The sin that defeats Jesus

The ‘ultimate’ sacrifice?

by Ibn Anwar

According to Christians the sacrifice that Jesus allegedly made on the cross at calvary is the ultimate sacrifice that absolves all sins. So for example we read the following declaration from a Christian based missionary website,

“The life of the sinner was under the sentence of death until Christ by the shedding of His blood in the death on the cross released and cleansed us of all sin (Eph. 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5; 5:9). Christ bore the divine penalty and God is now free to forgive all sin and declare the believing sinner just in His sight (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18).” (source)

Does the sacrifice of Jesus truly absolve all sins according to the Bible(s)? Well, let’s look at the following verses that clearly contradict this Christian position.

“And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.” (Luke 12:10)

The above verse shows tha if anyone blasphemes the Holy Ghost he will NOT be forgiven. In fact, another verse that is pretty much related to that is even more explicit.

But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” (Mak 3:29)

The word used in the verse is ουκ which means never as is rendered above. It further says that the person who commits such a sin is guilty of an eternal sin. The word is αιωνιου which literally means everlasting as correctly translated in the Dhuay-Rheims version. But, of course eternal is also correct. The point is that anyone who commits such a sin will be guilty forever and it will never be forgiven. These verses utterly undermine the notion that the ‘blood’ of Jesus renders all sins forgiven. The blood of Jesus is overpowered by this sin. This sin triumphs over Jesus’ so called ‘ultimate sacrifice’. Perhaps we need another sacrifice?

On the other side of the coin the verses totally undermine the Trinity in that they designate the Holy Spirit a special position that is not shared at all by the other two persons in the ‘godhead’ i.e. the Father and Jesus. In fact, the verse in Luke says that if you say anything against the ‘Son of Man’ who is Jesus the second person in the Trinity you will be forgiven. In Mark 3:28 it says that “all blasphemies of men will be forgiven them”. The key word in that verse is “all” and then the next verse identifies an exception with the Holy Spirit. This means that Mark 3:28 to 29 tell us that blasphemy against both the Father and the Son is okay, but, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not. What this leads to is the total destruction of the concept of the Trinity which suggests that all three persons are ‘co-equal’. When the verses place such an emphasis on the Holy Spirit the other two are lowered in distinction. What this means is that the Holy Spirit is more important than both the Father and the Son so much so that if you blaspheme it you will NEVER be forgiven. The Trinity formula then should be changed to in nomine spiritus sancti, et petris, et fili or in the name ‘the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son’ as opposed to the standard established formula the ‘Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’ with the most important(according to the verses discussed) in the last position. It should occupy the first position! I sincerely hope however that this article will not bring about the creation of a new form of Trinity and a new batch of Trinitarians.

Related articles:

Salvation ONLY comes through sacrifice!

Jesus denies the crucifixion!

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

10 Responses to “The sin that defeats Jesus”

  1. Bfoali says:

    As-Sallamu-Alaykom,
    Great article Ibn Anwar,
    Your words are simple, your knowledge is a gift, your thoughts are eloquent and your facts are impeccable as we have come to learn from reading your postings but let us see if this statement of you stands to be true after taking a look at this article!.
    I wish you had done a response to the possible responses like you did in your other article (*) but unfortunately for your readers you did not.
    The only possible rebuttals I can see coming here is that
    A) Only a believer has his sins forgiven,
    B) If A is true than why would a believer curse the Holy Spirit?
    C) Making this only applicable to those who die in a state of disbelief (the ones who blaspheme the Holy Spirit)
    Even the source you use in a way shows this to be true ‘’ cleansed us of all sin (Eph. 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5; 5:9). Christ bore the divine penalty and God is now free to forgive all sin and declare the believing sinner just in His sight (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18).’’ (Emphasis on cleansed us and believing sinner)
    To be fair if we respond back by saying that ‘’Hey the verse says it will NEVER forgive and the Greek word implies Eternal Sin’’ the simple rebuttal to that would be ‘’ well the Quran says that the only unforgivable sin is Shirk, and no one will be forgiven for shirk.
    That is a possible rebuttal I can see coming from a Christian. Only Allah Knows Best.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Assalamu’alaikum,
      Thank you for your words my dear friend. Yes, perhaps you’re right in saying that I should have followed the methodology that I applied for the article God is not a man = Jesus is not God. However, I think the argument is crystal clear and the possible counter-arguments that you have kindly shared with us do not really stand to scrutiny. Possible counter rebuttal A fails when the context is read. The verse isn’t addressed to disbelievers but rather those who believed and accepted Jesus i.e. his disciples and the crowds that gave him their attention(Luke 12:1-4). So that means if a believer blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he will not be forgiven. Possible counter rebuttal C fails when one reads the verses carefully. They do not in anyway suggest that this sin shall be everlasting if the guilty dies in the sin unrepentant. It says very clearly that the sin is everlasting and can never be forgiven. What about the verse in the Qur’an about shirk? Is it the same as the verses in Luke and Mark? No, it isn’t If you read the verse you will be able to see that it does not say that the sin of shirk can “never” be forgiven and the sin is not in any way described as an “everlasting sin”. In fact, unlike the Christians we have a tradition of understanding the Qur’an based on reasons for revelation(the context and background) that are not immediately apparent in the text but are available nonetheless provided in books of tafsir as well as the Sunnah. All of these sources point to the singular interpretation that the verse refers to those who die in the state of shirk without repenting. What you have to remember Bfoali is that Christian doctrine teaches that God is unable to truly forgive without blood sacrifice and specifically that of Jesus'(Hebrews 9) in which case when you read the verses in Luke 12 and Mark 3 you will be able to agree with me that they make the point in saying that if they commit blasphemies(including against Jesus) other than that against the Holy Spirit then they WILL BE FORGIVEN. What allows for the forgiveness according to Christian doctrine is the blood sacrifice as the quote says, “Christ bore the divine penalty and God is now free to forgive all sin”. Why would the verses say that any blasphemy may be forgiven but blasphemy against the holy spirit will never be forgiven if indeed all sins will be forgiven anyway? With the Christian doctrine that God can only forgive with Jesus’ blood atonement in place it makes no sense to have such a differentiation. What this means is that(provided we do not forget that according to Christian doctrine God can only forgive with Jesus’ sacrifice)the verses clearly exclude the sin against the Holy Spirit as part of the atonement package. The verse in Mark 3 designate the sin as something that WILL NEVER be forgiven and identifies it as an everlasting sin. None of the possible rebuttals stand.

      • Bfoali says:

        As-Sallamu-Alaykom,
        First and foremost I agree with you one hundred percent on a lot of what you said. My fault and biggest mistake came from my confusion in regards to who is being spoken about. I assumed that Jesus was addressing the Pharisees or the others who did not believe in him as a prophet or a man sent by God. If I took some time and actually read who Jesus was addressing than I surely would not have used those rebuttals, so my lack of understanding of who was being spoken to was my biggest problem. Brining up Islam to help my cause in attempting to come up with possible rebuttals was shattered as soon as I knew who was being spoken about, God will forgive Shirk unless you die upon it, as opposed to here where blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable and being a Christian doesn’t help your cause.

        With my new understanding of who was being spoken about I can actually now appreciate the article for what it is and now I see how this puts Christians in an interesting predicament.

  2. Abdul-Qadar says:

    Me thinks, who will come & die for the sin which is bigger than the original sin?

    Oh boy, the christians are stuck, big time!

    Jazak’Allah for this paper.

    With Dua,
    A-Q.

  3. ibnsaad says:

    MashAllah, i’m going to use this next time when I discuss original sin.

  4. ARMY OF JESUS IS ISLAM says:

    Selamu alaykum,
    Just smashing simple evidence exposing the Salvation holks. Notice how Pauls teachings always contradict the 4 gospels who are according to the writers what they believed Jesus said and taught…
    There goes the concept of salvation in the bin with the trinity equality concept. Just exceptional work by brother ibn Anwar.

    There is one verse that is striking evidence refuting the Christian claim that Jesus mission was to come and die for the sins of man as a blood sacrifice:

    Bible:John 17: 4 Jesus said’’ I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do.

    So if Jesus was alive when he uttered these words claiming he finished the works of the father long before the crucifixion did Jesus forget that he didn’t complete his job until he dies?
    Hmmm..maybe he simply forgot what do you think? It would have made a lot of sense if he said these words on the cross, but he didn’t instead he said” My God My God why have you forsaken me?

    Question again? Why is jesus claiming his work was already finished before the cruicifiction event?
    Why is Jesus rebuking his God on the cross? it doesn’t sound like he came to do this job of sacrificing himself. Nor was he intending to do this voluntarily So what the hell is going on?
    Well one thing is for sure Jesus never intended or came to die for the sins of man as the bible says:

    (Deuteronomy 24:16)The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin

    So who is making this up? Well I think its ovious just take a guess?. Ta Ta

  5. ARMY OF JESUS IS ISLAM says:

    Was Jesus the ultimate sacrifice as Christians claim?

  6. rocky says:

    i was wondering if brother ibn anwar comment on the following

    christians believe that their god died for FUTURE sinners.

    question is, how did future sin which is created in the future, make its way back in time and plaster itself on jesus’ body?

    how is it possible that sin of a person pre exists the person it (sin) belongs to?

    yes ALLAH sees ALL sin, past , present and future (even before existence of earth),but does ALLAH activate/actionise future sin in the PAST ?

    the father, according to christian theology, TURNED AWAY/FORSOOK the son member of trinity.

    “too many sins to look at”

    this caused a break/seperation/forsaking in trinity .

    problem is , god is RESPONSIBLE for controlling and applying FUTURE SINS on his son , not the humans who come in the future.

    how can he turn away from his OWN APPLICATION ?

  7. rocky says:

    let me explain “future sin”

    you today in 2010 beat up sam shamoun

    does this mean that the sin of beating up sam shamoun travelled back in time?

    did i really beat up jesus on the cross?

    did jesus suffer when i beat him up?

    when x rapes y does this mean in reallity x made jesus suffer because he raped him (jesus) ?

    or did jesus die for sins which did not exist ?

    he made suffering for that which existed in the fathers mind lol?

  8. Jesus says:

    Good one .

    The Atheist who converted to Christianity and are fervent in their new faith like Lee Strobel who wrote ‘ The case for Christ ‘ and the hate monger David Wood are doing everything for their new faith in vain as the blood of Jesus will not save them of the blasphemy they did when they were atheist by not believing in Holy Ghost !!!

Leave a Reply