Teachings of Jesus that are not taught in your church

The teachings of Jesus and the Bible(s) that are not taught in your church

Why don’t Christians teach these things?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

   Google ‘Jesus is the prince of peace’ and millions of websites will appear on the search engine. Christians love to quote Isaiah 9:6 for Jesus and make him out to be the most peace loving being to have ever walked this earth. The teachings of Jesus are pure love and Christianity is love and the Bible is love. How many times have you heard this script? It is really unfortunate that the Christians who peddle these notions either do not really read their Bibles or even if they did they misunderstand or simply chuck them aside in favour of Church dogma. In this article we will look at samples of passages that are rarely taught in the Christian churches or missionary circles.

Christian polemic: The teachings of Jesus are based on love!

If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26) 


The sin that defeats Jesus

The ‘ultimate’ sacrifice?

by Ibn Anwar

According to Christians the sacrifice that Jesus allegedly made on the cross at calvary is the ultimate sacrifice that absolves all sins. So for example we read the following declaration from a Christian based missionary website,

“The life of the sinner was under the sentence of death until Christ by the shedding of His blood in the death on the cross released and cleansed us of all sin (Eph. 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5; 5:9). Christ bore the divine penalty and God is now free to forgive all sin and declare the believing sinner just in His sight (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18).” (source)

Best compilation of Christian charity and good will

  Possibly one of the best compilations of Christian goodness and love on the net

by Ibn Anwar

“The greater the sin, the greater the redemption.”

The following is a compilation of articles that I have written on beautiful Christian behaviour. The Christians must accept the standard set by their own ‘sacred text’ that says, “Judge them by their fruits”.

Jesus is no saviour

 According to the Old Testament Jesus cannot be a saviour

by Ibn Anwar

   According to Christians Jesus is a prince. He is the prince of peace. In the New Testament we read again and again that Jesus is called ‘the Son of Man’. In fact, that expression is mentioned for Jesus over 83 times throughout the New Testament. Consider the following verse,

“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help.” (Psalms 146:3)

Historical Inaccuracy of Luke

Is Luke true to historical facts?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

First and foremost, it is necessary to point out that the Gospel of(or rather according to) Luke is an anonymous piece of literature. More information on this is given here. Many Christians that I have met consider the Gospel of Luke along with the other books of the New Testament as accurate historical texts with no errors. They are in other words, in their view, truly inspired and inerrant. One can understand the sentiments involved. Christianity revolves around the Bible(s) and as such it is regarded as a revelation from God. It is regarded as ‘the Word of God’. Being the ‘Word of God’ it has to meet certain standards. One of which is of course accuracy of facts and information. There can be no error in the Bible text according to the Christian fundamentalist, for an error in it is tentamount to saying that God is in error. In this article I shall expose the fallacy of this belief by showing a clear error in the text. The question then is how can inspired writers get things wrong and are not corrected by the One inspiring them? This then brings us to the topic proper, Is Luke true to historical facts? Several weeks ago my Australian Paltalk friend 28abc invited me to a room on Paltalk called Kick Back Cafe Christians Answer Back Loud(or something to that effect) in the Christian section to have a dialogue with a ‘pastor’ there. I wasn’t doing anything much so I agreed. Upon arrival I raised my hand to take the microphone. I think I had to wait for close to half an hour before I actually reached it because the Christian admins were droning and complaining on and on about Muslims and Islam. Anyway, the moment I got the microphone(knowing I might get knocked off by an admin) I posed the question quickly to the room and specifically to the Pastor who had a blue nick name. As is often the case before I could finish my point one of the admins dotted me. People in the room complained including the non-Muslims. The pastor raised his hand and waited in line. One of the admins didn’t give the mic to him immediately after me, but instead grabbed it and started dissing Islam and saying that the room isn’t about Islam(and I didn’t even mention the word Islam). She then started talking about the crucifixion and how Jesus had died for our sins and we should accept that. It was only after close to half an hour of going off the tangent and diatribing that the microphone was finally given to the pastor. We strongly suspected that the question was a bit too difficult for him(the pastor) so the admin had to intervene and start pulling wool over people’s eyes so as to allow the good pastor to do some spur of the moment searches(maybe google?). But, whatever it was the pastor came on and tried to answer. What came from him was expected disappointment. Instead of actually explaining the discrepency he started talking about some guy who lived more than a hundred years ago who was once a skeptic and became a believer after studying the gospel of Luke meticulously and found that what contained therein are accurate to history. The person that he appealed to is a certain British archeologist whose name is Sir William Ramsay(not to be confused with the chemist who lived about the same time). The argument is that this archeologist took the gospel to task in trying to disprove it, but instead discovered that it matched with historical and archeological findings. In this article I will postulate the same point that I did in the room which the pastor tried to answer which I think was hardly satisfactory. I did not discover this problem on my own. It is not something new. This problem has troubled many a conservative scholar who has studied the gospel according to Luke as pointed out in the People’s New Testament. In fact, this problem was recognised and spotted by the author of Izhar al-Haq, Maulana M. Rahmatullah Kairanvi, over 100 years ago. I heartily recommend the book to anyone interested in Christian-Muslim dialogues. It is one of the early scholarly writings in the field of comparative religion by a Muslim hand.

When did the Bible come to be?

What exactly is the Bible?

by Ibn Anwar

   Many people especially Christians themselves take for granted the Bible that they have in hand and use in their churches. If one were to ask a Christian how many Bibles there are, one would not be surprised to hear the answer that there is but one Bible that is called THE Bible. Many Christians that I have met were(probably still are) in fact under the impression that the Bible that they read(e.g. KJV) existed as it is 2000 years ago! Nothing can be further from the truth. The truth of the matter is there is no such thing as THE Bible. There are Bibles upon Bibles with each major and even minor church boasting its own kind.

Response to Dr. James White

Unveiling Dr. James White

by Ibn Anwar

    Very recently my article on God is not a man was posted on brother Zami Zaatari’s site muslim-responses.com. It got the attention of the notorious Sam Shamoun who then directed Dr. James White to it. As a result of that Dr. James White of the Alpha and Omega ministries produced a 20 minutes and 45 seconds long video response to the article(or to a fraction of the article). Before you watch Dr. White’s response you should first read the article in question. Click here to read the article. The following is the video response.