DID JESUS DIE FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND? The Christians say, all the descendents of Adam (everybody that ever lived on earth) are sinners by inheritance. Every new born baby has the inherited sin due to the sin committed by Adam since the beginning of creation when he ate the forbidding fruit in Christianity claim, Jesus came to the world to die for this sin, so that any of the descendant of Adam who believes in the death of Jesus for the inherited sin might be saved from the punishment of this sin they are not personally responsible for. To back this doctrine of inherited sin and vicarious atonement through the shed of the blood of an innocent man (Jesus), Christians quoting Paul, say: “Consequently just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (Romans 5:18). This verse is saying that the trespass of Adam brought condemnation for all his descendents, why the act of righteousness (death on the cross) of Jesus brought life to all men . 1. The answer to the question, Did Jesus die for the sins of mankind can be given quite easily without having to write more than a single word. But in order to convince everybody and give an unbiased answer, it is necessary to give a categorical answer only after a clear analysis. Therefore, before giving a categorical answer, the question will be treated under three headings:- a) Concept of inherited sin b) Concept of vicarious atonement and c) Willingness of Jesus to be crucified. CONCEPT OF INHERITTED SIN: After the creation of Adam and Eve, God put them in the Garden of Eden, a garden not in paradise, both in the eastern part earth says the Bible. God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of a particular tree “you most not cat from the tree of the knowledge of the good and evil for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Adam and his wife (Eve) were later deceived in to eating of the forbidding tree by serpent. The consequence of their disobedience is that God drove Adam and Eve out of Eden after being coursed. The major consequence of the action of Adam and Eve is death for God said; “for when you eat of it you will surely die”. What did God mean by “you will surely die”? To an ordinary man, death simply means leaving the mortal life, but to the Christians and according to biblical usage, death is categorized into physical death (spending eternity in hell). If we take the phrase “you will surely die” to mean spiritual death, then it means only Adam and Eve would go hell for eating the forbidding tree. The direct children and other descendents of Adam have no business with the sins of their father and ancestor, since Abel a direct son of Adam was a righteous man Matt. 23:35 and Genesis 4:4. Thus Abel did NOT inherit the sin of his father, but if he did, he must found a means of neutralizing the consequence of the sin or found a means of finding forgiveness from God, by doing something that pleased God. He did not believed in Jesus or the death of Jesus on the cross for his salvation, since nothing was preached concerning Jesus during his (Abel) time. Thus if Abel had the inherited sin, he belief in the blood of Jesus was not required for his salvation. If we take the phrase “you will surely die” to means physical death, then we can link it with Genesis 3:19 where God said “…until you (Adam) return to the ground since from it you were taken for dust you are and to dust you will return” Paul also wrote; “there fore just as sin enter the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned…”Nevertheless death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses even over those who did not sin by breaking a command as did Adam…” (Romans 5:12-14). By saying death reigned over those who did not sin as did Adam i.e. righteous men die, Paul was saying that physical death is the punishment for the sin of Adam committed and that all his (Adam) descendent (righteous or unrighteous) must die physical as a way of paying for the sin committed by their ancestor. Thus righteous men must die physically to pay for the sin of Adam, but remain spiritually alive after the physical death, since they lived a righteous life. Also unrighteous people must die physically to pay for Adams sin and also die spiritually (spend eternity hell) after their physical death as a way of paying for their own sins. There is no way one can say no to this form of reasoning since people (righteous and unrighteous) have dying physically since the time of Adam to the present time there is no way of escape for those still alive. The statement credited to St. Paul in (Romans 5:12-14) can only make sense and meaningful if Paul was talking of physical death. The statement will be completely meaningless and untrue if (Paul) meant spiritual death because between the time of Adam and Moses and before anything was preached in the name of Jesus, many people lived and died righteously-died physically, yet remain spiritually alive (admitted in to God’s mercy). Best on the above analysis and combining Rom. 5:18 and Rom. 5:12-14, we can say that Paul was saying that physical death of people is the result or out come of the sin of Adam and that the belief in Jesus is the only thing that can remove this course-physical death. Paul was completely wrong by saying that the belief in Jesus is the only thing that can remove physical death from mankind. Because Paul himself “real” believer Apostles of Jesus and the exponent of Jesus blood for salvation, as well as other Apostles of Jesus died physically long ago, even Jesus was not exempted from this physical death since he (Jesus) “died” (at least for three days) and up till today believer of Jesus still experience physical death and there is no way of escape for them till the day of judgment day. Thus if the consequences of the sin committed by Adam is physical death, then the belief in Jesus or in the blood of Jesus is not able to remove this punishment and that Jesus as well as other biblical prophet except Elijah and Enoch (for they did not die physically even for a second) were punished for the sins of Adam. The punishment for the sin committed by Adam and Eve was earthly punishment. This punishment involved, increased pain in child birth for the female and for men eating from the wet of his brow. Physical death return is just the ultimate end of any created being. As God said: “until you return to the ground since from it you were taken, for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:19). Also it was not the plan of God; before Adam sinned to man (Adam) live forever. The Bible says: “the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not allow to reach out his hand and take also from tree of life and eat and live forever” (Genesis 3:22). Thus when Adam and Eve were created they were not given the fruit of life, for it was not the intention of God to make them live forever even without testing the forbidding fruit, and thus sinning against God. But when Adam and his wife ate the fruit of knowledge and became conscious of good and evil, the acquired knowledge might make them approach the tree of life and ate of it and then become immortal. This is why God guided the tree, to make it impossible for the man and his wife to eat of it. Statement “But you must not eat from the tree of…for when you eat of it you will surely die” makes punishment for disobedient an instant one. If punishment is physical death, it means immediately they eat the fruit they will fall down and die instantly. We know this did not happen. The only instant punishment Adam and Eve received was removal from the garden and the course pronounced by God, pain in child birth for the woman and labor before eating for the man. Though, there is heavenly punishment for Adam and Eve for disobeying God Almighty, the punishment is not automatic and it is redeemable. If after being driving out of the garden Adam and Eve persistent in doing evil and disobeying the words of God and died physically in that state then heavenly punishment becomes inevitable. But if they (Adam and Eve) after their fall repented and did what was right in the sight of Lord, they will enter paradise. Remain spiritual alive after their physical death. God said: “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he as done and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right he will surely live, he will not die none of the of offences he has committed will be remembered against him, because of the righteous thing he has done. He will live. Do l takes pleasure in the death (punishment) of the wicked”? (Ezekiel 18:21-23). The idea of inherited sin is alien to the Jewish religion. Before the time of Paul, the Israelites or the Jews never thought or had the believed that the sin committed by Adam and Eve for eating the forbidding fruit is to be paid for by Adam and all his descendents. All the prophets of God that came before the beginning of the Jewish race! Namely: Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc. never thought anything about Adam’s sin to be paid for by him and his descendents. Also all the Jewish prophets from Moses to Jesus thought nothing similar. The believe that Adam‘s sin to be paid for by him and all his descendents was introduced into Christianity by Paul. Paul was the one who introduced the concept of inherited sin. He (Paul) “consequently just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men…”(Rom. 5:18). But Jesus never said anything about Adam’s sin being inherited by Adam’s descendents. In mark 10:14 Jesus said; “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these”. Thus the little children have N0 SIN in them. They are sinless. lf they had the inherited sin in them, Jesus could NOT have said; the kingdom of god belongs to such as them. God Almighty never said anything in the Bible about Adam’s descendent to share from the punishment of Adam’s sin. But we read in Ezekiel 18:1-32 “the word of the Lord came to me: “what do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel. The father eats sour grapes and the children’s teeth are on edge? As surely as I live, declares the sovereign Lord. You will no longer quote this proverb in Israel for every living soul belongs to me, the father and the son both alike belongs to me, the soul who sin is the one who will die. His blood will be on his own head. Further we read…the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charge against him” (Ezekiel 18:19-20). This passage is guide explicit and no further explanation. According to God Almighty and Jesus, sin is not inherited. A child is sinless and does not become sinner because his father or mother sinned. Every will die for his or her own sin. But according to self appointed disciples of Jesus-Paul all mankind is under condemnation of God because of Adam’s sin. The question now is, who do we believe: God Almighty and his prophets or Paul? Muslims and any truth seeking person will rather accept the word of God and the teachings of his prophets. CONCEPT OF VICARIOUS ATONEMENT: the Christians maintain all the sinned or rather have the inherited sin. To save us from the punishment of the sin Adam committed, God presented his “only son” to be crucified for the sins of his creature. Firstly we must not forget that the only one who can forgive sin is God Almighty himself. Does it mean the only way God Almighty can forgive us the sin we are not personally and directly responsible for, is by committing another sin? The first sin was committed when Adam ate the forbidding fruit, while the second sin is due to the killing of Jesus Christ. Ameena Annie spieget (An English Lady) in a book Title: “Yes! l converted to Islam and here is why” says: “I could never reconcile the idea of an All-mighty or All-merciful God allowing His son such an ignominious and shameful death as a means to save the world for the very fact of the crucifixion proved to me that such a God who could do such a thing could be neither “All-Mighty” nor “All-Merciful” . If he were All-mighty, there was no need for Him to require the assistance from anyone else, human or divine. And if he were All-merciful, he could not willingly allow a perfectly innocent person to suffer for the sins committed by other people who were guilty”. Writing on the same subject (Vicarious atonement) Crayeri not: “Thus we enter the truly staggering vicious circle of a god who punishes himself in order to be able to forgive the men and women who offended him”. Christians quoting Paul say: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ; God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through the faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice…” (Roman 3:23-25). What justice is this? Jangle justice? No heathen tribe will give this kind of justice, not to talk of the Supreme Being God Almighty. I once put a question to a group of Christians that: “Is it right judgment or justice if someone is punished for the offence I committed? They replied; God can do anything. It is true God Almighty can do anything, but God Almighty will definitely not do stupid judgment, give the kind of judgment that we human being will frown at if given among ourselves. We know that if any earthly leader i.e. Head of state or president of a nation gives the kind of judgment; he or she will surely receive condemnation throughout the world. If the only God Almighty can save mankind from the punishment of Adams sin is through the crucifixion of Jesus i.e. those who arrested Jesus, those shouted crucified him! Crucified him! Judas that gave Jesus away and those that actually crucified him (Jesus), should be considered blameless and sinless and regarded as benefactors of mankind since they all helped in fulfilling God’s intention. The statement credited to Jesus in the Gospel “Son of man is going as it has been written of him, but woe unto that man through whom this happen” can only be true and meaningful, if the crucifixion of Jesus only came by chance. What prophecy did Jesus fulfill by his crucifixion? Christians may say Isaiah 53. We ask, if Isaiah 53 a prophecy or a confirmation of what took place long ago or a parable? If Isaiah 53 is a confirmation of what took place before the time of prophet Isaiah, then it has nothing to do with Jesus since prophet Isaiah came long before Jesus. If Isaiah 53 is a prophecy does it mention Jesus by name or son of God or David or Lord or any of the titles or nicknames given to Jesus in the Gospel? Is not possible to link this prophecy with John the Baptist or any other prophet or servant of God killed before the time of Jesus? Also this passage (Isaiah 53) is actually written by prophet Isaiah and not a fabrication of anonymous hand, does it not contradict God’s words in Ezekiel 18? Isaiah 53 speaks of a suffering servant of God “who hand no beauty or majesty to attract people to him, nothing in his appearance that people should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces. He was despised and we esteem him not” (Isaiah 53). No Christian will ever give this description to Jesus. To the Christian Jesus was not a servant of God, but God’s only begotten son and as some will say, God Almighty himself who came down to earth in human form. One of the Christians claims for linking Jesus with Isaiah 53 is found in Mathew 8:16-17. We read “when evening came, many who were demon possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infinities and carried our diseases” (Mathew 8:16-17). What has the healing of the demon possessed people and healing of the sick people by Jesus got to do with carrying up people infinities and sorrows as used in Isaiah 53? Took up our infinities and carried our sorrows as used in Isaiah 53: Is nothing but a figure of speech that can be used to describe how Nelson Mandela of South Africa suffered (Put in prison for about 23 years) so that the black people of South Africa might be freed. “Took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows” as used in Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with miraculous healing such as restoring sight to the blind, making the lame walk, healing the demon-possessed etc. As I said earlier, if this passage is a prophecy and it is actually made by prophecy Isaiah and not a fabrication of a anonymous hand, one should not be dogmatic in linking it or associating the prophecy to a particular person since no name is mentioned in the “prophecy”. it fits any prophet of God unjustly killed, during or after the time of prophet Isaiah. The prophecy fits John the Baptist than any other killed prophets of God. John the Baptist was a righteous servant of God, filled with the Holy Spirit from birth. He committed no sin. He was, however, arrested because he preached against a bad act. He was eventually brutally murdered, not because he blaspheming or broke the law, but simply because, King Herod wanted to maintain his words and maintain his integrity. Jesus on the other hand was “crucified” because he was guilty of breaking the Sabbath rule and also accused by the Jews of blaspheming against God. Also, as said eelier Isaiah 53 attributed to prophet Isaiah and by implication to God, contradicts God’s word as spoken by prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 18 which says “the soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of his father nor will the father share the guilt of his son the righteousness of a righteous man will be credited to him and the wickedness of the wicked will be charge against him” Ezekiel 18:20, Isaiah 53:11 on the other hand says “by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many and he will bear their iniquities” These two passages would not contradict each other, only if they are not really saying the same thing. The content of Ezekiel 18 is very clear and the best and only interpretation for it is, every body will pay for his own sin, nobody will suffer for the sin committed by another person. This is Gods law and the way He will deal with mankind on the Day of Judgment. Isaiah 53:11 may mean somebody suffering in order for his people to be free. We often hear of somebody or a group of persons going on hunger strike, going into prison, given inhuman treatment and even killed so that his people might live in better condition. Nelson Mandela this of South Africa was given all sort of inhuman treatment, imprisoned for 23 years by the government of South Africa (consisting of white people), he went on hunger strikes etc. all for the sake of black people in that country s that they might have a better living conditions. If this is actually what Isaiah 53 is trying to say, then there is no contradiction between this passage and Ezekiel 18, because the theme of discussion is different in both cases. But if Isaiah 53 mean, God in his judgment punished an innocent man because of the iniquities of the wicked ones then it means the soul who sins is no longer paying for his sin and the wickedness of a wicked man is no longer charged against him. Thus Isaiah 53 is contradicting Ezekiel 18. If this is the cases, then we ask, did God change His mind between the time of Isaiah and the time of Ezekiel? Isaiah 53 does not sound like God’s word. It is clear the statement is not direct speech of God, but of that of a man (may be Isaiah) talking from his own pre-conceived idea. The man speaking may be prophet Isaiah or just an ordinary man, Ezekiel 18 on the other hand sound very much like Gods word. It is clear the statement is direct speech from God, spoken through prophet Ezekiel. Since Ezekiel is current than Isaiah i.e. prophet Isaiah came earlier than prophet Ezekiel. And God in Ezekiel says as long as he lives no soul will bear the iniquities of another soul. We know God Almighty will never die and His words will forever remain the same, no soul will bear the burden of another soul, everybody will die for his own sin, the righteousness of the righteous man shall be upon him and the wickedness of a wicked man shall received the reword of his own wickedness. Deut. 24:16, Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 31:29-30. Christians may say Jesus was the only one that God made to bear the iniquities of others. They may claim that Isaiah 53 applies to Jesus while Ezekiel 18 applies to mankind, that any among mankind who does not believe that Jesus died for his or her own iniquities will pay his or her rejection. That is if the father believes, and the son reject Jesus, the righteousness of the father will be upon him while the rejection of the Christ will be upon the son. Or if the husband believes or accepts Jesus will be credited to the husband while the rejection of Christ will be charge against the wife. This idea is not supported by the Gospel and Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians 7:12-14 says “…if any brother hath a wife that believeth not, she be pleased to dwell with him let him not put her away… for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children unclean; but now are the holy (cor.7:12-14) KJV. Thus the faith of a wife who accepts Jesus Christ will save her husband who does not accept Jesus. The major passage often quoted by the Christians to support the doctrine of vicarious atonement through the blood of Jesus is in Matthew 26:26-28. The passage reads “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said “Take eat this is my body. And he took a cup and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them saying drink of it all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins”. This statement credited to Jesus also reported in the Gospel of Mark and Luke. It is however, not found in the Gospel of John. Upton Sinclair in his Book A personal Jesus commenting on the above quoted verses (Matt. 26:26-28) says “from this has come a procedure called the Eucharist, the communion the mass a ceremony of unimaginable solemnity. Instead of sacrificing helpless lamb, it is the body of Jesus which was sacrificed on the cross. It is his blood which was shed, and by supernatural transformation the bread and wine become his body and blood and you reverently eat and drink, or let the priest do it for you…All devout Catholics have to go once a week and witness this act performed by the priest, and then they know their soul are safe from hell fire. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, and so I content myself with saying that I don’t believe Jesus would have had any interest in the procedure” culled from let the Bible speak by Ali Mushin. On the same subject (Eucharist) Marcello Cravery in his Book the life of Jesus says “No great effort is required to recognize the affinities between the stages of Orphic initiation and those of the Christian novitiate; preparation for the “mystery of the Eucharist, fasting confession and absolution of sins. But the replacement of the sacred animal with the very person of Christ makes the ceremony grotesque and horrifying. If Jesus is to be considered human being, the Lord’s Supper assumes the characteristics of a cannibal ritual; if Jesus is to be considered the son of God, the pure and exalted idea held by Jesus degrades in to belief in a ruthless god who demands the savage, perpetually renewed sacrifice of his chosen son” Culled from let the Bible speak by Ali Mushin. The statement concerning the Lord’s Supper credited to Jesus in Matthew 26:26-28 is very crucial and form the cornerstone of Christianity one may, therefore, wonder why this very crucial statement of Jesus is not reported in the Gospel of John? The only logical conclusion is that John knew nothing about this statement. As far as John was concerned, Jesus did not make the proclamation. If Jesus actually made the statement John who was one of the disciples of Jesus and who was also one of the twelve disciples on the table with Jesus for the Lord supper could not have missed out this crucial statement if Jesus actually made it. Mark and Luke, who supported this statement by recording or reporting it in their Gospel, were not disciples of Jesus. So how did they know of this statement when they were not with Jesus on the table for the lord supper when Jesus was said to have made the statement? Mark and Luke were not eye or ear witnesses of event or happening in the time of Jesus. According to Luke, he based his gospel on what he investigated among people concerning Jesus, information’s he gathered from people, not what he actually saw or heard Jesus say or do (Luke 1:1-4). Can one rely on information given by such as Luke and Mark? Believe them and you’ll believe anything. We are left with Matthew and John, two of the chosen disciples of Jesus. Matthew say Jesus made the pronouncement (Matthew 26:26-27), while John knew nothing about the statement for he did not report it in his gospel. So who do we believe; Matthew or John? There is evidence in the Bible that the body and the blood of Jesus credited to Jesus Himself during the last supper as recorded in the gospel based on the proclamation of Paul in his first letter the Corinthians. We read “for I received from the Lord what also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks, He broke it and said “This cup the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me” for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1Corinthians 11:23-26). PAUL: Who was Paul? The history of Christianity will not be complete without saying few think about this man-Paul. Paul was formerly known as Soul before his conversion to Christianity. Paul was not one of the chosen disciples of Jesus when He (Jesus) lived. He was a pagan who took delight in persecuting Jesus. He became Christian in a circumstances open to criticism, because the experience he claimed led to his conversation to Christianity is related in the Acts of Apostles three times and each time it is differently narrated. The incident is related in Acts 9:3-7, Acts 22:6-10, Acts 26:12-18. Firstly, the incident was said to have been experienced by Paul and some men who were with Paul. It is note worthy that this story of Paul is not corroborated or supported by anybody in the Bible, despite the fact that we are made to believe that some people were with Paul and they witnesses of the event if actually some people were with Paul and they had partial experience of what happened to Paul would have become Christian like Paul or at least corroborate the statement of Paul. No matter how hard-hearted these men were, they would have become Christians and give open testimonies in support of Paul’s Proclamation. Secondly this incident is reported three times in Acts of Apostles and each time it is differently narrated and with contradictions. According to the third version (Acts 26:12-18), it is not Paul alone who saw the light as related in the first version (Acts 9:3-7), but all as related in the second version (Acts 22:6-10). In the third, Paul says that all fell to the ground, thus contradicting the first and the second versions which say, Paul alone fell to the ground. The first version says the men who were traveling with Paul heard the voice but saw no one (light) while the second version says the men saw the light but heard no voice. In the first version and the second version, Paul was instructed by the mysterious voice to enter the city “where he would be told what to do. In the third version, however, Paul was given full detail of his mission, right there at the place of the incident. What will you think of a witness who relates one story to the police, changing it a little when he faces the magistrate and gives a completely different version when the case reaches the high Court? Can you rely on such evidence or take such witness seriously? Did Paul really experience what he claimed to have experienced on his way to Damascus? If he did, could the experience not be the handwork of the devil, because some of the teachings of Paul when he became “Christian” contradict the categorical instructions of Jesus to his chosen disciples when he was alive. Did Paul not carry the Gospel of Jesus to the Gentiles and non Jews contrary to the explicit instruction of Jesus to his disciples not to go among the Gentiles or enter a Samaritan city, but to go only among the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6). Did Jesus not say his disciples would not complete going round the cities of Israel before the son of man comes (to judge the world) Matt. 1023. Also did Paul not say or command “you who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4), contrary to what Jesus commanded when he was alive Jesus said “I did not come abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfill them…anyone who breaks one the least of these commandment and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven…”(Matt. 5:17-19). Also the everlasting covenant of circumcision made by God to Abraham (Gen. 17:7-14) which Jesus Christ also went through (Luke 2:21) was revoke by Paul. Paul commanded…I Paul tell you that if you let yourself to be circumcised Christ will be of no value to you at all” (Gal. 5:2-4). These are just few examples of Paul innovations when he became “Christian” One may ask was Jesus at work through Paul? The evidence against is very overwhelming. Was Satan at work through Paul? The evidence in support is very overwhelming. A Biblical scholar by the name Dr. Hugh schonfield, in his Book, those incredible Christians writes “the Paul of to day, who used the Roman name of Soul, was seen as the demon-driven enemy of the new David. When eventually he be came a prisoner of the Romans, the Christians neither of Jerusalem nor Rome lifted a finger to aid him. None of Paul’s effort, including raising funds for the poor saints of Judea, had mitigated opposition to him. For the more intransigent of the legitimate Church Paul was a dangerous and disruptive influence bent on enlisting a large following from among the Gentiles in order to provide himself with a numerical superiority with the support of which set at defiance the elders at Jerusalem” culled from let the Bible speak by Ali Mushin. (For you to know who St. Paul really was, get our copy “THE SAINT PAUL” free on request). Another passage often quoted by Christians t support the doctrine of vicarious atonement of sin through the blood of Jesus is Mark 10:42-45 which reads “…whoever would be great among you must be your servant and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For the son of man also came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” firstly, Jesus declared his mission, that he came to serve the people and not to be served, not to talk of been worshipped. This is no longer the situation nowadays. The Christians no longer regard this statement of Jesus. The Christians continue serving and worshiping Jesus as God. Secondly the phrase “To give his life as a ransom for many is a figure of speech in the same vain as “who ever would be first among you must be slave of all” No one would consider the word slave in the phrase to mean one should become a property to be bought and sold and used according to the Master’s desire. Similarly it is absurd to interpret “giving one’s life as a ransom” as the act of physical death being a sacrifice for the atonement for the sins of others. It never occurs to us to understand by that phrase that their death in any way confers benefit to their people. On the contrary what is all amounts to is that such leaders have spent their lives working for the good of their people. To back the doctrine of vicarious atonement of sin through the death of Jesus, Christians also quote “For God so loved the world that…that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent…but that the world might be served through him” (John 3:16-17) Firstly, this statement is not corroborated by any of the other three Gospels. As far as they are concerned Jesus never made the statement, may be another invention of inventive John. Secondly the phrase “who ever believes in him” does not mean believe in his death or Blood as expiration for other people’s sins. The phrase simply means whoever believes in Jesus teachings. Also the phrase “but that the world might be saved through him” does not mean saved by his death on the cross. WILLINGNESS OF JESUS TO GET KILLED: - If Jesus Christ was indeed crucified, and if he was God who knew, He had come down to earth in order to be crucified by mankind for the sins of mankind whom He created, then the arrest, trial and eventual crucifixion meant nothing to Him. For He was aware of everything, crucifixion meant nothing to Him. For he was aware of everything be for it happened. Also if Jesus was an ordinary man sent by God to be crucified by mankind for their sins, and if Jesus was aware of his mission and was pleased to go through it, as the Christians say, then whole process or procedure also meant nothing to him. He could not be afraid of being betrayed, arrested, trial and eventually crucified. Uptun Sinclair in his book A personal Jesus wrote “You perceive that those who tell the story cannot make up their mind whether Jesus is God or whether is man. Truly it is difficult problem, once you admit such a thing as the possibility that God may take on the form of a man and come down to earth. When he becomes man, is He man or is He still God? And how can be betrayed when He knows. He is going to be betrayed? The legend never answered, nor evens any rational thought on such a subject. Culled from let the Bible speak by A Mushin. If Jesus was God and He was crucified on the cross, then the whole process was stage acting, for God could not really suffer the tortures, and his death meant nothing to Him for actually he did not die, being God. The whole procedure takes the form of outrageous cheating. On the other hand if Jesus was just a man from God and the act of him dying for the sins of the world was determined by God, long before Jesus came to the word, as a necessary condition for the salvation of mankind. And if Jesus was well aware of this and completely pleased to go through this act (crucifixion) as the Christians claim, then the whole act of crucifixion would also meant nothing to him. He (Jesus) would not be afraid of the arrest, trial and the eventual crucifixion. It is like an actor going through an act; the procedure means nothing to him. Going through the four Gospels we know Jesus was not willing to get himself arrested not to talk of being killed, consider the following passages. “After these things, Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him” John 7:1. “Then from that day forth they took counsel together to put him to death Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews (John 11:53-54). “Therefore they sought again to take him; but he escaped out of their hand (John 11:53-54). Fearing the impending arrest and crucifixion: Jesus prayed “Father if you are willing take this cup from me…And being in anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground” (Luke 22:42). …..My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Matt. 27:46. This statement simply means my God, my God why are you letting me go through this humiliation or suffering. Or is there any other meaning for this statement? Regarding this statement Ali Mushin in his book let the Bible speak wrote “for an ordinary unknown man to behave in such a way is excusable. But for the man of God to declare at the time of trial, or even for a leader of people with guts in him to cry out aloud in front of a crowd “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? Is to say the least below the dignity of a leader”. According to Matthew, the statement credited to Jesus “…..My God, my God why have you forsaken me”? ls in fulfillment of prophecy found in Psalm 22. Also we read in John that the division of the garment of Jesus and the lot casting for Jesus’ clothing is in fulfillment of Psalm 22. The statement My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ And “They divided my garment and cast lot for my clothing” are found in Psalm 22:1-18 respectively. The two statements do not occur in isolation, but occur at the beginning and in the middle of a passage. If Jesus was fulfilling verses 1 and 18 of Psalm 22 according t the Gospel writers, then he (Jesus) must also be fulfilling the remaining verses in the Psalm, because a single actor made the whole statement in Psalm 22. The Psalm in question (Psalm 22) reads “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, l cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night and am not silent. Yet you are enthroned as the Holy one, you are the praise of Israel. In you our fathers put their trust, they trusted and you delivered. They cried to you and were saved, in you they trusted and were not disappointed. But am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people….Dogs have surrounded me, a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones, people stare and gloat over me. They divided my garments among them and cast lot for my clothing. But you, O LORD, be not far off, O my strength, come quickly to help me. Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs. Rescue me from the mouth of the lions save me from the horns of the wild oxen…” (Psalm 22:1-31). Another pointer to the fact that Jesus never willingly wanted the Jews to kill him. In John 8 verses 37-49 Jesus said “I know you are Abraham descendent. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word….lf you were Abraham’s children, said Jesus then you would do the things Abraham did (righteousness). As it is you are determined to kill me a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing what your own father does….they protested “The only father we have is God himself” Jesus said to them if God were your father, you would love me for l came from God and now am here….you belong to your father , the devil and you want to carry out your fathers desire. He was a murder from the beginning…This passage is quite explicit and needs no further explanation. Why then do the Christians claim that the death of Jesus on the cross was pre-determined by God as a must for salvation of mankind, when Jesus stated categorically, that those who plan to kill him were only carrying out the desire of the devil? I wonder! I just wonder! In conclusion, base on the established facts that the concept of inherited sin- the basic for the condemnation of mankind was a fabrication of the early Christians and not God’s way. Also the idea or belief of somebody sinning and another person paying for that sin is not God’s way of dealing with his creatures. Also base on the unwillingness of Jesus to be killed and of his accusing those who attempt killing him as only trying to carry out the desire of the devil. We can therefore categorically say, No, to the question: Did Jesus die (willingly or unwillingly) for the sins of mankind.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 06:11:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015