Jesus was no sinner – an accursed person as held by Paul

First I would like to copy/paste here a post from our friend Justin and my response to him.Please don’t mind it. It is only in search for truth; else I respect the Christian religion and I love Jesus and Mary.

1. Justin Says:
July 4, 2008 at 4:33 pm edit
Islam will provide no shelter for you as a sinner. Have you ever told a lie, stolen something, or looked with lust? Then you would be guilty. See to take the “Good Test”. Perhaps you could ever write a blog post about this test and what you think.

2. paarsurrey Says:
July 5, 2008 at 12:00 am edit
I admit, even witout writing this test, that I am a sinner. My question is who prepared this test and similiar other tests I have seen? Did Jesus prepare this test for the sinners? I don’t think he prepared it for me or you. If you are not a sinner; I congratulate you, I am not jealous of you. Now what should a sinner like me do or an innocent person like you should do? Kindly quote from Quran, OTBible or NTBible separately in this connection. The cure from sin is very important, I do agree with you.
Please don’t mind.
I love Moses, Jesus, Mary and Muhammad.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

While my friend has asked me to write a blogpost on sins.

My humble submission is that it is Paul who invented the theological philosophy that Jesus was an accursed person- a sinner, who died on Cross, for the atonement of the sins of the CatholicsProtestants and other Christians; never realizing the inner obvious contradictions lying hidden under this doctrine. Jesus would never say such a thing; it is a pure sinful imagination of Paul in my opinion. The sins of a person have no direct relationship with dieing of another person.

This was a cocept of the Christians for centuries; till such time that the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 pointed it out and rescued Jesus from it and proved that Jesus never died on Cross and he could not die as Jesus was an innocent person, not an accursed person who would have died on Cross. I give hereunder an argument given by him for the benefit of our Christian friends and brothers:

“Apart from this, it was necessary that he should escape death on the cross, for it was stated in the Holy Book that whoever was hanged on the wood was accursed. It is a cruel and an unjust blasphemy to attribute a curse to an eminent person like Jesus, the Messiah, for, according to the agreed view of all who know the language, la’nat, or curse, has reference to the state of one’s heart. A man would be said to be accursed when his heart, having been estranged from God, becomes really dark; when, deprived of divine mercy and of divine love, devoid absolutely of His Knowledge, blinded like the devil, he becomes filled with the poison of unbelief; when there remains not a ray of divine love and knowledge in him; when the bond of loyalty is broken, and between him and God there arises hatred and contempt and spite and hostility, so much so that God and he become mutual enemies; and when God becomes weary of him and he becomes weary of God; in short, when he becomes an heir to all the attributes of the Devil — and that is why the Devil himself is called accursed.

It is clear that the significance of the word Mal’un, viz. accursed, is so foul that it can never apply to any righteous person who entertains love of God in his heart. Alas! Christians did not ponder over the significance of a curse when they invented this belief; else, it were impossible for them to have used such a bad word for a righteous man like Jesus. Can we say that Jesus’ heart was ever really estranged from God; that he had denied God, that he hated Him and had become His enemy? Can we ever think that Jesus had ever felt in his heart that he was estranged from God, that he was an enemy of God, and that he was immersed in the darkness of unbelief and denial? If, then, Jesus had never been in such a state of mind, that his heart was always full of love and the light of Divine Knowledge, is it for you, wise people, to ponder whether we can ever say that, not one, but thousands of curses from God had descended upon the heart of Jesus with all their evil significance? Never.

Then, how can we say that he was, God forbid, accursed? It is a pity that once a man has given utterance to something, when he has taken his stand upon a particular belief, he is not inclined to give up that belief, however much the absurdity thereof be exposed. Desire to attain salvation, if grounded upon true foundations, is a praiseworthy thing, but where is the sense in having a desire for salvation which kills truth and which countenances, regarding a holy prophet arid a perfect man, the belief that he had as it were passed through a state in which he had been estranged from God, and in which, instead of unity of heart and unity of inclination, there had been produced a strangeness and aloofness, enmity and hatred; and, instead of light, darkness had surrounded his heart?

Let it also be noticed that this not only detracts from the prophethood and apostleship of Jesus (on whom be the peace of God) but it is also derogatory to his claim to spiritual eminence, holiness, love, and knowledge of God, to which he has repeatedly given expression in the gospels.

Just look through the Bible; therein Jesus clearly claims that he is the Light of the world, that he is the Guide, and that he stands in a relation of great love towards God; that he has been honoured by a clean birth, and that he is the loved Son of God. How then, in spite of these pure and holy relations, can a curse, with all its significance, be attributed to Jesus? No, never.

Therefore, there is no doubt that Jesus was not crucified, i.e., he did not die on the Cross, for his personality did not deserve the underlying consequence of death on the Cross. Not having been crucified, he was spared the impure implications of a curse, and no doubt it also proves that he did not go to heaven, for going to heaven formed part of this whole scheme and was a consequence of the idea of his having been crucified. Therefore, when it is proved that he was neither accursed, nor did he go to hell for three days, nor did he suffer death the other part of the scheme, namely, that he went to heaven, is proved to be wrong.”

Free Advertising

var sid = ‘31497’;
var title_color = ‘000000’;
var description_color = ‘646360’;
var link_color = ‘7FBE00’;
var background_color = ‘FFFFFF’;
var border_color = ‘646360’;


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Jesus was no sinner – an accursed person as held by Paul”

  1. Job Says:

    Jesus Christ’s crucifixion has been independently verified by documents from the Roman Empire as well as the Jewish (NOT CHRISTIAN!) historian Flavius Josephus. Paul was not even in Jerusalem when Jesus Christ was crucified, and he may not have even been alive. The Bible narratives of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ come from Matthew and John (two eyewitnesses), Mark (who traveled with the eyewitness Peter), and Luke (who spoke with other eyewitnesses). Claiming that Paul invented the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is a statement totally inconsistent with not only the New Testament but independently verified and documented history. And as for the significance of Jesus Christ’s death – an innocent man who was God in the flesh dying in place of the guilty as a sin offering as described in Leviticus, and incidentally Barabbas took the place of the scapegoat – was not invented by Paul, but rather described in John, Matthew, Luke, and the other gospels.

    The “Christianity was invented by Paul” notion is a common one of modern times, but it does not stand up to theological or historical scrutiny. In order for it to be true, Paul would have had to have written the entire New Testament rather than merely the books attributed to him.

  2. Job Says:

    Further, for Paul to have invented Christianity, the independent historical documents from Roman and Jewish sources would have had to have been frauds as well.

  3. paarsurrey Says:


    I respect your opinion and faith; yet I don’t agree with you. In my opinion, Paul had contradictory concepts; one one hand he teaches that Jesus was an innocent person while on the other hand Paul’s theological philosophy is based on an accursed Jesus, which makes Jesus a wrong doer and disobedient person. I love Jesus and Mary; instead of believing mythically that Jesus was an accursed person, I would rather leave Paul and I would side with Jesus.

    There is no harm in improving upon the cocepts propounded by Paul and make corrections in them to make them aligned with the simple concepts of Jesus based on OTBible, afterall Jesus and Mary were good Jews, a follower of Moses.


    I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: