Biblical Elisha and YHWH butcher little boys

You baldhead!: Young Boys Bullying Prophet Elisha

By Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

In this fascinating story, we read about the great Prophet Elisha who is harassed by 42 naughty children and the reaction that he gives to that, which consequently results into something rather unpalatable to the sensible human observer. Christian missionaries often make a big fuss over supposed rules in the Shari’ah that stipulate the capital punishment for those who offend the person of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. But in this wonderful Biblical story, we see that a most gruesome punishment awaits those who insult a prophet like Elisha. So, I do not think that those Christian missionaries can hold a candle to Muslims and play the holier than thou game when it comes to blaspheming prophets of God.

The story begins thus:

“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” (2 Kings 2:23; New International Version)

Elisha was walking to Bethel and along the way a group of youngsters, who apparently did not like him, started making fun of him and telling him to leave. But there are a couple of problems with the NIV translation of the verse. Firstly, there were 42 individuals in that group that were offending Elisha and so to say that they were just “some boys” is a major understatement. Secondly, the word “boys” is quite inaccurate, because the original Hebrew says “une’arim qetanneem” which means “little children” as the King James Version correctly translates. So, the verse should say that “many little children came out of the town and jeered at him.” We can understand why the NIV and some other translations try to cloud the narrative by inaccurately translating the text: it may well be that the intention is to downplay the seriousness of the story that may put people off. We would heartily agree that it’s wrong for a child or an adult to make fun of others, most especially prophets of God, but in this instance, we have little children, who probably did not know any better and were playing the fool with a visitor. Would you severely punish them just for that? Most reasonable people wouldn’t, but Elisha and the Biblical God most certainly did:

Bart Ehrman’s Mainstream Scholarship in Textual Criticism

Do We Have the Original Words of the New Testament Writers?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT


Many conservative Christians today would unceremoniously dismiss scholars who question the veracity of biblical texts and would expel and ostracise the voice that dares to question the inerrancy (The belief that scripture is free from errors, i.e., it is complete inspired in its every word – “verbal, plenary inspiration.) of the Bible. Many would think that this view has kicked its bucket and is now safely collecting dust on the shelf marked “Myths and Legend”. It is true that while many Christians in the west, after being exposed to works by textual critics, have embraced a more flexible view of scripture, i.e., the Bible is the Word of God but in it are also the thoughts of men and possibly even mistakes, there are still major pockets of Christian communities and churches that strongly uphold that the Bible(s) they have in their hands are absolutely God’s word, inspired and has no error. In a recent 2014 Gallup Poll showed that 28% of Christian Americans still strongly cling to this belief. This means that the belief is still quite alive and well among many practising Christians.

Whenever one discusses the topic of inspiration and biblical inerrancy, a name that popularly pops up is “Bart Ehrman” whose popularised, easy-to-access and easy-to-read introduction to the technical art of textual criticism brought a storm to not only America but the world over. His work has been described as monumental as it has given rise to great interest in higher criticism among laymen in a way that has never been seen before and the excitement that it has generated has not ebbed to this day.
Of course, to the conservative Christian who strongly believes in the inerrancy of scripture, Ehrman is just another upstart in a long line of deviants that no longer have the grace of God and destined to the pits of fire. Unbeknownst to these well-meaning Christians, the primary concern that Ehrman puts forward in his thesis and one of the reasons that he says helped peel away his faith in the inerrancy of scripture, finds great support in many a conservative scholar that preceded him.

Ehrman proclaims the following words that have irked so many a conservative, “What we have are copies of these writings, made years later – in most cases, many years later. Moreover, none of these copies is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in placed. All scribes did this. So rather than actually having the inspired words of the autographs (i.e., the originals) of the Bible, what we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.” [1]

Is the Qur’an in stark contrast to the Gospels in its depiction of Jesus? Answering Dr. Michael Licona.

The Qur’an’s Low Christology Compared to the Gospels

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

I was asked by a brother named Kaleef Karim on 9th February 2016 to give some comments on what Dr. Michael Licona wrote about Mark and his low Christology. The following is my feedback to what Dr. Licona said and you can check the attached image below to see his original statements that the following responds to.


Many scholars maintain that the Gospel of Thomas has a rather low Christology and depicts Jesus truly flesh and blood. The sparse instances where allusions to divinity may be attributed to him have been understood in the framework of Jesus being God’s “Shaliach”. The Didache, which may well preserve the teachings of Die Jerusalemer Urgemeinde (that was led by the earliest followers of Jesus and headed by James) which is an equally ancient witness has an even more pronounced low Christological conception of Jesus, identifying him only as the “servant of God”. Though the Qur’an maintains a fairly low Christology, emphasising time and again the humanity of Jesus Christ, the Gospel according to Mark does not entirely depart from this strand of thought. Granted that there are instances where traditional conservative scholars have interpreted some very isolated instances of the “Son of Man” quotations from Jesus as instances of his claim to divinity (e.g. Mark 14:62), the overall schema of Jesus as found in Mark seem to strongly indicate a low Christological conception: “Compared with the other Gospels, it is often said that Mark has a relatively ‘low Christology’ – meaning that, generally speaking, in Mark’s Gospel Jesus is relatively more ‘human’ than in the other Gospels, his divinity is more subtly and reticently conveyed.’ [1]

Echoing the same sentiment, Associate Professor of Ethics at the School of Theology, Claremont, California, Garth Kasimu Baker-Fletcher tell us that, “Mark’s Christology is considered low Christology, emphasizing Jesus’ humanity, and the title “Son of Man,” spending more time on that aspect of Jesus than on His divinity.” [2] And when one takes into consideration the stark absence of Patristic commentaries and interpretations on the Gospel of Mark, this point takes even greater root in studies on Mark’s Christology and this good point is no better observed than in the following:
“The many commentaries on Matthew, Luke, and John employing the range of patristic methods of interpretation demonstrate the relationship between the interests of the Fathers and the document being interpreted. The absence of commentaries on Mark, on the other hand, suggests that neither the interpretive nor ecclesiastical interests of the Fathers were excited by Mark.”[3]

Unitarian consistency throughout the passage of time

Unitarianism: From John Wright to Anthony Buzzard

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

With unwavering conviction in the Unitarianism of the lord Messiah, Unitarian author John Wright swiftly repels the Trinitarian belief that Jesus ever desired or sought religious adoration or worship from his Jewish monotheistic believers.

” If we examine the New Testament, we find no instance of prayers being offered to Christ in his absence; Jesus no where directed his followers to pray to him, or to worship him. When he taught his disciples to pray, it was to address the Father; and on different occasions he directed them to pray to the Father, The acts of the Apostles contains no instance of divine worship being paid to any but the Father, or of prayer being addressed to any one else, as the object of religious worship. The case of Stephen, though a particular one, is not an exception to what I say. Stephen was the first Christian Martyr, and was favored at that important moment, with a vision of Jesus. He did not see him as God on a Throne; but as “standing on the right hand of God.” He did not contemplate him as God, but as “the son of man,” he said, “I see the son of man,” Nor did he address him as the supreme God.” [1]

Some 100 years later, another Unitarian scholar, Professor (Dr.) Sir Anthony F. Buzzard testifies:

“There are other equally unambiguous statements confirming Jesus’ belief in the God of Judaism. There is no hint of the introduction of a second people into the Godhead in the farewell prayer Jesus offered at the conclusion of his ministry… No evidence is presented to show that the New Testament abandons its own roots in the Old Testament and ascribes to the title “Son of God” a meaning never hinted at in the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament meaning of “Son of God” is devastating to the Trinitarian cause. “Son of God” was used in various ways — to describe the nation of Israel, its king, and, in the plural, even angels. In none of these instances does the title imply Deity in a Trinitarian sense.” [2]

Did doubting Thomas make Jesus God?

Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God”: Reconsidering John 20:28 in light of context and scholarship

By Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

This is a favourite verse for Trinitarians when they argue for the divinity of Jesus. They say confidently that here lies a clear declaration of Jesus’ Godhood by his own intimate disciple. Granted that the person being addressed by Thomas in John 20:28 is Jesus, does it finally prove that Jesus is biblically approved as “very God of very God” (theon ek theou alethinou) as the Creed of Nicea of 325 states? Several explanations have been proposed to show that one need not go home with the Trinitarian interpretation but may well retain a strict Unitarian theology whilst still affirming the text in question. The ‘New Evangelical Magazine and Theological Review’ of 1822 gives a non-exhaustive yet good overview of some of the common propositions that are made by concerned monotheists to affirm Jesus’ unbroken humanity and reject the Trinitarian view of John 20:28.

“Of these it is impossible here to take particular notice, but we would solicit attention to a remark or two on the exclamation of Thomas, “My Lord and my God.” These remarkable words have been variously interpreted. They are by some supposed to be a sudden, and almost involuntary, exclamation of conviction and astonishment: by others they are understood as an ejaculation of admiration and gratitude, addressed directly to God the Almighty Father: some suppose that the first member of the sentence was addressed to Jesus, and the next to God God the Father; and Unitarians, in general, refer the whole sentence to the Father.” [1]

While most interesting and one or two being rather favourable in our view, in this brief article, we are not interested in delving into any of the above Unitarian propositions as we shall instead consider three alternative interpretations that we feel are most probative.

If we read the context, Thomas’ testimony or exclamation ‘ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou’ (literally means ‘the lord of me and the god of me’) is preceded by his utter doubt in Jesus’ return (v. 25). The disciples had heard that their master had been fixed on a Roman cross to die on it, but we know from Mark that they were not eyewitnesses to that, “Then all the disciples deserted Jesus and ran away.” (Mark 14:50; International Standard Version) And so, basing their belief on hearsay, which was commonplace at the time as people did not have the time or sense of historical acuteness or sensitivity to verify rumours and gossip, that Jesus had died, they did not expect to see him again, but they did. Strangely though, the story goes that the disciples didn’t immediately recognise their master when he appeared to them (v. 19). It was only when he showed them “his hands and side”, allegedly having signs or bruises sustained from the crucifixion ordeal that they were “overjoyed when they saw the Lord.” (v. 20) Coming to verse 24, the author of John informs his readers that Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to the other ten (Judas was not longer part of the original 12, diminishing the number to 11) and so those who were there informed Thomas of the meeting, but he did not believe it and said that he would only believe that Jesus had returned if he could put his finger where Jesus was alleged nailed and put his hand into Jesus’ side (in reference to John’s addition of the centurion’s spear thrust).* Before we proceed further, there is one important contextual point to be observed: The ten disciples who first met Jesus without Thomas were “overjoyed” at the sight of their master and their recognition dawned upon them through seeing the bruises that Jesus had sustained through the crucifixion ordeal, but conspicuously they did not declare Jesus’ lordship or godhood when they realised it was him. Returning to the story, one week after Thomas’ doubt and denial, the disciples all together including Thomas convened at the same house again and Jesus once again appeared and said, “Peace be with you!” after which, he told Thomas to put his finger on his hands and put his hand into his side to stop doubting and believe. To this, Thomas said, “ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou.” (My lord and my god” [I purposefully translate ‘kurios’ and ‘theos’ in the lower case as ‘lord’ and ‘god’ to indicate that capitalisation is only made based on a translator’s theological bias]). And Jesus finalised the meeting right after Thomas’ declarative statement that, “Because you have seen me, you have believed…” Now that we have gone through the context of the event of Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearance to the disciples in the Johannine tradition, we may critically assess the content and see whether the Trinitarian view actually holds water or is just hot air.

The Trinity was not there in the first century

Jesus, the apostles or Church Fathers? Who invented the Trinity?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

Often Trinitarians claim that the Trinity (and by Trinity, they mean the mainstream dogma that says God is three persons in one being, i.e., God exists eternally as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) is taught in the New Testament and can be found even in the first century of the Christian era. They will direct us to Patristic sources such as Ignatius, Tertullian and others.Typically, from the first century, the Patristic sources that are cited include Justin Martyr and Ignatius, but none of the available records that may have been penned by these individuals actually carry in them a clear description of the Trinity dogma as we know it today. None of these three individuals actually imparted Trinitarian formulations that could have typified the content of the Athanasian Creed. And so we move on to the second century where we have Patristic figures such as Iranaeus, Tertullian and Origen, but none of them save Tertullian and Origen actually wrote anything that may resemble the Trinity. Origen was born in 185 AD and so, one would be hard pressed to contend that he was teaching theological doctrines before the age of fifteen, which means that whatever teaching that he put forward that had some Trinitarian semblance must have been made after 200 AD,the third century of the Christian calendar. Thus, even if Athanasius was not the promulgator of the Trinity, the earliest that one can trace the doctrine to is Tertullian. And so the eminent German scholar Adolf von Harnack writes: “When the Nicene formulary is praised, it is always of Athanasius that we think; when the Chalcedonian decree is cited, it is the name of Leo the Great that is magnified. But that Tertullian is in reality the father of the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ, and that in the whole patristic literature there is no treatise that can be compared in importance and influence with his tract Against Praxeas, it has necessarily been left to the investigations of our own day to exhibit.” [1]

But how can Tertullian be relied upon as the Father of Trinitarianism when he was officially condemned as a heretic for his Montanist leanings? Throughout church history, Tertullian of Carthage has been disparaged for his Montanism which disqualified him from receiving sainthood from the Church. He is the only prominent Patristic figure that was not awarded the title “Saint” and so he has remained throughout the ages as simply plain old Tertullian. According to official condemnations, he “…fell into the heresy of the Montanists, who blasphemously held that Montanus was that Paraclete or Comforter which our Saviour promised to send: and that better and fuller discoveries of God’s will were made to him than to the Apostles, who prophesied only in part.” [2] If Tertullian is the inauguration of early Trinitarian formulations, then Christians will have to contemplate receiving a fundamental dogma from a heretical source. In any case, Tertullian only came to the scene around 130 years after Jesus’ departure; therefore, it is hardly conceivable that his Trinitarian predilections should have any real relationship with Jesus or his apostles and earliest followers.

What is historically certain is that pre-Athanasian and pre-Chalcedonian sources do not contain in them the full blown and adequate Trinitarian formula. What we may see are rough patches that seem to resemble what later became orthodox church dogma through Athanasius and other such persons. And so, The New Catholic Encyclopedia says the following concerning the Trinity: “There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th Century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma “one God in three Persons” became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.” [3]

A cup of tea with Unitarian scholar Prof. (Dr.) Sir Anthony Buzzard MA (Oxon.), MATh, Hon. PhD

Psalm 110:1 is a proof text for Unitarian monotheism that refutes the Trinitarian hypostasis: A brief exchange with premiere Unitarian scholar, Professor (Dr.) Sir Anthony F. Buzzard of the Restoration Fellowship, Atlanta Bible College

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

Thoughts on Psalm 110:1. Does it say “the Lord (adonai) said to my Lord (l’adoni)” or does it say “the Lord (adonai) said to my Lord (adonai = Jesus)”?
Even at the outset, any novice of the Hebrew language knows that the phraseology in Psalm 110:1 which says “to my Lord” (l’adoni) is curiously an impossible as a phrase to be given to deity. In the Old Testament, this phrase is exclusively used for a human being and it is utterly distinct from the divine epithet ‘adonai’ (which is used as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton YHWH) that is exclusively used for deity. This is supported by the Septuagint rendering of ‘l’adoni’, i.e., ‘tou kuriou mou.’ This Septuagint phraseology is ever used for human beings and never once used for the Divine as Dr. Buzzard points out:
“In fact the Hebrew word for “my lord’ is not adonai but adoni, which is never used of God but often of the king of Israel and other human superiors.” (Buzzard, A. F. & Hunting, C. F. (1998). The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Maryland: International Scholars Publications. p. 48 fn. 16)

The following is a question that I posed to Dr. Anthony F. Buzzard on a rather interesting quotation that I found in a German theological treatise on Ps. 110:1 by a notable Christian German theologian.

Dr. Buzzard, what do you think of Roth’s comments below? Do you think they are probative in our quest against Trinitarianism?

German theologian Ulli Roth has some interesting comments on Psalms 110:1 that I’d like to share with Dr. Anthony F. Buzzard and perhaps elicit some thoughts from the good professor on it. The following is the German text, followed by my translation (interpretation) of it and a short discussion of its content.

Bekanntlich gab die Septuaginta das Tetragramm mit dem Wort “Herr” wieder, d. h. genauer die uns uberlieferten christlichen Septuagintahandschriften setzen stets fur den Gottesnamen das Wort Herr.
Fur judische griechische Handschriften, soweit sie uns bewahrt sind, ist dies nicht belegt. Sie lassen das Tetragramm einfach stehen oder ersetzen es in geeigneter Weise. Wenn die lateinischen Ubersetzungen jedoch konsequent das griechische kyrios mit dominum wiedergeben, ist nicht mehr ersichtlich, wo einmal der Gottesname oder etwa das hebraische Aquivalent fur “Herr” stand. Da das Wort “Herr” sowohl fur Gott stehen kann – und so liest man noch heute statt des Gottesnamens das Wort ‘adonai – als auch fur einen irdischen Herrscher, kann es bei der Ubersetzung zu Unklarheiten oder sogar Sinnverschiebungen kommen.
Wenn in Ps 110,1 “der Herr sprach zu meinem Herrn” plotzlich ununterschieden von zwei “Herren” die Rede ist. so konnte dies allein schon als Schriftbeleg fur die Lehre von Gott Vater und Gott Sohn als zweier unterschiedener Personen ein und derselben gottlichen Natur gewertet werden.

(Roth, E. (2003). Die Philologische Freiheit Des Humanisten Johannes Reuchlin: Interpretation und Edition von Reuchlins Ubersetzung der Psalmen 110-115. In Barbara Becker-Cantarino (Ed.), Zeitschrift fur Mittlere Deutsche Literatur und Kultur der Fruhen Neuzeit (1400 – 1750). Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 83)

The author writes that it is known that the Lxx (Septuagint) uses the word ‘Herr’ (Lord) and it is typically used for ‘Gottesnamen’ (the name of God). For Jewish Greek manuscripts, if they are preserved for us, this is not documented, The Tetragrammaton is left to stand as it is or it is replaced appropriately. The Latin translations, however, reflect the Greek ‘kyrios’ with the Latin ‘dominum’ , but it is no longer visible where once God’s name or the equivalent of the Hebrew for ‘Herr’ (Lord) was. Since the word ‘Lord’ can be used for both God — and so you read today instead of God’s name, the word ”adonai — as well as an earthly ruler and this may occur in the translation that confuses or shifts the meaning. In Psalms 11:1 ‘The Lord said to my Lord” is “suddenly indistinguishable from the two gentlemen mentioned”, this alone could be considered a signature document of the doctrine of God, the Father and God, the Son as two Distinguished persons of the divine nature.