Aaron sacrificed to Satan?

The sacrifice made to Satan by Aaron as “divinely” ordained

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

Would Christians be surprised to learn that the Bible depicts Aaron as being commanded by God to give something valuable to Satan? In fact, in this article I will contend that there is enough to show that it was not merely the giving of something, but it was actually a kind of sacrificial rite that was offered. Yes, there is a sacrificial rite unto Satan according to the Bible. This sacrificial rite is connected to the process of atonement of sins as we shall see.

“And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.” (Leviticus 16:8)

The context of the above as anyone who is familiar with the book should know is the method of atoning for sins whereby two goats are chosen as a sin offering. One might wonder, “Where does it mention Satan?” Well, the verse itself does not specifically mention the word Satan, but another word or rather name is used to represent the devil or Satan which is Azazel. We will provide more details on this in due course. A fundamentalist Christian at this point would immediately scramble and put together an argument in his head which goes along the the following lines, “The two goats are meant for different things. They should not be conflated into one as if they were intertwined and thereafter provide a basis for the suggestion that Satan is involved in the work of atonement. The goat sent to Azazel is not the offering. The offering was made only to the Lord”  Such musings need not be dissected in order to be refuted. One need only cite verse five from the same context which says, “And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.” This verse shows that both goats are meant as ‘offerings’. The verse also shows that one must not be given in the absent of another, hence Barnes’ Notes of the Bible states that “the two goats formed a single sin-offering.”

“Mary, the sister of Aaron”

Does the Qur’an commit an anachronism by saying that Mary is the sister of Aaron?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)


The Qur’anic verse in question is from Surah Maryam(19), verse 28:

يٰأُخْتَ هَارُونَ مَا كَانَ أَبُوكِ ٱمْرَأَ سَوْءٍ وَمَا كَانَتْ أُمُّكِ بَغِيّاً

“O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a loose woman!”

The first thing that should be noted by anyone who is interested in really understanding the verse is that it does not say, “O Mary, mother of Jesus who sister of Aaron and Moses and the daughter of Amram”. If it had said that then the detractors of the Qur’an would have a good case against Islam and its primary text. But as any child can gather the verse simply says, “O sister of Aaron”. Those who charge that the Qur’an is confused between Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the sister of Aaron and Moses are often Christians. Can a single Christian prove from their Bible beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary the mother of Jesus certainly did not have a brother named Aaron? There is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible which says Mary was the one and only child of her parents. The relentless Christian detractor refusing to lose will then resort to Surah al-Imran, verse 35 which talks about “the wife of Imran”(the father of Moses, Aaron and Mary).

Does Allah pray? If yes then who does He pray to?

Refuting the nonsense that Allah prays for Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

    A couple of days ago I was chatting with some Christians who brought up this issue. One of them was arguing that Allah worships or prays on or for Muhammad s.a.w. according to the Qur’an. This contention was popularised by the Christian polemicist Sam Shamoun and his ilk. It is no doubt a reaction to Muslims who argue against the alleged divinity of Jesus Christ by pointing out that he prayed to God. The argument essentially postulates that if a person prays to God then that disqualifies him from divinity. In many Christians’ mindset by arguing that Allah prays on Muhammad that refutes the Muslims’ postulation on Jesus and his prayerful disposition, that is, Allah prays and yet he’s still God hence if Jesus prays that means he is no less divine than Allah. In this article we will illustrate that the argument propounded by Shamoun and his ilk stems from a profound ignorance and misunderstanding of the Arabic language and linguistics in general.

James White laughs at Dr. William Lane Craig

Dr. William Lane Craig’s analogy of the Trinity gets laughed at by James White

I almost never post youtube or any other videos, but I think this one is worth a place on Unveiling Christianity. Enjoy.

In summary:

Dr. William Lane Craig: The Trinity is like a three headed  dog from hell

Dr. James White : Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Is Jesus God because of 1 Timothy 3:16?

Does 1 Timothy 3:16 say Jesus is God?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

“1 Timothy 3:16″ speaks of a personal manifestation of God – God in the second person was manifested” (The Impeccable Christ) [1]

The above and many other such similar remarks and statements are commonly found in Christian literature that favour Jesus’ divinity. In my own exchanges with Christians when discussing the alleged divinity of Jesus they would more likely than not reference 1 Timothy 3:16 as evidence for the incarnation of God into this world and that Jesus(the incarnation) is indeed God. Many of them do not realise however, that the reading that they so quickly grab and utilise is untenable. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”  This is the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 that would be championed by so called KJV only Christian fundamentalists and those whose agenda is to deify Jesus. The evidence will show that their position and belief is unwarranted and without good foundation.

The reading which has “God manifested in the flesh”(theos ephanerothe en sarki) is found in the King James Version which is based on the Textus Receptus or Received Text which is the work done by Desiderius Erasmus and published in 1516. The standard position in modern Biblical studies is that the Textus Receptus is an inferior text as it is based on very late mss. of the Byzantine tradition(12th and 13th century) as Prof. Raymond Brown states, “Scholarship at the end of the 19th century finally won the battle to replace the inferior Textus Receptus by new editions of the Greek NT based on the great uncial codices and other evidence made available since Erasmus’ time…”[2] Michael A. Barber summarises the situation of the TR nicely in the following:

Jesus was hungry

Was Jesus really hungry? Was it just a parable? What was it?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

Before we delve into the topic proper we should briefly establish the relevant framework upon which the whole discussion will be built so as to get better clarity. For a long time Biblical scholars have noticed distinct similarities and dissimilarities between the first three Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke. This relationship that is shared by all three Gospels gave rise to what is called Synoptic problem. The term “Synoptic” means that the three Gospels are interrelated and can be seen together. [1] Most New Testament scholars today subscribe to the Markan/Marcan priority hypothesis which was first proposed in 1863. What that means is that Mark was the first Gospel to be written which was then followed  by Matthew and Luke. Directly related to the Marcan priority is the idea that both Matthew and Luke employed Mark as a common source for their respective Gospels. The Marcan material present in Matthew and Luke is described as the “Triple Tradition” and in terms of statistics, eighty percent of Mark’s verses are found in Matthew while sixty five percent are found in Luke. [2] This position is called the “Two-Source hypothesis” which is according to Dr. L. Michael White “the most commonly used theory among New Testament scholars…”. [3] Writing about the Two-Source Hypothesis Mark Goodrace says:

“Right down to the present, this has remained the most popular way to solve the SynopticProblem. It has been finely tuned, has been given many variations, and has been challenged from many quarters, but this basic two-pronged hypothesis has remained fairly effectively intact. In Germany it is still very much what one might call ‘critical orthodoxy’. Famously, in the mid 1960s, one biblical critic spoke about abandoning use of the term ‘hypothesis’ to describe it altogether. ‘We can in fact regard it as an assured findings’, he said.” [4]

Thus, Mark was written first then the authors of Matthew and Luke employed the Gospel of Mark as a common source for their own productions. In this article we will analyse one out of many of the examples of how a story that was first produced in Mark is reproduced by the other two Synoptic Gospels with some modifications resulting in certain theological implications. The example that we will focus on in this discussion is the story of Jesus and the fig tree which is found in Mark 11, Matthew 12 and Luke 13 which is reproduced by the author in a rather different form as we shall see.

Did Jesus really die on the cross?

The Apparent Death Hypothesis according to Dr. William Lane Craig

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

This article is a response to a section of a debate that took place on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus between the Islamic scholar Shabir Ally and the Christian scholar Dr. William Lane Craig which can be viewed here. The following is a transcript of the section that this article aims at addressing:

“The first one, the crucifixion is universally agreed upon by all historians and here Shabir says that he doesn’t deny that Jesus was crucified but what he suggests is that he was taken down alive from the cross and God raised him out of the tomb into heaven. This is a fantastic hypothesis and an incredible concession on the part of an Islamic theologian to Christian claims about Jesus. Basically it is an attempt to resurrect the old Apparent Death theory which was popular among German rationalists during the late 17th hundreds and I’ve got to say no historian or New Testament scholar would defend this Apparent Death theory today. It’s sort of the theological equivalent of the flat earth theory. Why is this hypothesis abandoned? Well, one thing is that there is simply no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal. The Romans were professional executioners and they ensured the deaths of their victims by a spear thrust into the heart of the victim so that even if the victim had simply lapsed into a comatose state on the cross he would certainly be killed by the thrust of the spear into his heart and this is exactly what happened in Jesus’ case.”