Tag Archives: answering muslims

David Wood: Deceiver, Abomination – According to YHWH

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women's Lingerie - Self Admitted Cross Dresser

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women’s Lingerie – Self Admitted Cross Dresser

The Bible from YHWH describes the cross dresser as :

“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” – Deuteronomy 22:5.

In as much as David attempts to chastise Islam, he chooses to mock Islam by breaking the laws of YHWH. Surely, there is a moral issue in regard to such behaviour. Can David Wood justify breaking the laws of YHWH so that he could mock another faith? So blinded by disdain for Islam is he, that David is willing to sin against YHWH by becoming an abomination in his own God’s sight. As a Muslim, I am not trying to insult David, but how can he invite me to Christianity, when even he doesn’t obey the laws of the God that he wants me to worship? Foregoing the theological problems, the textual issues and the inconsistent logic of that faith. If I were to look at Christianity as David Wood has presented it, then I would have no choice but to believe that the ‘best examples from among the preachers‘ of that faith do not care about that God enough to obey His commands. That in itself demonstrates the weakest forms of belief (hypocrisy).

Let’s say I forget his cross dressing and that YHWH calls David Wood an abomination. What about the man who lies and engages in public deceit?

cc-2013-davidwoodlying

I am sure that lying and promoting deceit (even as a joke) is a sin. Let’s see what YHWH (the God of David says) about such an act:

  • Leviticus 19:11, “You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.” 

Clearly YHWH says not to do it, so what possible justification can David have for doing it? Did YHWH forget to put, ‘as a joke’ as an addendum to that particular passage?

  • Psalms 119:163, “I hate and abhor lying: but your law do I love.”

If David wants to assume the persona of his namesake, shouldn’t he try to embody the practise of hating and abhorring lying, instead of practising it? Worse yet, what kind of a man blames his wife for his own public indecencies, surely insulting his wife is against his religion?

  • Proverbs 12:22, “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.”

Not only is David an abomination for cross dressing, he’s also an abomination for lying! This is once again from the Bible, not from any Islamic texts.

  • Proverbs 13:5, “A righteous man hates lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and comes to shame.”

David Wood is apparently willing to forego being a righteous man to obey his wife over YHWH. Apparently obeying his wife (for whom he blames his deceit on – quite the gentleman) is greater than obeying the God that he calls me to worship.

  • Proverbs 14:5,  “A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.”

This verse is quite clear, David is not a faithful witness to the God he calls us to worship, he is in fact a false witness according to the Bible. Since this is the case, we Muslims have no reason to believe any of the things he says because he is a de facto false witness in the eyes of his Lord.

Lastly, the Bible declares that a liar does not know the truth about Christ:

“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not“. – Romans 9:1.

Clearly, from this verse, we understand that David, if he knew the truth about Christ, he would have no need to lie. Since he has the need to lie, then logically speaking, the opposite is true. He has to lie because he does not know the truth about Christ. In conclusion, from his apparent public acts we can conclude that David Wood according to YHWH is an abomination for cross dressing, an abomination for lying, a false witness of Christ, an unrighteous man and he does not say the truth about Christ. Will David reply to this? Most likely not because he can’t defend hating YHWH and His laws. Atleast now he has exposed himself as nothing short of  being a hypocrite.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Bookish Ignorance

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

While reading Mortimer Adler’s, “How to Read a Book”, I came across a paragraph that struck me as nothing short of pure brilliance.

cc-2013-bookish

The one person who immediately came to my mind was James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. In as much as he tries to appear to be well read, his ignorance of Islamic theology, scripture and study is quite apparent to the most basically of educated Muslims. It’s ironic because in his videos he stands in front of what appears to be a library of books. The same can be said for the AI and AM teams. What I’ve taken from this book and especially this quote is despite people owning books and having read them, it does not make this person educated and surely in the cases of the men and groups I’ve mentioned previously, this is surely the reality of their situation(s).

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

When a ‘Christian’ met Tawhid Al Asma Wa Sifat

A response to the unexpected Christian objections 

Question Mark

Introduction

A certain Christian named C.L.Edwards has objected to our paper wherein we discussed the problems which Christianity, especially the Trinitarian strand of it, faces while dealing with monotheism with regards to God’s attributes and names.

Throughout Edwards directed his response to Ijaz may be either due to careless negligence or sheer obsession as recently they were engaged in a debate. So whenever Edwards refers anything to Ijaz it is actually aimed at me.

Although it was an honor to read Edwards’ response, yet certain very important issues needed to be addressed which we intend to do in this paper.

Problem lies at the base

 

Edwards divides his response into twenty five bullet points. The most important of all lies at the very end! In fact as we would soon observe it shows the philosophy which Edwards as a Trinitarian endorses under the assumption of it being ‘doctrine of monotheism’. As such we would start our analysis from there. Here is Edward’s twenty fifth point:

25. Ijaz says…Monotheism simply means One God, the issue of God incarnating as a man and living the life of a man has nothing to do with whether God is One. The real issue clearly is Ijaz’s psychological hang ups about the incarnation.

Carefully observe the stress upon the definition of monotheism for Edwards. It simply and only means counting God as “One”. We assume this is a standard Trinitarian belief. Nevertheless, on one hand where it is extremely important to count God as one; on the other hand, it is not enough to merely count Him as one! Since even the pagans – by all sense of the word – also count God as one! Consider the following quotations from Hindu scriptures:

“There is only ONE God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit.” (Concept of God in Major Religions, Brahma Sutra of Hindu Vedanta, pg. 8)

“He is One only without a second” (Concept of God in Major, Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1, pg. 5)

Therefore, we do not think that by merely counting God as “one”, Edwards is any different from Hindus who are (generally) known polytheists. As such there has to be more to monotheism than just counting God as one. It is this lack of more qualifications to the imports of monotheism which drives Edwards towards beliefs wherein he allows all sorts of Idolatry under the aegis of Trinitarian Christianity:

24. He then says, “Nevertheless, they have no qualms when they ring their church bells about “God” being delivered out of Mary’s womb “in the crude way” or, “God” being poked on cross while he was almost naked or, still more weirdly, a dead “God” hanging on the cross with probably scavenger hovering over “His” head until his “dead body” was to be placed in a cave.” No we do not, just like the previous messengers had no qualms about this, nor Jesus disciples, nor Jesus himself. because this is what God had said would happen and it is what did happen. Your inability to accept or grasp how it could be is irrelevant, unless you only want a “god” that conforms to your mind(aka an idol).

To paraphrase Edwards’ stand: once a Christian has sufficiently “counted” God to be “one” then he is monotheist enough to allow God being delivered out of Mary’s womb in the crude way; God hanging almost nude on the cross; or even more embarrassingly, monotheists carrying God’s “dead body” into ‘His’ “grave”! So on and so forth.

In other words, a Hindu would be a polytheist since he is worshipping “God-man” like Krishna but a Trinitarian Christian would be a ‘monotheist’ destined to heaven since he worships Jesus (peace be upon him) – , albeit, another ‘God-man’; even though both a Hindu and a Christian “counts” God to be absolutely “one”! We do not really have any good explanation for this extremely biased and partisan approach towards different “God-mans” apart from the fact that either “God is God of Israel” – the nationalistic God and thus the biased approach or, the so-called philosophy of “hypostatic union”:

In fact Edwards readily accepted a number of utterly idolatrous acts for God under the name of hypostatic union. Following is the list,

1)      God being procreated out of the womb of Mary “in the crude way”.

2)      God contained inside His “mother’s” womb

3)      God sucking his life of his mother.

4)      God producing biological waste.

5)      God almost made naked on cross.

6)      God made to bleed and wounded.

7)      God being spat on his face.

8)      And, on top of all of that, “God” dying on the cross

9)      And, “God’s” dead body being enshrouded and placed in cave.

 

And following is Edwards’ acceptance of them under the explanation of hypostatic union!

“16. Ijaz then lists many things that happened to Jesus Christ while incarnate as a man, that he says do not befit God. In a sense I agree from the stand point of God in his essence would never be nailed to a cross(how could a incorporeal being be nailed to anything?), but God incarnate in the manner detailed by the doctrine of the hypostatic union could and did do all those things without violating his “God-hood”.

Edwards goes on to explain what hypostatic union means and how it justifies all of the above blasphemous attributes upon God:

13. Ijaz then says “On the same reasoning, Jesus (peace be upon him) cannot be imputed with some of the attributes which ill-fits a “God”” Correction Jesus as the incarnate God-man having two natures could not have attributes ”ill-fit” for a God ascribed to his divine essence(dhat). As for His second additional nature that he took upon himself, it is fully human in every sense of the word. Since Jesus two natures are not mixed or co-mingled causing a dilution nor a cancellation of the other, Christs human nature imputes nothing ”ill-fit” to his divine nature.

This is pure Greek philosophy than anything else since we cannot have a “union” of two mutually exclusive attributes at the same time and in the same entity. Although Edwards asserts that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) humanity would not interrupt his divinity yet this is not possible. To explain this let’s take a situation in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) life where he was in his mother’s womb. When the baby, in other words, the human Jesus (peace be upon him) was in the womb along with it the “God” of Trinitarians was also clinging to the uterine wall of Mary! So, where it is perfectly acceptable for a human Jesus (peace be upon him) to be contained in Mary; however, it is grotesque even to imagine “God” hanging in Mary’s womb! And yet this is exactly acceptable under the explanation of “hypostatic union”!

To further realize the absurd implications of the “hypostatic union”, we would go further earlier in Mary’s pregnancy. Think about the time when Jesus (peace be upon him) was not even a baby in the womb – the zygote state. By the very token of “hypostatic union” we would have to grant that the zygote was both a mere human-pre-natal state and at the same time (hypostatic union) “God” Almighty clinging to the womb of Mary as a mere two celled organism! So if the dual nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) – the divine and the human – by the virtue of “hypostatic union” allows him to be referred as “God-man” during his adult ministry, then by the same token of “hypostatic union” it should have been ‘doctrinally’ permissible to call him “God-zygote” during his incipient stages!?

The above explanations make it amply clear that the human nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) does interfere with his divine nature (if he has one). And this cannot be merely explained away by assuming that “two natures are not mixed or co-mingled causing a dilution nor a cancellation of the other, Christs human nature imputes nothing ”ill-fit” to his divine nature.”!

At last, some attributes are blasphemous

Edwards, however, does not allow everything for Jesus (peace be upon him):

15…For those unfamiliar with Christian doctrine it does not teach “the “Son of God” would procreate his “Son””. Ijaz does such things constantly and despite being corrected he continues on,  I can only speculate because it befits his attempts at dawah.

Note how precisely Edwards deny the notion that Jesus (peace be upon him) would beget any kid(s). He reasons that the “Christian doctrine…does not teach” so. However hardly does he care to enquire why the “Christian doctrine” is so? Why Jesus (peace be upon him) cannot procreate? The reason is simple. Jesus (peace be upon him) – the human – begetting a kid would be acceptable but because of the “hypostatic” phenomenon, the divine nature is also co-residing; thus, Jesus (peace be upon him) betaking kids would defy all monotheistic paradigms. And in this situation church mandated the Christian “doctrine” that Jesus (peace be upon him) cannot beget kids.

However, on one hand where the “Christian doctrine” disallows Jesus (peace be upon him) begetting kids, nevertheless, ironically it does allow Jesus (peace be upon him) himself being begotten off Mary! Furthermore, Christian “doctrine” does allow Jesus (peace be upon him) to bleed, sweat, feel for hunger, and so logically, have all other hormonal developments including reproductive as there is in any other human being – yet the only thing he cannot do is beget kids!

It was to circumvent these nasty implications that Islam qualified that there is more in monotheism than mere count of God as “one”. It made it necessary that besides recognizing and counting God as one, sufficient care has to be taken with regards to His attributes. His attributes should not be invested upon His creation and vice-versa.

In fact the Hebrew Bible also teaches the same! Therefore, we quoted Exodus20:4. Nevertheless, Edwards neglected it with the explanation that the verse merely speaks against the “making” of idols:

4. Exodus 20:4 does not prove the following statement, “Quite obviously Bible is denying that attribute of any creation can be imputed upon the Almighty”. Exodus 20:4 is a prohibition against making idols.

Similarly, for obvious Trinitarian reasons, Edwards also asserted that Deuteronomy 4:16 does not speak against any humanization of God:

18. Ijaz further exposes his lack of knowledge of Christian theology by supposing the incarnation of Christ is some how like the craving of a idol in his quoting of Deuteronomy 4:16. I am not sure how a command from God to Israel to not crave idols disproves God could have the ability(or will) to take on a second additional nature and co-exist as both God and man. Again ijaz ignores the actual topic of the passage(do not make idols) and feels free to make it say what he “feels” it should say.

We would consider Deuteronomy 4:16 only for brevity and check if it only concerns with “making” of idols. This is what the text reads:

Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (Deuteronomy 4:16)

As usual Edwards neglects the reason why God is not to be represented in an idol. A verse earlier, Bible explicitly gives the reason:

And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: (Deuteronomy 4:14-15)

God’s reasoning is very clear: On the day when He spoke, Israelites could not observe His similitude to any of His creatures! As such it was forbidden that Israelites represent Him in any shape or form including human males. More specifically, God does not have any similitude to male humans and thus it would be idolatry to conceive Him in that form and worship.

However, when Edwards tries to limit the scope of the verse to mean merely forbiddance of idol making and worship, then he even goes against the standard Christian interpretation of the verse:

Deuteronomy 4:16

The likeness of male or female – Such as Baal-peor and the Roman Priapus, Ashtaroth or Astarte, and the Greek and Roman Venus; after whom most nations of the world literally went a whoring. (Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible)

the likeness of male or female; of a man or a woman; so some of the Heathen deities were in the likeness of men, as Jupiter, Mars, Hercules, Apollo, &c. and others in the likeness of women, as Juno, Diana, Venus, &c. Some think Osiris and Isis, Egyptian deities, the one male, the other female, are respected; but it is not certain that these were worshipped by them so early. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible)

Out of the many names which the commentator has provided many were real mennot mere idols. However, they are criticized as “Heathen deities” since God has no similitude to “males”! And so personification of God is here termed as paganism.

Nevertheless, Christians would never apply the same standards upon Jesus (peace be upon him) even though he is just another male like Hercules or Apollo! In Jesus (peace be upon him), Christians somehow do see (similitude of) God notwithstanding the premises of the preceding Hebrew biblical verses.

To further expose the weakness of the argument that the verse merely speaks about “making” of idols we would consider the era when, say, Krishna was physically moving around in the villages of India “preaching” about spirituality and performing “miracles” among masses. And consider the group of people worshipping him during his earthly ministry; now what would Edwards say about the religious practices of these people! Are they ‘monotheists’ (remember they (Hindus) staunchly count God as one) – or polytheists! Note that these people would not be into any idol business since they have their deity physically present with them. If Edwards would still deem them as polytheists for the mere reason that they worshipped a “God-man” then how is he himself with all other Christians a ‘monotheist’?

As such Christians should provide strong enough reasons why as a non-Christian we should reject all other “Heathen” god-men in the name of ‘monotheism’ but yet accept the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him), who was yet another god-man. One cannot accept such a notion unless s/he is flagrantly biased; since, if Jesus (peace be upon him) performed miracles and that makes him to be “God” then so did a number of other claimants of divinity in other religions. If Christians have a “scripture” which allegedly speak of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity; most other “Heathen” religions also have scripture, in fact many even predating New Testament, that also speak of their candidates as gods! And most importantly, if Jesus (peace be upon him) is a “God-man” so were a number of others!

But if the acceptance-rejection yardstick lies only on the mere fact that the “Heathens” in absence of their man-gods portrayed them in idols then we would have to accept that the few sects of Christianity, which are easily outnumbered by more dominant ones, are only a step behind in “Heathenism” since they do have full-blown image/idol of Jesus (peace be upon him) in their minds during their “services”.

Humanization in Islam

On the fly, Edwards accused Islam of humanizing God as well:

17. Ijaz a man who follows a religion that teaches God has a face, two eyes, a shin, feet, will be seen in the form of a man, and descends down into time and space then claims, “ What is disappointing in all of this is that Bible strictly speaks against any such idolatrous humanization of God”. Besides the fact that Christian theology doesn’t teach the humanization of God in the manner Ijaz accuses, see point 13, 15 and 16.

Islamic Scriptures does speak about face, shin but it also states that:

(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). (Qur’an 42:11)

Commenting on the above highlighted part of the verse, Shaikh Philips writes the following:

The attributes of hearing and seeing are among the human attributes, but when they are attributed to The Divine Being they are without comparison in their perfection. However, when these attributes are associated with men they necessitate ear and eye apparatuses which cannot be attributed to God. What man knows about the Creator is only what little He has revealed to him through His prophets. Therefore, man is obliged to stay within these narrow limits. When man gives free reign to his intellect in describing God, he is liable to fall into error by assigning to Allah the attributes of His creation. (The Fundamentals of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism), Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, pp 28-29)

And,

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;  And there is none like unto Him. (Qur’an 112: 1-4)

Noted Qur’an commentator Yusuf Ali also reflects likewise:

This sums up the whole argument and warns us specially against Anthropomorphism, the tendency to conceive of Allah after our own pattern, an insidious tendency that creeps in at all times and among all peoples.

Thus when Allah (SWT) states that He has a Face or Hands etc the similarity lies only in the linguistic words, certainly not in the imports. On the basis of preceding Qur’anic verses, we do not have any warrant to make deductions/conclusions that if Allah (SWT) said about His Face then it would mean a face made up of two eyes, one nose, pair of lips and ears – comprising of epidermis, fat, muscles, nerves, blood etc; since in the end God also said “nothing whatsoever is like unto Him”. We need to be particularly careful with the last clause since God will question about it.

Conclusion

With regards to Edwards’ understanding of monotheism, we observed some peculiar and typical statements like,

18…I am not sure how a command from God to Israel to not crave idols disproves God could have the ability(or will) to take on a second additional nature and co-exist as both God and man.

25…Also Monotheism simply means One God, the issue of God incarnating as a man and living the life of a man has nothing to do with whether God is One. The real issue clearly is Ijaz’s psychological hang ups about the incarnation.

These give strong indication for the type of philosophy Edwards endorses as “monotheism”; and we assume that Edwards is trying his best to demonstrate the standard Christian doctrine of monotheism. As such the type of monotheism which Christianity offers to humanity is extremely narrow. It is just the count of God to one which matters added with the denial of idols.

However, Christianity does allow drawing similitude to God even though the Hebrew Bible expressly rejects it. In order to accommodate the “incarnation” or the humanization of God, Christianity neglects the reason why the God of Israel forbade representing Him through idols. It was because, as He explained, He does not have any similitude or resemblance to any of His creation, including “male” humans. And so it would be attributing “male” resemblance upon God which has to be rejected as paganism. If this essence and theme is neglected from the verse then it does not matter whether one worships Jesus (peace be upon him) or Krishna or any other “God-man” since, as we saw, even the Hindu scriptures counted God as “one” so a Krishna worshipper is still a ‘monotheist’ in that regard. Thus, until we filter out “incarnation” of God (i.e., attributing the qualities of humans upon God), as a non-Christian it is hard to see difference between Paganism and Christianity.

And so in all good spirit we request Edwards to ponder into the following words of God where He is addressing the very delusion of most humans who ‘think’ they believe in God but…

…most of them believe not in Allah without associating (other as partners) with Him! (Qur’an 12:106)

“Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before (you):Most of them worshipped others besides Allah.” (Qur’an 30:42)

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all Qur’anic texts taken from Yusuf Ali Translation.
  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts taken from King James Version.
  • All emphasize wherever not matching with original is ours.

 

P.S.: This paper was mostly responsive where we responded to a number of issues Edwards raised. During the course, we touched on issues which might hurt Christian feelings. Nevertheless, it was never our intention to hurt any sincere Christian sentiment. We apologize, in case, if any Christian sentiment has been hurt. We seek God’s guidance and mercy.

Samuel Green, Islam and Paedophilia

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Answering Muslims and Acts17 are Christian Apologetics Ministries that are infamous for creating propaganda against Islam. David Wood, Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green are what I would consider to be the main proponents of these organization’s workings. Yet, I was thrown off balance by a shocking admission by Samuel Green via a Facebook article written by Calling Christian’s team member, Br. Azhan Ahmed on the topic of Muhammad [saws] and Paedophilia:

That’s a revelation by itself. Samuel Green openly disagrees with the views of David Wood, Sam Shamoun, and the rest of the Answering Muslism team, Acts17 team and the Answering Islam team. Samuel Green is known for his debates against numerous Muslim Da’ees in Australia and he is also known for associating with missionary groups organized for the sole purpose of Ministering to Muslims. Therefore, when he reneges on a view not only held by his closest Missionary friends, but by 3 other organizations he’s involved with, that speaks volumes. We look forward to Samuel Green’s further discussion on this revealing news, we also look forward to David Wood’s take on one of his writers disagreeing with what is considered to be a standard belief among his peers.

Does this represent dissension among the ranks of Answering Muslims and Answering Islam? Would Samuel Green be publicly refuted by his peers, or would he be forced to recant such statements? I can’t say what will happen, but this is overall good news for Islamic da’wah.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Christians Have Blasphemy Laws Too

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Lately, there has been a lot of grandstanding by our Christian counterparts about blasphemy laws in Muslim countries. They seem to forget that they too have blasphemy laws that are still in use to this day. As it turns out, it was used this week against a former Christian, who ran a Facebook group about his apostasy. The Huffington Post reports:

A 27-year-old man has been arrested by Greek police  for what the authorities called “malicious blasphemy,” according to a HuffPost translation of a press release. Police allege that the man managed a Facebook page that lampooned the deceased Eastern Orthodox monk Elder Paisios , a widely popular religious figure, using the name “Gerontas (Elder) Pastitsios.” Pastitsios is a Greek pasta dish, and the page parodied the monk and his work in the vein of Pastafarianism, a lighthearted, satirical movement that promotes irreligion. In a screen shot of the group’s Facebook page, which now appears to have been removed from the social network, Elder Paisios is shown with a plate of pastitsios .

The Business Insider News website, has secured a translation of the police press release on the issue:

24-09-2012: H Cyber Crime Unit arrested 27-year old domestic for malicious blasphemy and kathyvrisi religions via Facebook
Athens, 24 September 2012

PRESS RELEASE

H Cyber Crime Unit arrested 27-year old domestic for malicious blasphemy and religious kathyvrisi through Facebook

The 27 year old managed page on Facebook with profane and abusive content for Elder Paisios and Orthodox Christianity

From Cyber Crime file formed Flagrant process against domestic 27 years old, who is accused of blasphemy and malicious kathyvrisi religions known through social networking sites Facebook.

More specifically, the Cyber Crime spotted recently in the famous social networking site Facebook, with data page ( http://www.facebook.com / gerontas.pastitsios ), which contained blasphemies and insults against Elder Paisios and Orthodox Christianity.

While the profane and blasphemous content of this page, the Cyber Crime has received thousands of e-complaints coming from residents of different countries around the world.

From police digital survey, conducted in conducting preliminary investigation calibrated logs (logfiles) and electronic trail of administrator – user page issue.

Then Friday (21-09-2012) morning team of specialist officers Cyber Crime held a proper inquiry, presence Prosecutors at his home at 27 years old Psachna Evia.

During the investigation found and confiscated a laptop computer (laptop). On the ground in this autopsy found that a computer administrator page in question was the 27 year old, who was arrested and the file that was formed against him led to Attorney Athens.

Recalled that, in such cases, citizens can contact the Cyber Crime, the following contact details.

Here are the blasphemy laws according to the Greek constitution which criminalizes insults against the Christian Church:

Article 198 – Malicious Blasphemy

1. One who publicly and maliciously and by any means swears blasphemes God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years.

2. Except for cases under paragraph 1, one who by blasphemy publicly manifests a lack of respect for the divinity, shall be punished by jailing for not more that six months or by pecuniary penalty of not more than 3,000 euros.

Article 199 – Blasphemy Concerning Religions

One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ or any other religion tolerated in Greece shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years.

Waiting for the outcry of ‘creeping Christianity‘ or ‘freedom marches‘ against the ‘barbarism of Christianity‘ because of their ‘blaspheme laws‘ which are ‘archaic‘. Pretty sure you won’t see this piece of news on Jihad Watch or Answering Muslims.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Priest says ‘Children are Seducers’

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Believe it or not, 78 year old Father Benedict Groeschel (pictured above) in an interview with the National Catholic Register made the following statements, when asked about his experience in working with Priests who were involved in abuse of children:

“People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that’s not the case,” Groeschel explained. “Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.”

“Well, it’s not so hard to see — a kid looking for a father and didn’t have his own — and they won’t be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that,” he continued.

Groeschel called the abuse “an understandable thing,” and pointed to Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who he called a “poor guy.”

I wish I could be making this up, but it gets worse:

Groeschel pointed out that “sexual difficulties” were rarely prosecuted 10 or 15 years ago, and now if “any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act — not necessarily intercourse — they’re done.”

“And I’m inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime,” he added.

You can read the full story here. His comments have invited staunch criticism from both Church and non-Catholic groups, the interview in question has already been pulled from the National Catholic Register’s website, but can still be read via Google Cache. Interestingly enough, David Wood of the Answering Muslims blog (see: Thursday 30th, August, 2012, 6:28 PM), asked for Muslims to condemn when persons of their own religious group commit crimes of this nature, but so far David (as expected) has been silent on the issue of Church abuse and more specifically, the horrendous statements of this Church Father.

For such a senior member of the Catholic Church, whose life has revolved around social work to defend such acts, seriously brings into question the acceptance of Church abuse by these elderly, ‘faithful’ Church Fathers. How far does it have to go, until someone says stop?

Further Reading:

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

Refutation: Missing the Mark: Unveiling Mark’s High Christology of Divine “Inclusion”

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Introduction

On this day has probably dawned the end of Anthony Roger’s apologetics career. I’ve read a vast majority of his “articles”, been privy to a debate with him, but I was completely flabbergasted to read his latest article on the Answering Islam website. Whether it is or not this was something hastily written in fifteen minutes or an early April fools joke, I’m still not quite sure, but whoever is managing quality control at that “website”, seriously needs to be reprimanded for allowing this to slip through the cracks. Essentially Anthony’s article boils down to:

  1. Mark’s Gospel uses the term ‘son of God’.
  2. As a Christian we believe in a literal ‘son of God’.
  3. If Mark uses this term, it must refer to the ‘son’ I believe in.

This argument can be simplified to realise its absurdity:

  1. The Old Testament in English uses the term, ‘God’.
  2. As a theist, I believe in God.
  3. Since the Old Testament uses the term God, it must refer to the ‘God’, I believe in.

If you don’t believe this was Anthony’s argument, he even explicitly states this at the beginning of his article, I quote:

“The following article seeks to show a stunning way by which Mark identifies Jesus as the divine Son of God and heir of all things.”

That ‘stunning’ way, is simply Mark using the term, ‘Son of God‘. In Anthony’s case, he tries to redefine ‘Son of God’ to be ‘Divine son of God’, unfortunately for him, the verbatim term, ‘Divine son of God‘, is nowhere to be found in the Markan gospel, or for that matter, anywhere in the Greco-Roman New Testament. He essentially begins his article by being deceitful, not that I expected any better of him.

The Son of God

He begins by conceding to the fact that many do not consider the Markan Gospel to contain a high Christology:

It is commonplace to hear that Mark’s Gospel does not embody a high Christology, and this in spite of the fact that the thesis statement at the incipit of the book, one that is explicated in the course of the narrative, boldly declares that Jesus is the Son of God.

He goes on to reference the following verses: Mark 1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 15:39, 13:32, 14:61, 1:11, 9:7. You might wonder why Anthony did not quote the verses he referenced, well that’s mostly because what he implies by referencing and then what they actually state are two fundamentally different things. For example, Anthony says:

The meaning of this title is unpacked in the ensuing narrative which makes it quite clear that Jesus is God’s Son in a unique and exclusive sense (1:11, 9:7).

Those two verses read:

  • A voice from heaven said, “You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you.”
  • Then a cloud overshadowed them. A voice came out of the cloud and said, “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

Which turns out, isn’t that unique, David who is also called God’s son (Psalms 2:7) is said to be the heart of God:

  • And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. – Acts 13:22
  • But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart. – 1 Samuel 13:14

Also speaking in reference to David, the God of the Bible also says:

  • But I will never stop showing him my love as I did to Saul, whom I took out of your way. – 2 Samuel 7:15.

At this point, I’m not quite sure as to what Anthony’s definition of unique is, but that poorly written argument seems to have backfired from the moment he wrote it. Anthony then continues to show the ‘divinity of Christ’ by using one of the most absurd evidences known to reason, and I quote:

one that sets Him quite apart from angels and men (13:32)

What does Mark 13:32 actually state? It says, “No one knows when that day or hour will come. Even the angels in heaven and the Son don’t know. Only the Father knows.” Now this is a problem, if God is all knowing and Jesus is supposed to be a divine son of God, then Jesus is expected to have the same attribute of being all knowing as God. Since Jesus is not all knowing, this verse actually proves that Jesus is not a divine being.

  • If God is all knowing and God increases in knowledge, then it would mean that before God gained this knowledge He was not all knowing. Such a being cannot be God, as God is not ignorant.
  • If God is all knowing and decreases in knowledge (as is the case of Christ in Mark 13:32), then since God is ignorant, He cannot be considered to be ‘All Knowing’.

Anthony’s case for the divinity of Christ takes a further step back in his following argument, I quote:

“As the unique Son of God Jesus is to be obeyed (9:7)”

We referenced 9:7 earlier which read:

  • Then a cloud overshadowed them. A voice came out of the cloud and said, “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

Apparently if God tells you to obey someone, then that person becomes a divine being, which is a problem, as God in the Old Testament did command his followers to obey many others:

  • A scepter will never depart from Judah nor a ruler’s staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes and the people obey him. – Genesis 49:10.
  • Give him some of your authority so that the whole community of Israel will obey him. – Numbers 27:20.
  • Does this then mean that Shiloh and Joshua are both divine beings, since God has commanded the people to obey them? If not, what’s the reason Mr. Rogers?

The rest of the verses follow the same pattern, he cites a verse, makes an overtly generalized statement and then when actually read the verses themselves do not seem in the least to portray what he’s trying to imply. I honestly believe that this was a last minute article, given the number of errors, contradictions and mistakes he’s made thus far it is almost impossible to believe that any actual study and research went into its writing.

The Son-Inclusio

After referencing the following two sets of passages of Mark 1:9-11 and Mark 15:33-41, Anthony makes the argument:

That these two passages strategically located at the beginning and end of Christ’s ministry form an inclusio is discernable from several notable factors.

Essentially, an inclusio takes the form (this is an analogy of the form of an inclusio, using Anthony as our main character):

  • Start of Story: Anthony likes kittens.
  • Body of Story: Anthony likes to act, his role model is Alexis Arquette.
  • End of Story: Anthony likes kittens.

Taking a page from Anthony’s book, it must be a very amazing miracle that Anthony liking kittens is at the beginning and end of his biography. As we now return to reality, I still do not understand, or grasp how Mark’s statement that Jesus is a Son of God at the beginning and end of a book about Jesus, is a miracle. Anthony definitely seems to think it’s a miracle and he gives 8 reasons why. Therefore I’m going to summarize his 8 reasons:

  1. Both passages call Jesus a son of God.

    Well that’s a bit obvious, isn’t it? This is a title reserved for many persons by God throughout the Old and New Testaments, Adam was a Son of God (Luke 3:8), God has sons and daughters (Genesis 6:2), Israel is God’s son (Exodus 4:22), David is God’s son (Psalms 2:7), Christians are the sons of God (Romans 8:14), etc. There is nothing special or unique about being referred to as the son of God and the mere fact that this title is used to describe Jesus throughout the Gospel of Mark, (including the center, not just the beginning and the end), is an awful attempt and wishful thinking by Anthony Rogers.

  2. Similar language of being baptised and having life poured out of Him.

    I’m still trying to see whether Anthony was attempting to make a poorly worded joke here or not. His reasoning works a little something like this:

    * Baptising has to do with water.
    * Water is something you pour.
    * Jesus’ life was poured out of him.
    * MIRACLE!

    Again, I am not sure this article or his reasoning was an attempt to be funny, but if indeed this is what Anthony considers a miracle and proves the divinity of Christ, then I am most certain this is as desperate as you can get.

  3. Both passages reference Elijah.

    I most certainly retract my previous declaration, this is the most ridiculous reasoning a man can make. Why would being referenced to another Prophet make Jesus a divine being? He’s being compared to a Prophet, the only way Anthony can possibly use this as an excuse to link Jesus being a divine being, with Elijah being mentioned, is if Elijah is also considered to be a deity.

  4. One passage refers to the spirit, the other uses the term ‘Jesus breathed out’.

    You would like to think at this point I was joking, however I’m not, again Anthony’s immature reasoning is really beginning to shine:

    * Spirit is a Greek word for breath.
    * Jesus breathed.
    * Jesus is God because he breathed!

    I wish I was making this reasoning up, but I’m going to quote him on this one:

    “Both passages speak or allude to the Spirit: in the former passage the reference to the Spirit is explicit; in the latter it is implicit in the word “breathed” or “expired,” ἐξέπνευσεν,exepneusen, which is a cognate word in Greek for “spirit,” πνεῦμα, pneuma.” *

  5. God speaks in the beginning of the book of Mark and at the end of Mark, Jesus speaks. Since God is speaking at the beginning of the Book and Jesus is speaking at the end, then Jesus is God. Let me quote him so no one thinks I’m making this stuff up:
    1. “Both passages speak of a voice, φωνὴν, phonen: In the former it is the voice of the Father from heaven; in the latter it is that of the Son from the cross.”

    So far this guy’s reasoning has been: Baptising has to do with water and Jesus’ life is poured out, therefore MIRACLE. Spirit is mentioned in the beginning, its Greek word means breath, Jesus breathes, therefore MIRACLE. God speaks in the beginning, Jesus has a voice, therefore MIRACLE. [I can’t stop laughing at the absurdity here!]

  6. He states and I quote, “In both passages something is said to descend: in the former it is the Spirit; in the latter it is the veil of the temple, “from top to bottom.”. Again, Anthony’s reasoning can be summed up as:

    *Spirit descends, that means he goes downwards.
    * Something was torn and wait a minute….
    * The veil was torn from top to bottom….this means…
    * The veil also descended!
    * MIRACLE!

  7. He states and I quote, “In both passages something is torn, σχιζω, skidzo: in the former passage it was the heavens; in the latter it was the veil of the temple.” Again, his reasoning can be summed up as:

    * The sky opens.
    * The veil was torn.
    * I wonder if the sky ripping open is the same word for the veil tearing, because the veil was you know, ripped in half.
    * MIRACLE! They use the same word “tear = rip”.
    * Irrefutable evidence Jesus is God!

  8. Lastly, Anthony ends his amazing comedic performance with saying: “In both passages mention is made of Jesus being or having been ministered to: the former passage refers to angels; the latter refers to Christ’s women followers.” Apparently, in Anthony’s reasoning, in a book about God where people preach to and about God, it’s a miracle that people are preaching at the beginning and end of said book. It’s like going to an action movie and being surprised that there is action at the start of the movie and at the end of the movie or it’s like reading a Harry Potter book and being surprised it involves magic at the start of the book and at the end of the book.

Conclusion

This article by Anthony has served no other purpose than to demonstrate the low level thinking involved in preaching Christianity. Not only am I ashamed for Anthony, I am ashamed that Sam Shamoun calls a man with such childish reasoning, “the greatest apologist of our time“. This article went out of the way to draw links which were far out, remotely related and was severely coated with a dressing of desperation. I’ve seen people being criticised for lack of intellectualism, perhaps even grasping for straws, but this certainly was the single most shallow use of the Bible by a Christian I have ever seen. Anthony, if you do end up reading this, please know that if this is the reasoning you employ to remain in Christianity, then I am sorry but you’re insulting yourself and God for not using the brain He gave you. I expected much better from him (who am I kidding?), but this was possibly the most degenerate, backward, irrational, pre-school, toddler reasoning I have ever witnessed from a Christian apologist. You most certainly have my pity.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

Refutation: A Would-Be Seducer Gets Owned and Humbled

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers has attempted to justify the law of marriage to your rapist in the Bible, by contending that the law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not mean that the girl was raped. Let’s examine this verse:

“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28, 29.*

At first glance, it’s pretty clear that no amount of pussyfooting around will be able to denounce that this verse does refer to rape, but this is Anthony Rogers we’re dealing with, the lengths at which he goes to deny what his own scripture says is very detailed and usually ridiculous. Anthony begins his diatribe by shooting himself in his foot, he says and I quote:

The Bible does not say that “the rapist must now marry the virgin victim,” for obviously at this point the victim is no longer a virgin. If she were still a virgin, then she would not be a victim of rape; if she were a victim of rape, then she would not be a virgin.*

Reading may not be his strong point, but he begins by saying the Bible does not say that the rapist must marry the victim, that’s a problem as the verse above specifically mentions rape, and a victim. Maybe it is I’ve read it wrong, or perhaps the translators have rendered “forced sex” wrong (a term which I cover further down in this post), but according to the Bible I have, the verse explicitly, distinctively and most clearly has been rendered with the word, “rape“. Just to be sure, I’ve given the link to the verse via Bible.CC, a popular Bible translation website, one can even use Biblegateway.com to verify, if such a need be. Having said this, somethings now need to be noted:

  1. Why does Anthony refer to the girl as a victim, if she was not raped?
  2. Following from (1), does Anthony consider a woman as a victim, after consensual sex? Would this mean he considers his wife to be a victim (after all, consensual sex with one’s wife to the rational is not rape, however to Anthony this definition may differ)?
  3. Anthony accepts that the girl is no longer a virgin.
  4. Anthony states that the girl can no longer be a virgin if she was raped, I quote, “if she were a victim of rape, then she would not be a virgin“. Since in (3) he said, “the victim is no longer a virgin“, he explicitly accepts that she was raped.

His opening statement, clearly demonstrates that he accepts that this verse refers to rape, yet you’ll find in his article that he weasels around this declaration and tries to minimize the reality of the law as given in the Bible. I did find it most entertaining to say the least. For example, he jumps from Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to Exodus 22:16-17, which states:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”

Anthony confuses himself because a few Bible cross references, do reference the earlier law in Exodus 22:16-17 when the later law Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is mentioned. The problem however is that these two verses, while declaring the same or similar punishment, actually refer to two completely different things. To understand this, we must look at the Hebrew used in the verses, lest we become arrogant and assume our own interpretations are superior, which Anthony has done.

The verse in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is distinguished from Exodus 22:16-17 by the use of a specific term, פּתה – pathah*, a term which is not found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. The term pathah as used in the verse from Exodus refers solely to sexual seduction, that is according to Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon. Therefore the verse is rendered as:

If a man SEDUCES (פּתה) a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)

This however is not the case for the later law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the term  פּתה – pathah, is not used, rather two specific terms are used, those of תּפשׂ – taphas*, and  שׁכב – Shakab*. According to Strong’s Lexicon, which I have linked to, the word Taphas translates to, “seized, arrested, taken, captured, grasped”, i.e. all these verbs are describing the action of being held beyond one’s will. If I were to capture you, or seize you, or arrest you, this involves some aspect of being restrained.  Whereas Shakab translates to, “lay with sexually“. Therefore the verse is rendered as:

 כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב (*) עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ

* – taphas shakab, “grasped and had sex with”, “captured and had sex with”, “taken and had sex with”, seized and had sex with”, “arrested and had sex with”. This verse does not mention or use the word “seduce – (פּתה – pathah), but it uses the term, “forced sex (taphas shakab)“. Therefore the use of the term, “rape” is not only justified here but it is tantamount to dishonesty and deviant sexual perversion to claim that arresting a girl and then having sex with her is not rape, wherein you even announce the girl to be a victim as Mr. Rogers has done previously.

What puzzles me next is Anthony’s reference to fornication as, “humbling a girl“. The verse in Exodus 22:16 refers to fornication, Anthony in his commentary on this verse says the following:

“According to the following verses, we are told that a father may refuse to give his daughter to the man who humbles her even though the man still has to pay the bride-price as a punishment”.

Since when is committing fornication with a girl, “humbling” her? I do not endorse nor share the same set of values as Mr. Rogers does, but to relate fornication with being humbled is gross and most definitely indecent. Anthony’s case only increases in embarrassment for his Christian brethren, in this case he clearly accepts that the girl was raped and that if she was, the father of the girl had the divine ordinance from YHWH (Anthony’s God) to forcibly marry off his daughter to the rapist:

So when Sami tells us that the rape victim must marry her seducer or rapist, he is simply wrong: the rapist must marry the woman as a punishment only if the father insists, and only if the young woman finds him pleasing in her eyes.*

According to Anthony, forced marriage to your rapist is okay, once your father insists. I’m not quite sure we’re on the same page here, but that sounds like exactly what Br. Sami has been saying all along. What’s worse is Anthony’s then insistence on perverting his own scripture. Now, forgive me for a moment, but I could not believe what I had read. I understand Anthony is between a rock and a hard place with defending this Biblical claim which really defames all of womankind, but the level of despicable dishonesty absolutely blew my mind. As you would have noticed, Anthony’s argument included the addendum of:

“and only if the young woman finds him pleasing in her eyes”

In reference to what he said earlier:

“we know a woman’s wishes would be taken into account and that they would not be forced to marry anyone they did not find pleasing in their own eyes (q.v. Numbers 36:6)”*

This sounds like an amazing claim, that is, until we go to the verse:

This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within their father’s tribal clan.

After reading this verse, Anthony’s deceit needs to be exposed:

  • Since when is a command solely for one man’s daughters from the Lord, applicable to every Christian woman on the face of the earth? The same chapter in Numbers 36, in verses 10 – 11, specifies that this command was for 5 women only: “So Zelophehad’s daughters did as the Lord commanded Moses. Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milkah and Noah —married their cousins on their father’s side.”*

Have you no shame, no intellectual integrity? I’m fine with Anthony perverting Islamic scripture, I understand this is how he puts food on the table for his family, but to pervert your own scripture, so deceptively? That’s beyond shameful to say the absolute least. You sir, have my pity. Yet, Anthony’s comedical polemics knows no bounds, he further verifies Br. Sami’s argument by stating the following:

The Lord did this by imposing certain punishment(s) on anyone who would rape an unbetrothed virgin. As may be seen from the fact that,

a) Any person who imposes himself on a young woman may have marriage imposed on him, with the right of later getting a divorce taken away from him.

Yet again, for the umpteenth time, Anthony agrees with Br. Sami’s argument and admits that the punishment for raping an unbetrothed virgin is to be married to the rapists victim. Again, this is the point of Sami’s article, located here, that the Bible says it is permissible to forcibly marry the victim of a rapist to the rapist. Anthony not only verifies and validates Sami’s article, he essentially successfully and most definitely, soundly refutes himself. However, we’re not then yet, Anthony continues by stating the following:

Rather, it is like what has been called “date rape.” The young woman knows the man who forced himself on her. If the crime can be proved, she has the choice of forcing him to be hers (eye for eye justice), if she so wishes. She may also refuse, in which case the man would have to pay a heavy fine without obtaining a wife (cf. Ex. 22:16-17).

According to Anthony, a girl who has been date raped has the glorious option of forcing her rapist to marry her. Can you imagine, that a girl has the option to force her rapist to marry her? Which girl, does Anthony know, would like to marry their rapist. I’d love for him to answer this question, please Mr. Rogers, find me a girl who has been date raped that would like to marry the man who sexually abused her. In fact, Mr. Rogers continues:

“Second, if the girl does decide to marry the man, “he cannot divorce her all his days.” This is an important aspect of the punishment for the man.”

Not only does the girl have the “glorious” option to marry the man who raped her, once she marries him, he cannot divorce her. At this point, I’m not sure if Anthony is working consciously to advocate Br. Sami’s arguments or if he really does not realise that he is vindicating, promoting and accepting what Br. Sami has said. In fact, Br. Sami presents a solid argument from the Bible wherein he explains the devastating truth, the law of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, long before being revealed was already in contention but had failed miserably, ending in vast amounts of violence and bloodshed:

But here comes the most interesting part, this response is weak on so many levels, that even the VERY BIBLE REJECTS IT, namely the family of the Prophet and Patriarch Jacob. At the end of the day, if Biblical figures refute the argument, then you really have no way out. So let’s read the relevant incident that involved Jacob, an incident that directly refutes Deuteronomy’s law, and the explanation given by apologists to try and explain it off:

Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her, and violated her. His soul was strongly attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young woman and spoke kindly to the young woman. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this young woman as a wife. And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter. Now his sons were with his livestock in the field; so Jacob held his peace until they came. Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done. But Hamor spoke with them, saying, “The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him as a wife. And make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters to yourselves. So you shall dwell with us, and the land shall be before you. Dwell and trade in it, and acquire possessions for yourselves in it.” Then Shechem said to her father and her brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and whatever you say to me I will give. Ask me ever so much dowry and gift, and I will give according to what you say to me; but give me the young woman as a wife.” But the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father, and spoke deceitfully, because he had defiled Dinah their sister. And they said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a reproach to us. But on this condition we will consent to you: If you will become as we are, if every male of you is circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you (Genesis 34:1-15)

So Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is taken by a man named Shechem, who proceeds to violate her by having sexual intercourse with her. Jacob and his family are obviously angered by this, but the father of Shechem tries to reconcile with them, telling them how Shechem loves her, and wants to marry her etc. Now it seems that Jacob and his family will accept the proposition, to allow the rapist, the violater [sic], Shechem, to marry the victim, Dinah, just as Deuteronomy teaches. The only condition Jacob and his family ask for, is that Shechem becomes like one of them, i.e. getting circumcised etc and then they will allow the marriage to be done. So from all of this, it seems that the apologists are right, that this seems to be the norm of the time, for the rapist to marry the victim, not quite, as we continue to read:

Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males. And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and went out. The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled. They took their sheep, their oxen, and their donkeys, what was in the city and what was in the field, and all their wealth. All their little ones and their wives they took captive; and they plundered even all that was in the houses. Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have troubled me by making me obnoxious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and since I am few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and kill me. I shall be destroyed, my household and I.” But they said, “Should he treat our sister like a harlot?” (Genesis 34:25-31)

So notice what happens, the whole thing was a trick by Jacob’s family, they simply wanted to kill Shechem and his people, and they wanted them to get circumcised so they would be in a weakened state. Jacob’s family never intended to marry their daughter off to her rapist; they KILLED the rapist, and his people! Not only did they kill the rapist and his family, notice what Jacob’s family say, they openly say that if they had married their daughter to Shechem, it would have been treating her like a harlot!

So in other words, according to Jacob’s family, the rape victim having to marry her aggressor is turning her into a prostitute! Yet that is what Deuteronomy commands, it commands the rapist to marry the rape victim! So therefore, according to the family of Jacob, the command in Deuteronomy is a violation of rape victims, and is turning them into prostitutes.

What was Anthony’s response to the above? Well..

But there can be no question that Jacob did not agree with them, for not only does the passage not implicate Jacob in what (two of) his sons thought and did, but Jacob himself would later decry their council and actions, even to the point of cursing them

Unfortunately for Mr. Rogers, Jacob does not curse his children for killing the rapist, he curses his children for killing the innocent people, atleast this is the reasoning founded in Adam Clarke’s commentary, which reads:

“Our margin has it, Their swords are weapons of violence, i. e., Their swords, which they should have used in defence of their persons or the honourable protection of their families, they have employed in the base and dastardly murder of an innocent people.”*

Recall that they killed the entire town of people and their livestock in vengeance, this is why they were cursed, the verses offered by Anthony as a response to Sami, never indicated that they were punished specifically for killing the rapists, but instead, for killing the entire village and their animals. An act in itself which YHWH later permits as holy and just in Deuteronomy 20:16. At this point, Anthony has been soundly refuted, but I will comment on his last point:

Unfortunately for Sami, Christians are not unbetrothed virgins, but members of the body of Christ, His betrothed. And since the punishment for seducing and raping a betrothed woman in the Old Covenant is death (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), then the punishment for seeking to spiritually seduce the bride of Christ, as Sami is ultimately trying to do in the hopes that the Christian church will embrace the Islamic Isa, is eternal death.

What amazes me is that Anthony actually believes that accepting Islam is far worse than being raped. Anthony, as a personal advice to you, do not try to become a rape counsellor, do not try to comfort a rape victim, whatever you do, avoid rape victims at all costs. Perhaps engage in some sensitivity training, but whatever you do and I do mean whatever you do, I plead with you, out of all things, do not go around telling rape victims, “well you know, it’s not as bad as being Muslim, just think, Jesus gives  you the option to marry the guy! Hallelujah“.

In conclusion, not only has Anthony been soundly refuted, his inconsistency demonstrated, his morbid sense of morality exposed, his sensitivity issues made public and his sense of empathy made void, we’ve learned that in Anthony’s faith, rape earns you the right to marry your rapist, or rather if you’re raped, you get money or your father has the choice to marry you off to the rapist! I would like to thank Allaah [swt] for allowing Anthony to expose his true nature and for blessing Br. Sami with the ability to produce such arguments that make men like Anthony aide in Christians accepting Islam. Ameen.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.
*:

  1. NIV: 1984, UK and the 2011 Updated Versions, God’s Word Translation: 1995, all render the translated text as “rape”.
  2. “A Would-Be Seducer Gets Owned and Humbled”, by Anthony Rogers of Answering Islam.
  3. Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, 06601.
  4. Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, 08610.
  5. Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, 07901.
  6. Deuteronomy 22:28, The Westminster Leningrad Codex.
  7. “A Would-Be Seducer Gets Owned and Humbled”, by Anthony Rogers of Answering Islam.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Numbers 36, NIV.
  10. Adam Clarke’s Commentary of the Bible, Genesis 49.

Refutation: Ijaz Ahmad vs. the Prophet Zechariah!

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers released a series of articles after our debate in which he had decided to forward some unfortunate, if not rather disparaging comments in the process. I’ll be carefully and honestly examining his claims and comments in my responses to him. It should be noted that he has also made a video and appeared on live television to further promote his comments. I would like to explicitly state that I discourage and remove myself from any relation to this man’s incredulous behaviour.

The Introduction.

He begins with stating:

In my recent debate with Ijaz Ahmad he made much of the fact that the Angel of the Lord in Zechariah 1:12 intercedes with the Lord for Jerusalem, something that presupposes that the two are distinct.

I did propose that YHWH and Mal’ak YHWH were two distinct individuals, something which Anthony during the debate also supposed that he was in agreement with, as stated in his thesis:

Notice that my thesis entails both the deity of the angel as well as his distinct personhood from another and or other persons in the Godhead. This means it will not be sufficient or at all relevant for my opponent to argue that the angel is distinct from Yahweh as if this somehow negates my position. In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me. This also means that my opponent will necessarily either have to show that the angel is also not identified as God as I will argue or provide some way for accounting how the angel may be identified that is consistent with Unitarianism, the belief that God is only one person and the Old Testament.

From the get go, Anthony’s contradiction is clear. During the debate, he asserts that he’d be in complete agreement with me, if it is that I proved that YHWH and Mal’ak YHWH were distinct, he’d give a resounding ‘Amen‘. Now a few days later, he’s found himself arguing against his own thesis. Apparently, it’s now in his best interest to argue against his own argument, I could not have asked for a better example of inconsistency.

The Arguments.

Anthony then, proceeds onwards to argue against the fact that they are distinct:

According to Ijaz, this shows not only that a distinction obtains between the two, but that the distinction is ontological in nature, i.e. it demonstrates that the former alone is Lord and the latter is not.”

Anthony in this case, concedes that indeed they are demonstrated as being distinct from one another. Something which he refused to do during the debate. Is this perhaps an attempt at back peddling to correct his mistakes? What’s worse is that Anthony’s problem is such, that he asserts that Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH but that they are both distinct at the same time. The problem can be manifested as such-:

Argument 1:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

Argument 2:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

This is a problem that Anthony can’t resolve because he’s created it  himself. So what you’re seeing in his articles, is a clearly confused individual, trying to cite as many sources as he can towards his biased position (fallacy of appeal to authority), but at the same time, contradicting his own criteria for a valid argument (following from his thesis in the debate). Let’s continue to see what other problems he has put himself in:

Although I did point out that the Angel of the Lord is also identified as Lord in His own right in Zechariah 3, and thus that “the Angel of the Lord” is the distinctive title by which this second person who is Yahweh is distinguished from the first, the title being most appropriate since He is evidently the heavenly Mediator and Messenger between God and His people, a fact that follows naturally from Zechariah1, I think much more could be and needs to be said than I communicated during the debate.

Let’s put Anthony’s statements into perspective:

  1. Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
  2. Mal’ak YHWH is a different person than YHWH.

The problem we see here now, is that Anthony has realised there exists an issue, that he’s arguing against himself, so he decides to reconcile this issue by stating the ‘Angel of the Lord’ is now a title, to distinguish YHWH from himself. With this in mind let’s examine Anthony’s new argument:

  1. Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
  2. Mal’ak YHWH is another name for the person who is the same as YHWH, but they’re different because it’s a different title.

Following his line of reasoning, every time that his God is called by a different title in the Bible, that would have to mean that it isn’t just another name for God, it’s an entirely new person into the Godhead. That would mean that Adonai is a different person to Elohim, who is a different person to Hashem Adonai who is different to Mal’ak YHWH who is different to YHWH, who is different to the ‘Messenger of the Covenant‘. If that is the case, then Anthony’s God, is beyond tri-personal, unless it is then, that he presents the case that a title isn’t always a new person in the Godhead, it’s only a new person when it suits his dogmatic agenda, in which case his argument would then be guilty of taking the form of ‘the fallacy of confirmation bias‘.

“Since this was the passage on which Ijaz drew most of his thunder, and since most people I have talked to were unimpressed with his other arguments against the deity of the Angel, particularly his failure to grapple with the lexical and scholarly evidence I provided for the fact that the word angel (mal’ak) is not restricted in meaning or use to created spirits…”

By ‘most people’ he means the two Christian Paltalk rooms which came out to support him.

The Reception of his Arguments.

On that same note to demonstrate how his supporters did not listen to his thesis, during his opening statement, we have Radical Moderate, commenting on the debate.

Topic of Debate: 
“The Old Testament Teaches that the Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine Person in the Godhead.”

Anthony’s Thesis (Taken from the debate):  
“In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me.”

Supporter of Anthony (Radical Moderate):
His theisis is not that the Angel of Yhahwee is distinct person from Yahweh.

So confused are the people he confesses were unimpressed by my argument, that they don’t even understand what he was arguing. No wonder they agreed with Anthony (as he claims), they’re just blindly cheerleading him onwards, while not even grasping what exactly his argument was. According to this supporter, whose comments are under all of Anthony’s posts (congratulating him, praising him, flirting with him), Anthony’s argument was against the very topic and the very thesis that Anthony used. Brilliant ‘support’, would Anthony dare criticise his fan base or choose to correct their own misunderstanding of his presentation? Anthony continues by stating:

” his failure to grapple with the lexical and scholarly evidence I provided for the fact that the word angel (mal’ak) is not restricted in meaning or use to created spirits – something that brought on the bizarre charge from Ijaz that I was the one guilty of playing word games and being unscholarly, a lapse on his part that was aggravated by the fact that he didn’t bring a single scholarly source forward to justify his repeated misuse of the term, or even for anything else that he mentioned”

To begin with, there was no need on my end to redefine the word Mal’ak and appeal to the eisegesis of the reductive fallacy. Essentially, Anthony’s argument boiled down to this:

  • Mal’ak YHWH = YHWH.
  • Mal’ak YHWH = YHWH.
  • YHWH = YHWH.

That’s essentially what Anthony’s entire ‘lexical’ argument was. It was a simple play on semantics to eliminate the purpose and the rationale behind the word mal’ak, this type of lexical manipulation is most commonly referred to by academia as “the reductive fallacy”. Following from this, Anthony ‘claims’, that I used no scholarly source to justify my use of the term “mal’ak”, with that being said, it is either Anthony recognizes that he used no scholarly source himself or he fails to realise from where I quoted my definition of “mal’ak”  during the debate. I took the definition of mal’ak, directly from Anthony’s article, “The Malak Yahweh Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament: Part I”. Which reads:

“The word that is used in the Hebrew text is malak (מַלְאָך). The lexical sources are unanimous that the Hebrew word malak, in its original signification and as it is used in the Bible, means “one sent; a messenger” (e.g. Gesenius; Brown, Driver and Briggs)”.

With explicit evidence of the source for my definition, would Anthony Rogers be honest enough to apologize or recant his erratic statements? Most likely not and I wouldn’t expect any better from him, if anything, he’d try to find a way to claim I used his definition incorrectly, the problem therefore being, that I quoted it verbatim from his article. I’m not quite sure if he expected me not to point that out, or if he was simply looking for material to attack me with. He follows this by saying:

That is to say, the following passages that speak of two persons as Yahweh prove that the Old Testament teaches that God is not a solitary person and in this sense He is not like any other conscious agent in existence – including schizophrenics, a straw-man trumped up by my opponent that applies to Modalists who believe the persons of the Trinity are actually only one person who banters back and forth between different alter egos, rather than to Trinitarianism, which teaches that God subsists in three actual persons – He being uniquely multi-personal, and thus unlike anything or anyone.

For a moment here, we see Anthony attempting to respond to the claim that a singular being with multiple personalities is not considered to be suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder or even Schizophrenia, something which I indicated during the debate, which Anthony did not have a chance to respond to. Multiple Personality Disorder refers to one being, having more than one personality and seeing as Anthony’s God is one being, unified by the Godhead, yet eternally possessing three distinct personalities, this clearly indicates that the Christian concept of God is schizophrenic and possibly an allusion to MPD. Anthony attempted to further solve this by saying his God was ‘uniquely multipersonal’, or in other words, when you go to the psychiatric ward of any hospital, all the in patients that suffer from MPD or Schizophrenia, or some mental disease are all told that they are special and unique so that they can be normalized and their feelings controlled. Taking a play from that appeal to emotion, Anthony himself is applying that same tactic to his followers, a revealing metaphor to say the least.

Biblical Bitrinitarianism.

In an attempt to defend his eisegesis, Anthony invents a new term:

The first of many examples for Zechariah’s overall “binitarianism” presents itself

So what is bitrinitarianism? Unfortunately that’s the term that Anthony presents as the basis for Mal’ak YHWH becoming YHWH. He doesn’t really explain more than that, so I can’t respond to something he’s just made up. I can understand why he’s making up terms now though, he’s made an Angel into God and well, just as the early Church fathers had to do when trying to defend their religion against the Jews, they just had to make up words and terms as you go along. Some common examples are, “The Trinity”, “Godhead”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Original Sin”, “Incarnate Word”, and today,we have Anthony holding true to that erratic tradition, thus giving us, “Bitrinitarianism”. If I were to break down this word to attempt to derive some meaning, it would make little to no sense:

  • Bi – Two
  • Tri – Three
  • Unity – United
  • ism – belief

Which would give us, “the belief of three persons united (as one), but also as two”. Just gibberish really. This is an appeal to Christians, if you can give me a definition for this term that actually makes sense, please do so, thanks.

Anthony versus Zechariah, Judaism and Common Sense.

To demonstrate his, “bitrinitarianism”, Anthony appeal to Zechariah 2:6-12 which reads:

“Ho there! Flee from the land of the north,” declares the Lord, “for I have dispersed you as the four winds of the heavens,” declares the Lord. “Ho, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon.” For thus says the Lord of hosts, “After  glory He has sent me against the nations which plunder you, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.For behold, I will wave My hand over them so that they will be plunder for their slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me10  Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the Lord. 11 “ Many nations will join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you. 12 The Lord will possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord; for He is aroused from His holy habitation.”

Obviously we understand and agree that these are the Lord’s words. However, Anthony is attempting to state, that the person who delivers this message to Zechariah is YHWH himself, yet Zechariah does not claim that YHWH is delivering the message, no less than three verses before we have Zechariah explicitly stating that an angel is delivering the words of the Lord:

“While the angel who was speaking to me was leaving, another angel came to meet him” – Zechariah 2:3

Which is the purpose of the Angel of the Lord, in Hebrew this is properly translated (by Anthony) to mean the “Messenger of YHWH”.  So an Angel who is the Messenger of YHWH delivers a message to Zechariah from the Lord. It is obvious that if the Angel who is a Messenger is going to deliver God’s word, that the Angel will declare the words to be from God and not from himself, which the Angel does do in the passage that Anthony references:

  • “…declares the Lord”
  • “…declares the Lord”
  • “For thus says the Lord of hosts…”
  • “… declares the Lord”

It’s as clear as day, that the Angel who is the Messenger of the Lord, as demonstrated by the verse itself, is conveying/ declaring to Zechariah what God has said. Yet Anthony does not seem to understand that. To give an example of Anthony’s absurd rationale, let us demonstrate with an example:

I saw the neighbour, he approached me and said, the wife says, “I like your roses”.

According to Anthony, this would mean that the husband likes the roses and that the husband is the wife. Anthony furthers his inanity by then validating and accepting my argument:

“…let the following be noted here: while Zechariah’s actions here in speaking for the Lord are in a measure consistent with what the Angel of the Lord does in Zechariah one, which is to be expected since the Angel is a distinct person who can speak to and for Yahweh…”

Recall, as I said Mal’ak YHWH is the Angel who is a Messenger of the YHWH, so this messenger is expected to speak on behalf of YHWH and to YHWH. So Anthony concedes that this is the case, but then he contradicts himself by saying that the Messenger of YHWH is YHWH. If they are distinct as he himself says, why then, doe he interpret them to be joined/ united as the same person? A clear contradiction yet again.

Understanding Zechariah 2.

Since we are examining the Jewish book, we should be honest and use the Jewish version, not the Christian perversion of the Septuagint from a mystery text translated into Greek and then Hebrew and then finally to English, whereas the Jewish text is simply Hebrew to English. I’ll be using the JPS Translation and the Hebrew Masoretic Texts as provided here and here.

“And he said to him, “Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited like unwalled towns, because of the multitude of men and cattle therein.’ ”   But I will be for it-says the Lord-a wall of fire around, and for glory I will be in its midst. Ho, ho! Flee from the land of the north, says the Lord; for I have spread you as the four corners of the heavens, says the Lord. Ho, Zion! Flee, she who sits among the nation of Babylon. For so said the Lord of Hosts: After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye.” – Zechariah 2:6-12.

The difference is vast, if we use Anthony’s version we have a distinct and completely different rendition of Zechairah 2, as opposed to the Hebrew of the Jews. Yet, there is one verse which stands out as being in common with them both:

For so said the Lord of Hosts: After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye.

What we have here is Anthony’s verse 8 and the Jewish version’s verse 12. Yet the Jewish version makes it is not YHWH who is sending himself but that YHWH is sending someone and in verse 13 of the Jewish text, this person being sent is referred to as the “hand of God” or the person though whose hand, God’s work is done:

“For, behold! I raise My hand over them, and they shall be prey for those who serve them. And you shall know that the Lord of Hosts sent me.”

The “hand of the Lord” is a term which refers to the person who is the Angel/ Messenger of the Lord who not only conveys God’s message, he is the angel which executes God’s punishments upon the earth and supports the faithful:

“So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go.” – Exodus (Shemot) 3:20.

“Then the LORD said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.”” – Exodus (Shemot) 6:1.

“he will not listen to you. Then I will lay myhand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.” – Exodus (Shemot) 7:4.

“And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out myhand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”” – Exodus (Shemot) 7:5.

Anthony’s problem is that he appeals to the Christian rendition of the text, the problem is, Zechariah according to his own beliefs was not a Christian but a Judaic Prophet, therefore using his own faith’s belief about Zechariah, if we read the Judaic rendition of the texts, we see that Anthony is in opposition to myself and the Hebrew Judaic Version of Zechariah’s writings. It is absurd to think that we should appeal to the Christian rendition when Zechariah was not a Christian but a Jew, therefore any indepth study of the Christian rendition is therefore inconsequential to the discussion at hand, and merely a ploy at appealing to confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

Anthony versus Basic Christian Doctrine!

In one section of his article, Anthony Rogers who is lauded by Sam Shamoun as being the best “Christian Apologist”, makes a fundamental error in his doctrine. In a book recommended by Sam Shamoun, “Understanding the Trinity”, by B.P. Harris, he states (page 121):

None other can show forth the Father, for He alone is in the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). He alone exists in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). He alone is the radiance of his glory (Heb. 1:3). And He alone is the exact representation of His Person (Heb. 1:3).

From this we know for certain that the Father is the invisible, incomprehensible, majestic, unseen God. Yet Anthony in his diatribe of an article, states the following:

First, there is the example of something Moses says in Genesis 19. After Genesis 18 tells us that the Lord appeared on earth with two angels to Abraham just prior to Sodom’s destruction

Not only is Anthony confused as to the form of the Father, he actually ascribes a known form to an invisible God. It would then seem that Anthony is not only arguing with Sam Shamoun, BP Harris, but that he is also arguing with his own scripture. I must commend him on his behaviour, one debate and Anthony is already arguing against the Christian religion.

In his article he tries to state that the invisible God, who then changes His mind and becomes an Angel, sorry, three Angels, then changes back into being invisible, but leaves two Angels back, which are really two Angels of Himself and then goes to heaven from wherein He rains down fire and brimstone in Genesis 19. Makes perfect sense, I suppose!? Somehow that’s supposed to indicate that YHWH is Mal’ak YHWH.

Zechariah 12:9-14 Proves Nothing.

Again, we find ourselves, returning to the Jewish rendition of a particular set of verses. What we find once more, is that what Anthony’s version claims and what the Jews claim, from whom Zechariah was a member of (according to Anthony), contradicts his rendition in numerous ways:

 And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come upon Jerusalem. And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son. On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart. All the remaining families-every family apart, and their wives apart. – Zechariah 12:9-14.

Which doesn’t fit Anthony’s explanation, from his article:

“In the above passage the Lord says that the people will “look on Me whom they have pierced,” and tells us that the house of David and Jerusalem’s inhabitants will mourn for Him, i.e. Yahweh, the pierced one”

That presents a problem, as the invisible God can now actually be pierced. How can you pierce the invisible, all powerful, eternal God who is YHWH? Unless of course, he’s not referring to YHWH the Father, but the other person who is also God, the son, who is Mal’ak YHWH, the Word, the Incarnate Word. We just went meta, you have a God who has two other personalities and one of those two personalties has other personalities that are also eternal but co-equal with each other, but also fully God. His interpretation of these verses is really “special” to say the least. From the Judaic rendition, Anthony’s eisegesis amounts to nothing but mere attempts again at correcting the beliefs of the Jews from whom according to Anthony, Zechariah was from.

YHWH Kills Himself with His own Sword.

To those of you who have managed to reach this far without asserting that Anthony has lost the plot, it gets worse:

“A third passage in Zechariah of some significance is found in Zechariah 13 and is closely related to the passage in Zechariah 12. For just as Yahweh said in 12:10 that He would be pierced, so in Zechariah 13 we are told not only that false prophets, by the Lord’s decree, will come to such a fate, i.e. they would be pierced through, but even the Shepherd of Yahweh would experience a terrible fate, no doubt the piercing mentioned in 12:10, and back of it would be the Lord’s own sword. Most significantly for present purposes is the fact that “the Shepherd,” –indeed, “My Shepherd,” – is identified by Yahweh not only as one distinct from Himself, but as “My Associate.”

So according to Anthony:

  • YHWH says false prophets would be pierced.
  • YHWH will pierce Himself.
  • YHWH will become a Shepherd.
  • YHWH who is a shepherd will pierce/ stab Himself with His own sword, a punishment meant for false Prophets.

At this point, I’m not sure if Anthony is arguing for Christianity or against it. I’ll leave that judgement up to you.

Conclusion.

I have aptly demonstrated that Anthony’s premises are self contradictory, dynamic, erratic and that he has gone above and beyond to refute his own argumentation. He has demonstrated that he does not grasp the true nature of YHWH, at one point he tries to demonstrate that God will kill himself, with a punishment meant for cursed persons with false teachings by his own sword. At another time he tries to demonstrate that God, even though He is invisible and without a known form, became an angel, thus contradicting his Bible and his doctrine. None of those points demonstrate the case for YHWH being Mal’al YHWH. At no time did he present a viable case for his self contradicting premises:

Argument 1:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

Argument 2:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

I look forward to seeing how Anthony will actually attempt to address these issues and when he shall admit his faulty logic. It is my view, that his reinterpretation of Judaic scripture is not only embarrassing for himself , but for the Christian religion as a whole. I do apologize to my Christian brethren if his erratic statements were insulting in anyway.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Debate with Anthony Rogers Available on Youtube

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The debate has been uploaded on Youtube, “The Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine, Person in the Godhead”, between myself and Anthony Rogers:

Do enjoy insha Allaah, any questions pertaining to the debate, let me know in the video comments or via our Facebook Page or use the ‘Contact Us‘ page on the website.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »