John makes Jesus teach blasphemy

Biblical Jesus taught a heresy

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCoLLT

One of the verses that Trinitarians commonly use to prove Jesus’ divinity is John 14:9 which has Jesus saying, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” Accordingly, the Trinitarians contend that when taken literally what the verse shows is that Jesus is God like the Father is God. But is that really the meaning that one may glean from the verse when it is taken literally? When taken literally, what the verse actually says is that Jesus is, in fact, the Father. The verse says if a person sees Jesus then he has seen the Father and that can only mean that seeing Jesus means seeing the Father which must naturally mean that Jesus is actually the Father. Perhaps a simple analogy will illustrate the point clearer. James says, “If you have seen me then you have seen the chief of police.” What James is claiming, should we take his statement literally, is that he is as a matter of fact the chief of police because to see him means seeing the chief of police. What the statement certainly cannot mean when taken literally is that James is claiming to be a human being with a human nature. Likewise, when Jesus says seeing him equals seeing the Father, it cannot mean that he is claiming to have the essence of godhood but that he is actually the Father. As Jesus is claiming to be the Father here, according to standard Trinitarian theology, he is, in fact, committing a grievous ancient heresy forwarded by Sebellius called Patripassianism or Monarchianism or Sebellianism or Modalism. Patripassianism is a concept that stood in opposition to Trinitarianism in which the three persons of the godhead were thought to be just one person that reveals himself in three different modes. To confuse any of the persons of the Trinity with each other is to commit this modalistic heresy and apparently Jesus in John 14:9 does precisely that.

The verse in question has been used as the primary proof textby modalists since the time of Sebellius and Praxeas to prove their theology.

“Whoso hath seen me hath seen the Father also;”…
6. Yesterday we commanded it to your consideration, beloved, and said that the sentences of the Evangelist John, in which he narrates to us what he learned from the Lord, had not required to be discussed, were that possible, except the inventions of heretics had compelled us. Yesterday, then, we briefly intimated to you, beloved, that there are heretics who are called Patripassianism, or Sebellians after their founder: these say that the same is the Father who is the Son; the names different, but the person one. When He wills, say they, He is Father; when He wills, He is Son: still He is one.” [1]

Religion is not the source of terrorism

Western Academia Versus “Imam” Tawhidi Jahili

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

A self-proclaimed “Muslim leader” named Tawhidi has been making rounds on Australian media with scandalous and controversial remarks with which he lambaste Islam and Muslims. He claims to represent Muslims but takes every opportunity to deliver hate-filled sound bites against Muslims and Islam. He is fast becoming a household name for those predisposed to Islamophobia. And Australian media seem to love his TV presence.

Little is actually known about this individual and what his background really is. He decorates himself with the title ‘Imam’, but hardly anyone in his locality knows who he is or recognises his religious standing in the community. As a matter of fact, on 2nd March of this year, the Australian National Imams Council or ANIC put out an official statement that Tawhidi has no recognition as a religious leader anywhere in Australia and the organisation states unambiguously that “ANIC states clearly that this individual, is not a recognised Imam, Sheikh or Muslim leader.” [1] With such an obscure background and zero accessible credentials, no thinking person should take Tawhidi seriously, especially when he forwards outrageous claims that are without substantiation.

“Indonesia was invaded by Muslims”

In a latest fit of rant, Tawhidi, out of his own volition, let the cat out of the bag. Just a few days ago, on national Australian TV, in his unbridled excitement to put all the blame he could muster on Muslims and Islam for the recent Manchester violence and similar other terrorist acts in recent times, Tawhidi said the following:

“These are not something I’m imagining. These are facts. We’ve had many wars. How did Islam spread from Saudi Arabia down to Indonesia and Bosnia. All spread by the sword.” [2]

A little knowledge can be dangerous but the above quote from the horse’s mouth reveals a deep-seated incompetence that must be taken as foolproof certificate of Tawhidi’s unreliability as a source of information for Islam. A small child, having studied world history, would be able to correct Tawhidi’s serious blunder in claiming that Islam came down all the way from “Saudi Arabia to Indonesia by the sword.” It is a matter of incontrovertible fact that Islam reached the shores of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and the rest of Southeast Asia many centuries ago through trade missions by Arab and Indian traders and Muslim missionary work. No Muslim army from anywhere in the world reached Southeast Asia to colonise or convert anyone to the religion. This serious error that Tawhidi made publicly, which he has yet to retract, is sufficient reason to discredit him as a reliable commentator on Islam. It takes a whole new level of foolishness to completely revamp Islamic history and fabricate a whole new obscurantist narrative for one’s own agenda. But Tawhidi managed to do just that in front of millions and remains completely oblivious to the amount of rancid beans he has actually spilled. He has successfully, out of his own ignorance, and without much assistance from Muslims, discredited himself.

“Islamic scriptures cause terrorism”

God Does Not Need Blood to Forgive You

Atonement Needs No Blood: Jesus Did Not Have to Die for Anyone

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCoLLT


A person who claims that blood is absolutely neceessary for the atonement of sins is one that needs to have another careful look at the Torah and even the New Testament. There are, in fact, many verses throughout the Bible that show that God does not require blood in order to allow for atonement of a person to occur. One does not, however, need to supply every verse that teaches bloodless atonement as one verse that demonstrates that would be sufficient to demolish any idea that says God has to have blood in order to forgive.

In the Book of Leviticus we learn about the different offerings that are allowed for the sinner to offer as sacrifice so as to receive atonement and what is evident is that blood is not the key to enable that. In Leviticus 5:11 God gives a concessionary option for atonement to those that belong to the poorer caste in society:

“‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.”

James Dunn: Jesus said, “I am not God.”

“Why do you call me good?” : Jesus claimed he was not God

Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCoLLT

According to the eminent scholar on the historical Jesus Dr. James Dunn who is Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham, the reply that Jesus gave to the rich man in Mark 10 was a clear denial on Jesus’ part that he was in any way God. He makes this most important point in ‘The Evidence for Jesus.’

“In this case it would appear that it was the opening exchange between the man and Jesus which caused the problems. The man addresses Jesus as ‘Good Teacher’. And Jesus replies with a mild rebuke: ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’ (Mark 10:17-18). Luke sees no difficulty with these words and reproduces them more or less exactly . Not so with Matthew-as we see in the synopsis. The difficulty for Matthew presumably lay in the fact that Jesus was being shown by Mark to disdain any right to the description ‘good.’ And by his own logic, Jesus was thereby disclaiming any right to be regarded as divine. If only God is ‘good’, and Jesus rebukes the address ‘Good Teacher,’ the most obvious corollary is that Jesus is not God.” (Dunn, J. D. [1985]. The Evidence for Jesus. Louiseville, Kenticky: The Westminster Press. P. 20)

In a nutshell, despite the juggling act of missionaries to avoid the plain meaning that the text conveys, when Jesus said,”No one is good except God alone” he really essentially said, “I am not God.”

For a more in depth look on this topic, proceed to Jesus Refused to be Called Good

The Silence of the Sheep

2000 years of constant Christian rebellion against Jesus

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons). MCollT


Jesus: Do not tell anyone!

Christian: Nope. I am going to tell everyone and anyone!

The above is precisely the phenomenon that we witness with regards to the many, many instances of the so called Messianic Secret as recounted for the whole world to see, despite Jesus’ direct reticence to public and open exposure of certain things he did or said, in the gospels and it is a particularly prominent feature of the Gospel According to Mark, which is the first of the four gospels to be anonymously written.

Every time you read Jesus specifically instructing someone or a group of people to keep what they had witnessed a secret and to tell no one, you are actually witnessing those people’s disobedience to Jesus’ instruction, for if they had obeyed Jesus, then you would not have been privy to what Jesus intended to be private 2000 years ago. By extension, Christians today, including each and every Bible translator and publisher is a rebel against the wishes of their alleged master Jesus as they happily and unthinkingly partake in revealing what Jesus instructed to be kept hidden.

Vicarious atonement is not divinely sanctioned

The concept of vicarious atonement in western Christian theology: A Human Invention

By Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

In religious lectures, dialogues and debates with interlocutors like Dr. William Lane Craig and James White, a specific image of the cross is presented and the manner by which they present their case impresses the impression that all Christians agree on it. The view that they extol is the view that Saint Anselm of Canterbury, being the earliest theologian to delineate the concept, details in his ‘Cur Deus Homo’ or ‘Why God Became Man.’ The dogma is one that is punitive in nature where it is argued that there is an unbridgeable chasm between God’s two attributes: Justice and Mercy. The idea is that, in order for God to maintain those two divine attributes, He has to placate or satiate the wrath (His own wrath) that is due towards sinful act and the sinful doer by some kind of punitive measure. That punitive or juridical measure is what bridges God’s attributes of Justice and Mercy. Simply forgiving for the sake of forgiveness, in the mind of Anslem and emulated by Craig, White and those that follow therein, is unjust because payment (or a pound of flesh) must be paid so that justice be met. Therefore, the vicarious atonement is seen as the only possible way to ameliorate the perceived tension between God’s Justice and Mercy where punishment for sin, i.e., the pound of flesh, is provided in Jesus’ sacrifice.

Promoting and arguing vehemently for that doctrine, Christian apologists, in exchanges with Muslims, typically begin by accusing Islam of having a soteriology (salvific theology) that is insufficient as it inadequately makes sense of those two attributes that God must have simultaneously. They contend that by simply forgiving God fails to meet justice or by simply punishing God fails to show mercy. Without going into the inadequacies of said dogma, which we have done in a previous article entitled ‘The Christian Cross: The Most Celebrated and Recognised Symbol of Child Abuse’ and ‘Dr. William Lane Craig: The biblical concept of god is morally deficient,’ we will simply point out a historical fact that will prove an insurmountable obstacle to the dogma in question. According to an eminent Orthodox theologian Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, as he echoes the unified scholarly consensus amongst Eastern Orthodox priests and theologians, the western concept of atonement as briefly adumbrated above has little to no basis prior to Anslem in the 11th century of the European Dark Ages. In fact, Archbishop Lazar, exhibiting the agreed upon belief in the Eastern Christian tradition, impresses the point that such a view of God’s attributes is simply wrong and unjustified. In an interview on a Greek Orthodox network, Archbishop Lazar says:

The concept of God in Christianity is deficient

Dr. William Lane Craig: The biblical concept of god is morally deficient

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

In the Craig’s List (William Lane Craig) of absurdities, one that really stands out is his argument against the Islamic concept of God. He argues that “Islam has a morally deficient concept of God” [1] because whereas the Bible portrays God as absolutely all-Loving, the Qur’an depicts Him as One that shows partial love, i.e., He only loves the good and hates the sinner. To Craig, this is an unacceptable concept of God and such a god cannot possibly exist.

A common argument that Christian evangelists put forward is that God does not hate the sinner but the sin to which Dr. Shabir Ally retorts, “But God throws the sinner into hell and not just the sin.” If He only hates the sin and not the sinner, then why would He put the sinner in hell for all of eternity and not just the sin? In this simple rhetorical question, one sees that true deficiency lies within the Christian concept of deity and not with the Islamic. The biblical and Christian God is not impartial in His love for His creation. His love is very much conditional. In layman’s terms, God does not love the sinful person insofar that he languishes and continues in his sins. For that very reason, John 3:16 shows us that God’s love is conditional upon “believing” in His son that He has sent. One of the verses that Craig uses in his article to show that God is truly all loving is 1 John 4:8-10:

God is love, . . . In this is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His son to be the sacrifice for our sins (I John 4.8, 10).