 | |
| |
|
As per the doctrine of the original sin every human being is a sinner having inherited the original sin of Adam.
Jesus not Exempted from Original Sin
Is not Jesus a man? Is he not the descendant of Adam? Then is he free from original sin? Well. Christian Church may explain that Jesus having been conceived by a virgin without the usual biological father, was free from the curse of inheritance of the original sin of Adam. Please refer to the book of Genesis chapter 3, in which you will find that the forbidden fruit was first eaten by Eve, the spouse of Adam, Who in turn made Adam to eat it. Accordingly both the parents of the human race were involved in the same transgression. Thus not only Adam but also Eve was equally responsible for the original sin which is being transmitted to every man. Now let us come to the point.
Of course, Jesus did not have an Biological father, but he had an earthly mother Mary through whom the hereditary sin (original sin of Eve) should have been carried over to Jesus. In the other way, Mary was the daughter of Adam, who inherited the original sin of Adam, and when she conceived Jesus, Jesus instantly inherited the original sin from her. However, the fact remains that, in any case, Jesus could not have escaped from inheriting the original sin (May God forbid). When Jesus too inherited the original sin and was not free from it like any other human being, how could he atone being a sinner himself? In this way also the atonement doctrine is proved to be false.
Unsuitability of Jesus to offer Atonement
Further, according to the theory of Atonement all men are born sinners. Therefore to attain salvation a sinless person should atone and suffer in Hell for the remission of their sins, especially from the original sin which is being transmitted from man to man engulfing all mankind. Jesus was appointed for this great task, and therefore, to redeem mankind from sin, he should have atoned by suffering in Hell as ransom for the original sin of man.
Was Jesus a suitable person for this task of atonement? To know this we should examine the personality of Jesus. According to the prevailing belief of the Church, Jesus is one of the TRINITY, and appeared in the world in human form. In other words, the person of Jesus was comprised of human flesh and divine soul. If at all God required real atonement, was it wise to select Jesus himself, a God-part of TRINITY for this purpose, and does it matter or make any difference whether his divine soul enters paradise or Hell? As a matter of fact both Hell and Heaven are equally under the absolute control of God. Neither Hell can trouble God nor Heaven can comfort. Therefore atonement offered by a supernatural being cannot be regarded as a real atonement, as it should be offered by a sinless man. On this angle also, the atonement theory advocated by the Church is certainly incorrect. For once let us take it too for granted that Jesus suffered in Hell for the atonement of the sins of mankind.
Anticipated Destination of Jesus Hell- or Paradise ?
WHERE DID JESUS REALLY GO? TO HELL OR TO PARADISE? Dis Jesus go to Hell to suffer in atonement for the sinners? No. As per the theory of atonement he should go to Hell to suffer. But what is peculiary is, contrary to this Jesus expected to go to paradise. Read what Luke has to say about this in his gospel.
“AND THERE WERE ALSO TWO OTHER MALEFACTORS, LED WITH HIM TO BE PUT TO DEATH. AND WHEN THEY WERE COME TO THE PLACE, WHICH IS CALLED CALVARY, THERE THEY CRUCIFIED HIM, AND THE MALEFACTORS, ONE ON THE RIGHT HAND, AND THE OTHER ON THE LEFT”. (Luke: 23: 32-33).
“AND ONE OF THE MALEFACTORS WHICH WERE HANGED RAILED ON HIM, SAYING IF THOU BE CHRIST SAVE THYSELF AND US. BUT THE OTHER ANSWERING REBUKED HIM, SAYING, DOEST NOT THOU FEAR GOD. SEEING THOU ART IN THE SAME CONDEMNATION? AND WE INDEED JUSTLY, FOR WE RECEIVE THE DUE REWARD OF OUR DEEDS: BUT THIS MAN HATH DONE NOTHING AMISS. AND HE SAID UNTO JESUS, LORD, REMEMBER ME WHEN THOU COMETS INTO THY KINGDOM. AND JESUS SAID UNTO HIM, VERILY I SAY UNTO THEE, TODAY SHALT THOU BE WITH ME IN PARADISE.” (Luke 23: 39-43)
From a perusal of the above verses it is clear that Jesus assured the another malefactor that he would be in paradise with him that very day. If he were (as per the atonement theory) to go to Hell why did Jesus say that the other thief would be with him in paradise on the same day? Does not the verse clearly mean that Jesus expected to go to paradise immediately after his death instead of going to Hell? As a matter of fact, when Jesus was put on the Cross, death was inevitable and so, being a true prophet of God, Jesus was under the impression that he would attain paradise immediately after his death and consequently assured the other malefactor that he would also be with him in paradise that same day. If the atonement theory where true Jesus would not have said so, and expected to go to paradise and not to Hell. If he were really to atone for the sins of mankind, he should have gone to hell instead. In this way also the atonement doctrine is proved wrong.
The final point of atonement theory is that one who offers atonement should offer it with a free will and freedom of choice, whole heatedly and spontaneously. Atonement offered unwillingly is not atonement at all as it counter-acts the principle of atonement. And unwilling atonement would not be accepted, but on the other hand rejected like it was done in case of Cain, one of the two sons of Adam.
