This is a response to Ibn Anwar’s argument “
God is not a man = Jesus is not God”.
1 Ibn Anwar regularly attempts to portray himself as somebody knowledgeable in different languages by trying to comment on various linguistic issues but actually reveals his own lack of understanding of the languages he is commenting on.
2 This present article is no exception. Under the (second) title, “
A trinity of verses deny God being a man”, Ibn Anwar tries to show from the Hebrew text that certain verses negate the possibility that God can reveal Himself to us in human form. However, before he discusses the texts from the Hebrew Bible, he first selectively quotes from the book of Acts, trying to make his point also from the New Testament that the disciples of Yeshua, particularly Peter, thought that Yeshua was only a man.
The New Tesmanet [
sic] describes Jesus as both man and the son of man in many places. Acts 2:22 makes it quite plain that Jesus was a man,
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth
was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”
Notice that Peter is the one speaking here and he does not use the evangelist script that Jesus is god-man or man-god. Peter merely affirmed our position that Jesus was
a man that God chose.
Yes, notice that Peter is the one who is speaking here. So if Peter is good enough to support Ibn Anwar’s theological position on the identity of Yeshua, then the same Peter is just as qualified to undercut his theological position. Ibn Anwar is either ignorant of Peter’s position or is blatantly distorting the view that Peter had of his Savior and Lord. Given the number of quotations in Ibn Anwar’s articles from the Scriptures and his numerous citation of passages from the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible / Old Testament) as well as the New Testament, Ibn Anwar clearly shows familiarity with the text of Scripture and so I have to conclude that Ibn Anwar is deliberately distorting what the disciples of Yeshua really thought of Him. Let’s see what Peter really says about Yeshua in his very next sentences (which Ibn Anwar conveniently left out of his article) and if this really is on par with Islamic theology as Ibn Anwar tries to portray:
Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you
by God's set purpose and foreknowledge;
and you, with the help of wicked men,
put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24
But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
Notice that Ibn Anwar, as a Muslim, cannot believe that Yeshua died and rose from the dead, since the Quran doesn’t allow him to hold that position. (That is, according to the mainstream Islamic position. I think a good case can be made for a death, resurrection and ascension on the basis of Surah 4:157, since the text of the Quran is that vague.) Yet Peter says here that Yeshua died according to God’s purpose and was raised from the dead. This poses a problem for Ibn Anwar’s position already. Either Ibn Anwar doesn’t recognize Peter as a reliable witness, and therefore his own “proof” goes out of the window, or Ibn Anwar does recognize Peter as a reliable witness and thus his position is untenable.