhammad was getting paid.

Joseph Smith wasn’t exactly living on crumbs either. Sure, he introduced tithing—a common practice in Christian churches—but Smith went well beyond the norm. He wasn’t content with just ten percent from his followers. He managed to personally amass significant wealth by acquiring large amounts of land and properties. His religious empire in Nauvoo became a hub of economic activity, and let’s just say a lot of that wealth ended up in Joseph Smith’s pocket. This wasn’t just about running a church—it was about building an empire under the banner of spiritual leadership. It actually looks a lot like the contemporary Prosperity Gospel movement.

Now, let’s talk about Jesus Christ. Here’s a guy who didn’t bother with wealth at all. In fact, He lived in material poverty and actively opposed any mixing of religion and financial gain. When He saw the money changers exploiting faith for profit in the temple, He didn’t set aside a cut for Himself—He literally turned over their tables and drove them out (Matthew 21:12-13). Unlike Muhammad and Smith, who profited from their religious positions, Jesus made it clear that faith wasn’t for sale. He showed a life of humility and self-sacrifice, rejecting the idea of gaining material wealth from His spiritual authority. It’s pretty interesting how Jesus seemed more interested in purity of worship than amassing fortunes.

Transition: Alright, let’s recap: so far we’ve got suspicious prophecies, demonic mishaps, plagiarism from the local culture, family drama, and now—money, lots and lots of money. Let’s talk about how they also managed to humanize God himself—giving him body parts like they were designing a superhero. Yep, that also happened.

Parallel 9: Anthropomorphized Concepts of God

This next parallel might catch some people off guard, but both Islam and Mormonism seem to portray God with some pretty human-like features. In Islam, even though scholars will bend over backward to insist that God’s attributes are unlike anything we know, the Quran still describes God with terms like hands, eyes, shins, and feet. For example, Surah 38:75 mentions God’s hands when He creates Adam, and Surah 48:10 talks about God placing His hand over the hands of believers. The earliest Islamic scholars take these descriptions literally, claiming that God does indeed have these body parts—though, of course, they’re supposedly “uncreated” and “unlike” human equivalents. Sure. But let’s be honest: when you’re saying “hands” and “feet”, they’re still hands and feet—it’s hard to get away from that. So, we’re left with a God who, despite being praised for His transcendence, ends up sounding a lot like a creature with body parts.

Now, Mormonism takes this to a whole new level. According to Doctrine and Covenants, God the Father doesn’t just have metaphorical body parts—He has an actual, literal body of flesh and bones. Yep, in Mormon theology, God is fully embodied, interacting with the physical world like any one of us. And it doesn’t stop there. Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man who worked His way up to godhood, and humans can do the same. So, in Mormonism, God is literally human in form, with a tangible body. And I mean, who doesn’t want to think of God as a superhuman version of ourselves? But, at what cost? God is now just another part of the created universe, with flesh and bones, like everyone else. Suddenly, the infinite and transcendent Creator is reduced to a physical being climbing the ladder of divinity.

What’s striking is how both Islam and Mormonism make God much more relatable by turning Him into someone we could almost run into at the supermarket. Whether it’s “uncreated” body parts in Islam or an actual human body in Mormonism, both religions shift away from the idea of a spiritual, incorporeal God and give us a God that’s more like us. It’s almost as if these religions are fashioning God in our image, instead of the other way around. Convenient, right? When God has hands, feet, and a physical body, it sure makes Him easier to picture—but also makes Him a lot less… well, God-like.

Now, contrast this with Christianity. In orthodox Christian belief, God is spirit (John 4:24), and He’s utterly transcendent—He exists beyond corporeal limitations. The Christian God isn’t bound by space, time, or form. He’s not walking around with hands and feet. And while God did take on a human body in the person of Jesus Christ, that was a one-time, unique act of incarnation—done not to show God’s eternal nature but to redeem humanity. God became man contingently, not because He’s always had a body, but because it was part of His divine plan to save us. His divine essence remains entirely incorporeal, untouched by physical limitations. Unlike the versions of God in Islam and Mormonism, Christianity’s God isn’t a superhuman—He’s the eternal, infinite Creator, utterly beyond all creaturely comparisons.

Transition: Ok, so God has hands and feet now? Right? And apparently, he shops at the same store as us, too. No big deal, just the Creator of the Universe with a literal body, no different than us. But wait—there’s more! As if defining God in our image wasn’t enough, both prophets also managed to completely switch up who God cared about. Out with the old, in with the new—because apparently, God changed his mind on who his chosen people were.

Parallel 10: Discontinuity in the God of Islam and Mormonism

This next parallel might be one of the most damning of them all. In both Islam and Mormonism, we get a God who seems to switch allegiances like He’s picking a new favorite baseball team. In the Old Testament, God is clearly the God of the Hebrews—He forms a covenant with the Israelites, sticks with them through thick and thin, and sends prophets to guide them. In the New Testament, it’s the same God, sending the Hebrew Messiah to the Hebrews in, of course, the land of the Hebrews—Israel. Everything seems pretty consistent God is staying true to His covenant, continuing His story with the Hebrew people.

But then, in both Islam and Mormonism, God seems to go through a bit of a midlife crisis. In Islam, He suddenly decides to become the God of the Arabs. Muhammad shows up claiming that the final revelation has been given to him in Arabic, and the Quran—while acknowledging the earlier revelations to the Hebrews—somehow becomes the ultimate authority. It’s as if God got tired of the Hebrews and decided it was time to switch focus to a new market. And in Mormonism, it’s even more drastic: God supposedly shifts His attention to ancient America, where Joseph Smith claims to restore the true faith through revelations about the Nephites, a completely new people group that—surprise!—has no connection to the Hebrews. Apparently, God had had enough of Israel and decided to check out the New World.

Here’s the glaring problem: why would God, after thousands of years of intimate connection with the Hebrews, suddenly switch gears to an entirely new people group? It’s like someone plagiarized the Hebrew God’s storyline and slapped it onto a new location with a new cast. Islam and Mormonism look like they borrowed the general concept of the Hebrew God and decided to remix it for a fresh audience. It’s as if God just got up one day and said, “You know what? Let’s try something different. The Hebrews had a good run, but it’s time to take this show on the road.” But that’s not how God works.

In stark contrast, Christianity stays firmly planted in its Hebrew roots. Jesus was a Hebrew, and He didn’t claim to bring some new, random revelation for a completely unrelated people group. Instead, He claimed to be the fulfillment of the Hebrew messianic prophecies. Christianity doesn’t involve any sudden, suspicious break from the past—it’s the continuation of the same God and promises that guided the Hebrews from the beginning. But in Islam and Mormonism, we see a God who just abandons His people, making it all seem a little too convenient—and more than a little dubious.

Transition: So apparently God likes to switch sides? Yeah, that definitely checks out… uh no. But don’t worry, we’re not done yet. Let’s take a look at how salvation became less about grace and more about climbing a cosmic rewards ladder.

Parallel 11: Works-Based Salvation with Multiple Levels of Heaven

Here’s an interesting parallel: both Islam and Mormonism believe in works-based salvation and multiple levels of heaven. In Islam, your deeds are what determine where you’ll spend eternity. Surah 18:107 makes it clear that those who do good will get to chill in gardens of paradise. But don’t get too comfortable—there’s a catch: Islam teaches different levels of paradise, so the better you are, the higher your spot in the afterlife. Basically, it’s a tiered system, with the most righteous snagging the VIP seating.

Mormonism isn’t much different. In fact, Joseph Smith took it up a notch with his three-tiered version of heaven. According to Doctrine and Covenants 76, there’s the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. Think of it as heaven’s economy, business, and first class. The more righteous you are, the higher your seat upgrade in the afterlife. The celestial kingdom is for those who really hit the spiritual jackpot, while the lesser levels are reserved for those who didn’t quite make it to top-tier righteousness. So, in both Islam and Mormonism, your heavenly accommodations are tied directly to your moral achievements.

Now, contrast this with Christianity. In the Christian worldview, salvation isn’t something you earn—it’s a gift. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it crystal clear: you’re saved by grace through faith, not because you’ve racked up enough good deeds to get into the good place. There’s no tiered heaven in Christianity—no celestial, terrestrial, or telestial system. There’s just one heaven, and it’s open to all who believe in Jesus Christ, regardless of how many gold stars they earned in this life. In short, it’s not about moral achievements, it’s about grace

Transition: VIP sections in the afterlife—what a concept! Heaven is apparently just a bigger version of your frequent flyer program. But what’s more shocking is the next topic: polygamy. Yep, you heard me right. Let’s dive into the wonderful world of divinely commanded polygamy.

Parallel 12: Divinely Commanded Polygamy

So here’s a pretty spicy one: both Islam and Mormonism got the green light for polygamy from none other than their respective prophets, who claimed divine endorsement for the practice. In Islam, the Quran explicitly allows men to marry up to four wives—as long as they can treat them all justly (Surah 4:3). Of course, Muhammad himself didn’t stick to that limit. Why would he? He conveniently received revelations that permitted him to exceed the four-wife cap in Surah 33:50. So, while the average guy had to deal with four wives max, Muhammad got special treatment straight from the top. Must be nice to have customized divine commands!

Not to be outdone, Joseph Smith brought polygamy into Mormonism, claiming it was a direct command from God. According to Doctrine and Covenants 132, not only was polygamy allowed—it was necessary for exaltation in the afterlife. That’s right, the celestial upgrade came with a catch: you had to marry multiple wives. Smith himself took full advantage of this heavenly mandate, marrying over 30 women and encouraging his followers to do the same. For a while, polygamy became a core part of Mormon life, with many early Mormon leaders building their own extended families, all under the banner of divine command.

Here’s what’s really notable: both Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed that God Himself commanded polygamy as part of their religious frameworks. It wasn’t just an option—it became a mark of faithfulness to their respective religions. You weren’t just following the divine law by marrying multiple wives; you were practically earning spiritual bonus points! Sex, money, and power. These guys had it all! 

In contrast, Christianity took a much simpler route. Jesus Christ affirmed the Genesis ideal of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6), and monogamy became the standard in Christian teaching. While polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament—mostly as a reflection of human failings—it’s not part of the New Covenant. The Christian view emphasizes the sanctity of monogamous marriage, rooted in the example of Christ and the Church. No extra wives, no special revelations needed to change the rules—just the good old-fashioned one-man-one-woman model.

Transition: We’ve covered a lot already—dodgy prophecies, demonic manipulation, family feuds, financial gain, anthropomorphized gods, and now… polygamy. It just keeps getting better and better. But don’t worry, we’re not done with the marriage talk yet. Turns out both prophets made some extra special marital rules just for themselves. Let’s dig into their exclusive privileges.

Parallel 13: Special Marital Privileges

Let’s talk about how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith managed to snag themselves some special marital privileges, conveniently beyond what was permitted to their followers. In Islam, the Quran generally limits men to four wives (Surah 4:3). But for Muhammad? Oh no, the rules didn’t apply to him. Surah 33:50 gave Muhammad a special divine exemption, allowing him to exceed the standard 4-wife limit. While the average guy had to stick to the four-wife limit, Muhammad was blessed with a customized marriage plan straight from God.

Joseph Smith wasn’t about to miss out on the fun either. According to Doctrine and Covenants 132, polygamy wasn’t just divinely sanctioned—it was essential for exaltation in the afterlife. But Smith didn’t stop at your average polygamy. He took it further, marrying at least 30 women, including some who were already married to other men. This practice of polyandry—something not extended to his followers—was justified by Smith as part of God’s grand plan. Doctrine and Covenants 132 explicitly outlines polygamy and includes special provisions for Joseph Smith, granting him the authority to perform these marriages as part of his prophetic mission.

But that’s not all. William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary, kept a journal documenting many of these revelations and marriages. His entries confirm that Smith married women who were already married to other men—something the average Mormon wasn’t allowed to do. Clayton’s journal shows how Smith’s marital practices were presented as divinely commanded, giving him greater marital freedoms than anyone else in the community. Essentially, Smith had a special pass from God to operate by his own set of relationship guidelines, while his followers were held to a different standard.

What’s really striking here is how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith granted themselves greater marital freedoms under the guise of divine approval. And let’s be honest: this is exactly what you’d expect from a false prophet—create self-serving exceptions while pretending it’s all part of a divine command. It’s actually the perfect setup for a false prophet: use religion to justify your personal desires while your followers get stuck with the more restrictive rules.

In stark contrast, Jesus Christ never sought additional privileges for Himself. He didn’t carve out special rules for His own benefit. Instead, Jesus lived by the same moral and ethical standards He taught to others. No extra wives—indeed, no wives at all. And no hidden exceptions—just the same moral responsibility He expected from His followers. Christianity emphasizes the equal moral responsibilities of all believers, standing in sharp contrast to the self-serving exemptions Muhammad and Joseph Smith gave themselves.

Transition: That’s right, while everyone else was stuck with the rules, these guys got their own ‘divine exemptions.’ What a sweet deal, well, if you’re into that kind of thing. But if you thought that was bad, it gets even worse. Let’s talk about how they got divine permission to marry close relatives next. Because, of course, the rules don’t apply when you’re the one making them.

Parallel 14: Divine Permission to Marry Close Relatives

Let’s dive into yet another example of divine exceptions being handed out like candy when it comes to marital privileges. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith managed to get themselves special permissions to marry close relatives, further expanding their already flexible marriage rules. In Islam, Muhammad received a revelation that gave him the green light to marry Zaynab, who just so happened to be the ex-wife of his adopted son, Zayd. Now, considering that adoption was culturally seen as creating familial bonds, this marriage raised more than a few eyebrows. But don’t worry—Surah 33:37 conveniently swoops in to justify the union, explaining that adopted sons don’t create the same familial ties as biological sons. So, essentially, Muhammad’s marriage to his adopted son’s ex-wife was just another divine exception to the rules.

Not to be left out of the “special privileges” club, Joseph Smith also claimed divine permission for his own morally questionable marriages. Smith married several women who were his foster daughters and other relatives connected to him through familial ties, all under the banner of God’s plan for restoring the gospel. Just like Muhammad, Smith found a way to justify these family-related marriages by claiming they were part of a divine command, expanding his marital privileges far beyond what any of his followers could hope for

What’s truly revealing here is how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith used the concept of divine exceptions to justify marriages that would otherwise be seen as morally questionable—or at least make for some really awkward family reunions. This is exactly what you’d expect from a false prophet: bending the rules for personal gain while claiming God’s approval to do so. And while some Old Testament prophets did marry relatives, they never claimed divine permission to do so. Those marriages were simply part of the cultural context, not special “get-out-of-awkwardness-free” cards from God.

But the biggest contrast? Jesus Christ. Unlike these fake prophets, Jesus didn’t go around seeking divine exceptions. He didn’t have special privileges, no bending the rules to suit His personal desires—just a consistent life of righteousness, leaving no room for the kind of divine loopholes Muhammad and Joseph Smith loved to exploit.

Transition: So, here’s where we stand: we’ve laid out how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith crafted divine loopholes to justify marrying close relatives, granting themselves privileges that reek of self-interest rather than divine inspiration. In this video we’ve covered lost prophecies, demonic encounters, wealth grabs, and polygamy, and at every turn, these so-called prophets manipulated their authority to suit their own desires. But hold on—this next parallel takes things even further. It’s not just about bending rules; it’s about crossing serious moral lines that no genuine prophet would ever cross. Let’s get into how both Muhammad and Joseph Smith justified marrying very young girls under the banner of divine command. Brace yourselves.

Parallel 15: Both Prophets Took Very Young Wives

Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith took very young wives, and naturally, they both claimed that these actions were divinely sanctioned. In Islam, it’s well known that Muhammad married Aisha when she was, to put it mildly, extremely young. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine. Because when you’re a prophet, God apparently signs off on everything—even marriages to pre-teens.

Joseph Smith didn’t stray far from this playbook either. He married Helen Mar Kimball, who was 14 years old at the time, and the daughter of one of his close associates, Heber C. Kimball. Helen later wrote that the marriage was presented as a divine command, part of Smith’s broader practice of polygamy, which often involved younger wives. Just like Muhammad, Smith justified these controversial marriages by claiming they were necessary for the restoration of the gospel. I mean, nothing says “restoring the gospel” like taking a 14-year old bride, right?

Once again, this fits perfectly into the pattern we’d expect from a false prophet: using supposed divine approval to engage in practices that just so happen to be personally gratifying.

Now, let’s contrast this with Jesus Christ. Not only did Jesus not marry young girls—or anyone, for that matter—He lived a life of selfless service and moral purity. Christianity holds Jesus up as the ultimate moral example, and He never sought to claim special privileges or exemptions, especially ones that would be ethically questionable by any standard. Instead of bending the rules to satisfy personal desires, Jesus consistently upheld the highest standards of integrity and morality.

Conclusion: The Undeniable Parallels Between Islam and Mormonism

These 15 parallels make it impossible to deny the pattern that emerges between Islam and Mormonism. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith built entire religions on re-revealed prophecies, tremendous wealth, overwhelming power, and self-serving privileges that allowed them to shape their movements according to their own devious desires.

By contrast, Christianity stands in a class of its own. Jesus Christ didn’t seek special privileges, earthly power, or hidden revelations. He lived a public life of sacrifice and humility, with a ministry that was publicly witnessed and historically verifiable. There was no secret knowledge, no self-serving exceptions—just the clear, open truth of the Gospel. The difference between Christianity and these man-made religions couldn’t be more obvious.So, if you’re comparing the evidence, the choice is clear: Christianity is true.

FURTHER READING

WHO IS THE ELOHIM OF MORMONISM?, PT. 2

THE MORMON SATAN & PREMORTALITY

THE BIBLICAL GOD VERSUS THE MORMON GODS, PT. 2, PT. 2B

YHWH: THE ONLY TRUE ELOHIM

JOSEPH SMITH THE FALSE PROPHET DEBATE

NOTES FOR MORMON DEBATE