Posts Tagged ‘sins’

Jesus is not a scapegoat of Paul’s sins

July 17, 2008

R H Kelkar Says:

Our learned friend R H Kelkar, who has translated New Testament into Marathi, a language in South India, has made following observations in his write-up titled “The Meaning of ‘Nava Karar “which could be viewed in entirety at : http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/

We only give salient points from his observations:

1. God had prescribed laws for His people. Those who followed them enjoyed privileges and God’s protection, and those who disobeyed the laws incurred punishment and God’s wrath.

2. The New Testament or ‘Nava Karar’ portrays God as a loving and forgiving father, who sent His son Jesus Christ to this world in human form with an offer of salvation for all humanity.

3. The price of our salvation has been paid on our behalf by Jesus Christ.

Paarsurrey comments:

We agree with his first point which is, in my opinion, the theme of OTBible and is correct as it agrees with Quran the Holy and the most secure Word of GodAllahYHWH.

The second point is not correctly derived by him from the OTBible or fom his first observation; hence it is not supported by Quran and hence incorrect. God is not a physical being, He has rather created the whole physical phenomenon as He willed. Nobody shares this or other of his attributes. Hence God is nobody’s physical or literal father. God is father of the humans in a metaphorics sense, nothing could get created without his order/will, this is the theme of the OTBible. God has no literal wife or He needs no sex that his off-shoots are called Sons of God. This is only in the metaphoric sense otherwise it carries not meaning literally and physically. GodAllahYHWH needs no wife or son; this is only a phenomenon of the mortal being and a sort of extension of life given by the Creator to one’s species. GodAllahYHWH is immortal. Quran is very clear in this aspect:
[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say ‘He is Allah, the One!
[112:3] Allah the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:5] And there is none like unto Him.
http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=112

We can agree with him if he reconciles to the above explanation.
Since the second point is not derived by him, the third one is most faulty, in my opinion.

Jesus did not pay any debt of any human beings; he never died a cursed death on Cross as incorrectly invented by Paul at Rome to misguide the Christian sheep. Jesus was not scapegoat. If anybody has any debt, he shall have to pay it himself. When Paul propounded this philosophy, Jesus was travelling in India, happily among his Jewish lost sheep of whom he was also a shepherd. He was never a shephered of the Gentiles, this is a concept wrongly ascribed to Jesus; this debt Paul shall have to pay for.

OTBible Says:

Son of God
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3.16
A DESCRIPTIVE TERM:
And they made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of captivity. EZRA 10.7
Then said he, These are the two sons of oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. ZECHARIA 4.14
Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial [satin], beset the house round about. JUDGES 19.22
The good seed are the children of the kingdom. MATTHEW 13.38
JESUS NOT THE FIRST BORN SON:
ANGELS
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and satan was among them. JOB 1.6 & 2:1
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. JOB 38.7
CHILDREN OF RIGHTEOUS:
That the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair. GENESIS 6.2
THE ISRAELITES:
And thou shalt say to Pharaoh. Thus said the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. EXODUS 4.22
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. EXODUS 4.23
You are the children of the Lord, your God. DEUTERONOMY 14.1
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. Ye are the sons of the living God. HOSEA 1.10
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html

Ahmadiyya under guidance of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 Says:

• The Term “Son of God”
While the term “Son of God” has been used in reference to Jesus, it should be noted that God has used this title for many of His chosen ones.

For example, God, in the Old Testament refers to David: “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you'” * (Psalm 2:7)

Furthermore, in a New Testament genealogy, Adam is listed as the “Son of God” (Luke 3.38). In fact, some may argue that Adam could have a greater claim over the “Sonship of God” because, unlike Jesus, he had neither an earthly father nor mother.

In order to reconcile these references and many others, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the Biblical usage of the term “Son of God” does not necessarily connote a literal “sonship to God” but a metaphorical one instead.

The Nature of Jesus

This metaphorical understanding is furthered by Jesus’ own words and actions. Jesus is known to have engaged in many human devotional activities such as fasting and praying. But perhaps the most significant evidence is that Jesus claimed to lack knowledge of the future because, as he claimed, only the Father possessed perfect knowledge. (Mark 13:32).

This is especially notable since Christian doctrine holds the view that Jesus’ nature is a “hypostatic union”. That is, he was “fully divine” and “fully man” at the same time. If this were true, then he should have at no point denied his own omniscience.

These, in addition to other philosophical considerations, lead one to question the biblical term “Son of God” and its literal application to Jesus.
http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/

Advertisements

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

July 5, 2008

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 http://www.livingwaters.com/good 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
Hi
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.
Thanks
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.”
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html


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’;

Jesus never died on Cross- no question of resurection

June 7, 2008

fridaynightsinferndale says in his post titled “resurrection – god saves”:

“Apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is no savior, no salvation, no forgiveness of sin, no hope of resurrected eternal life, and Jesus is reduced to yet another good but dead man and therefore of no considerable help to us in this life or at its end. Plainly stated, without the resurrection of Jesus the few billion people who worship Jesus today as God are fools and their hope for a resurrection life after this life ends is the hope of silly fools. Thankfully, there is good warrant to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death.”

 

 

Paarsurrey comments:

 

Hi

 

I respect your faith.

 

The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 has convinced me otherwise with his rational and reasonable arguments from Quran and Bible that Jesus never died on Cross and hence there is no question of being resurrected from the dead for atonement of the sins of CatholicsProtestants.

 

In my opinion this was inventented by Paul to promote his own theological philosophy at Rome while Jesus was still alive and went to Eastern side to India. There were no two Jesuses.

 

I think the CatholicsProtestants should revise their incorrect concepts.

 

I love Jesus , Mary and Muhammad.

 

Kindly visit my blogsite for any peaceful comments and or peaceful discussion on interesting posts/pages there. You are welcome for your differing opinion/thoughts if you so like.

 

Thanks