by A.S.K. Joommal  

            Questions are already asked at the end of the sections on Atonement, Trinity, and the “Sonship” of Christ. To a mind capable of thinking, those questions would prove veritable eye-openers. Below we are merely jotting down points for consideration. It is good to exercise the mind sometimes, and the following points will, we feel sure, jog the mind to action and set a train of thoughts. If the reader comes to a rational conclusion regarding these points, then our effort at formulating these points would have been worthwhile. 

(1)        In Deuteronomy we read that a false prophet shall die, even if he performs miracles. It is the belief of Christians that Jesus died on the cross. Now, judged by the words of Moses, Jesus does not pass the test of a true prophet. He suffers the accursed death on the cross. This, according to the Word of God revealed through Moses, condemns Jesus as a false prophet. To the Christians, this indeed proves a predicament. Either they acknowledge the authority of Deuteronomy or reject Jesus outright. In either case our Christian friends face an insurmountable difficulty. 

(2)        The theory that the Fall of Adam of necessity involved all his progeny, is unacceptable on logical and Biblical grounds. 

Firstly: it is against Divine justice and fairness to account the innocent son as guilty when He knows that the culprit is the father.

Secondly:  it is opposed to the express teachings of the Old Testament. Ezekiel and Jeremiah both say that God does not punish the son for the sins of the father. An apt illustration is given to bring out and impress the point: sour grapes eaten by the father do not set the son’s teeth on edge. 

Thirdly: it is against the teaching of the New Testament, for Luke says that both Zacharias and his wife were righteous in the sight of God, fulfilling all His behests. Yet both were descended from Adam. 

Fourthly:  such a teaching is opposed to our everyday experience and observation, for we often see bad fathers begetting good sons. If the sins of a father penetrate into the son, then every drunkard’s son must of necessity be a drunkard, which is not so. 

(3)     (a)           Christians greatly emphasise the fact that Christ performed miracles. They say that Jesus was God, therefore he could do all those things. Would the Christians concede divinity to other prophets if it is proved that these prophets too worked similar powerful signs – nay, even greater in certain cases? 

                        Christ’s greatest miracle is said to be the raising of the dead, but we find that other prophets too worked this wonder. See 2 Kings, 4:35; Ezekiel, 37:10; 1 Kings, 17:22. Even the CORPSE of Elisha raised a dead man to life (2 Kings, 13:21). 

(b)         Christ’s second miracle is said to be the healing of the sick. But here too we find the other prophets doing just the same thing. Elisha cured Naaman of his leprosy (2 Kings, 5:14). Joseph healed his father’s blindness (Genesis, 46:4-30). 

(c )       The third miracle of Jesus is said to be his increasing of wine and loaves. Even here we find the prophets abreast of him. Elijah blessed the barrel of meal and the cruse of oil so that they did not fail in spite of the  daily demand on them. (1 Kings, 17:13-16). Elisha blessed the pot of oil so that not a vessel was left empty in the neighbourhood (2 Kings, 4:2-6). 

(d)        His fourth miracle is said to be his walking on the waters and staying the storm. But Moses did more. With his rod he struck the waters and parted them into two so as to leave a dry passage between. 

                        Joshua dried up the waters of Jordan and Elijah parted the waters. 

(4)        Jesus told his disciples that if they had faith even of the size of a mustard seed, they would perform works similar to his works or even greater. If, then, his divinity is based on his miracles, his followers who call themselves Christians, have as much right as he, in some cases even better, of performing miracles. 

(5)         Jesus warned his disciples against false prophets who would show such wondrous signs that they would mislead his disciples.

                        Now, if a false prophet can work miracles according to Jesus, is it not, then, time to modify our test of divinity, seeing that the working of miracles is no sure test? 

(6)       (a)        To say that Jesus is sinless as he is not sprung from the seed of Adam, is not borne out by the Bible. Satan is not of the Seed of Adam, yet he is sinful. 

The serpent is not of the Seed of Adam, yet the Bible holds it as sinful. Those devils or evil spirits that Jesus drove miraculously, do not appear to be of the same origin as man, yet they are called evil and unclean. 

(b)        It is a well-known fact that the child inherits many of the habits, tendencies and propensities of his parents. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not sinless being of the Seed of Adam. Therefore Jesus must have inherited, acquired and contracted many of the weaknesses inborn in Mary. 

(c)         Moreover, if Jesus is not of Adam, why is he called the Son of Man? 

(d)         If all those who are not of the seed of Adam are sinless, then Jesus cannot enjoy a special, exclusive right to this attribute that makes him a God. The angels are not descended from Adam, and they are sinless. Again, Melchisedec, King of Salem, is not sprung from Adam and he is sinless. If sinlessness entitles someone to godhead, then indeed Melchisedec and all the angels are entitled to it.  

(7)        The Bible says that Adam was expelled from the Garden of Eden because he committed a sin. Since his fall involved his progeny as well, it was laid down as a punishment that man was to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, and that woman was to give birth to her children with great pain. At the same time our Christian friends assert that Jesus took upon himself the sins of men and he was drawn upon the cross to suffer the agony of an expiatory death, thus atoning for the sins of men. 

                        Well, may a non-Christian ask, where is the effect of that atonement? The sweat of the brow and the travails of childbirth should have been the exclusive lot of the non-Christian world, since the fountainhead  of these troubles was stopped for ever in the case of Christians. But our actual experience belies this for the Christians of the world still sweat, and the Christian women are on a par with their non-Christian sisters in suffering the pangs of childbirth. What sort of remission did Jesus, then, earn for those who believe in him if this remission does not exempt them form toil, sweat and travail? “Thy sins are forgiven” thus sounds very hollow. 

                        On the other hand if Eve’s sin involved the whole of her sex, then it stands to reason that not a single woman should escape the “punishment” meted out to woman in the form of excruciating pains at the time of childbirth. But we find in life that there  are, and there have been, many women who never suffered the pangs of childbirth because they were barren. This, however, is an invidious “distinction” which is equally shared by even the Christians.

                        Moreover, it is common knowledge, and physicians are agreed, that some women bear children without any antecedent or consequent pain … which proves conclusively that the travail is not due to the sin of Eve, otherwise none would have escaped it. 

(8)        A woman mentioned in Matthew (15:21-26) and Mark (7:24-27) is described to have approached Jesus in great humility. In accordance with the custom of her people, she fell at his feet and desired his mercy and his help. But Jesus, according to the Gospel writer, said: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs”. (Matthew, 15:26) 

                        With what longing and expectation this poor woman must have approached Jesus! And she went not to beg for bread or cloth or for any such material things: all she wanted was spiritual guidance. She wanted from him just what Jesus had come to give. But the Gospel writers say that Jesus not only refused her his blessings, but insulted her by calling her a “dog”! 

If the Gospel account is true, then Jesus had proved with this utterance that he had nothing to offer to the non-Jewish people as his thoughts were concentrated on the well-being of the Jewish people only. He preferred to have his feet anointed by a sinning Jewish woman (Luke, 7:36-38) rather than speak a kind and comforting word to a non-Jewish woman. 

                        Does a prophet of God use invectives, dishonour and curse those whom he had come to save? This narrative places a great strain on one’s credence. 

(9)         Christians vehemently assert that theirs is a universal religion and that Jesus came to preach the Gospel unto “all nations”. This contention is clearly repudiated by Jesus in the following words: 

(i)         “I am NOT sent but unto the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.”  (Matthew, 15:24) 

(ii)        “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” (Matthew, 15:26) 

(iii)       “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.”(Matthew, 10:5-6) 

                                   How strange it is that in direct contravention of the commandment of their Master, the Christians of to-day are trying to spread the Gospel to those for whom it was never meant and sent! 

(10)      The attitude of Christians to the law never ceases to perplex and bewilder the intelligent mind. Jesus Christ was absolutely honest and straightforward when he said that he had not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it. But how daring and plucky St. Paul must have been when he defied his Master and declared that: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” (Galatians, 3:13) 

                        On the one hand Jesus is doing his utmost to impress upon his flock that they must adhere to the law since he himself has come to fulfil it and not to destroy the law; on the other hand St. Paul takes upon himself the liberty to nullify – with one fell swoop – what his Master had taught, by pronouncing law to be a curse and fabricating the story that Christ was made a curse thus redeeming the Christians from the “curse” of the law. 

                        We do not know to what extent St. Paul had acquired legal training, but his use of the word “curse” in connection with the law, sounds very much like the rantings of an anarchist. It seems that St. Paul was keen to create a lawless society. Jesus came to fulfil the law and not to destroy it. St. Paul came to destroy the law and not to fulfil it! 

(11)      The Bible itself proves that the philosophy of offering the other cheek when smitten on the one is impracticable. Christ himself, though he exhorted his followers to give the other cheek, did not practise what he preached, for it is recorded in John 18:19-23: 

“The High Priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, WHY SMITEST THOU ME?” 

                        In accordance with his teaching, Christ should have kept silent and offered the other cheek also to the officer. But he did not do so. Instead, he protested thus showing plainly to the world that it is not possible to follow this precept – a precept which the Master himself could NOT carry out, although he preached it! 

                        St. Paul, too, did not carry out this command of Jesus, as the following quotation from Acts 23:1-3 shows:

 “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, GOD SHALL SMITE THEE, THOU WHITED WALL: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” 

St. Paul protested more or less in the same fashion as his Master had done when he was smitten by the officer. In this one respect, at least, St. Paul emulated Jesus … that is, he refused to “give the other cheek”, thus honouring the precept more in the breach than in the observance – exactly as Jesus had done! 

                                    A further interesting point emerges from the above quotation.        St. Paul objects strongly to being smitten “contrary to the law”. Yet he is the one to say that the law is a curse and Christ “redeemed  us form the curse  of the law”. Since he was redeemed from observing the law, why, then, does he object to the high priest not observing the law and his command as being “contrary to the law”? This is a clear case of St. Paul trying to have his religious cake and eat it too! 

(12)      “The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.” (Psalm, 145:20). This Biblical quotation confirms the fact that God showed his mercy to Lot and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah; that God delivered Noah from the deluge and the wicked perished. Why did God not deliver Jesus also from the machinations of the wicked Israelites? Why did He not destroy them instead?