Importance of Original Sin

You can ask any question you want but I see no connection between what I posted in Message 3.A better question is whether or not the concept of Original Sin existed at the time or is Biblical and justified?As I pointed out in Message 3 you can only connect Paul to the con job of Original Sin by quote-mining Paul's writings and then also adding stuff to them.We can say for sure that Paul had no problem playing fast and loose with the truth if it helped him as a marketeer of his new creation, Christianity.There is no evidence that Paul was chosen to the "Apostle to the Gentiles" or that he was in fact "Apostle to the Gentiles".And yes, what Paul said is totally different than what is marketed today.Have you read the Bible yet?

Thats quite a statement. I suppose you dont believe in the grace of God. You seem to imply that since Jesus was Jewish, He only came to show everyone a right way to live and that His death meant nothing. Anglicans surely are confusing....too legalistic for my blood.

Solomon says "See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29) 1.) God made man upright.
2.) Sometime afterwards man sought out many schemes making him no longer upright as he was made.
3.) There is a record in the Bible of a FIRST transgression which started the downhill decline into moral degradation. Yes. We can see that Adam taking the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the first instance of the created man sinning against God.It is evident from the story of Cain and Abel, offerings were prescribed towards God to atone for their sins. This is in Genesis chapter 5.It is also evident that God had to warn Cain that sin as a kind of lurking evil beast was inwardly seeking to pounce on his behavior. God said to Cain - "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up ? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Gen. 4:7) Afterwards Cain succumbs to temptation and murders his brother Abel out of jealousy. Without resorting to any Pauline epistle we can see in Genesis a first sin committed by the first created man. And we can see sin as a kind of personified evil with a "desire" crouching at the door of man's heart seeking to compel man to sin.Man was made upright in his creation. But he sought out many evil schemes making him no longer upright. Adam and Eve's history, plus the offerings, plus the sin of murder by Cain show the biblical ground for sin's entrance into the whole human race. This false accusation is exposed in the above explanation. Without specific reference to Paul we can see man's FIRST transfression and the effect it had on his descendents, namely Abel and Cain.I might add also the exclusion of the first couple from "the tree of life" reveals that God would not have them live forever once this event of their sinning had taken place.It is not only that a command was transgressed. Apparently we see that something of a foreign element entered into them and was also passed on to there first descendents. Once again God says to Cain concerning this: " ... sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Gen. 4:7) The "door" must mean the door to his heart or the door to his actions emanating from his psychological being. There exists a power struggle between man's will and the evil will of some kind of personified force which is seeking opportunity to drive man's will to do evil.In spite of jar's slanderous false accusation against the Apostle Paul Genesis is adequate to what some teachers refer to as original sin. I myself do not use the phrase. This accusation is similar to the serpent trying to warn Eve that God was playing fast and loose in warning them that to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would bring them into death.God seeks man's highest blessing. But the slanderer wants to portray God and His servants as arbitrary despots out to do hinder man from well being.But we see the sin nature passed on and working in Cain. We see it probably being atoned for by animal sacrifice on behalf of both Abel and Cain. (Though Cain invented his own way to come to God). And we see David, speaking as a representative of all men saying that he was born in iniquity. This means from birth he was defective with a sinning nature - "Against You and You alone have I sinned, and I have done evil in Your sight. Therefore you are righteous when You speak; You are clear when You judge.

​

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:4,5) David's realization is that there is a deep sinning nature which he has possessed from birth. This is consistent with Cain being warned that sin was crouching at the door of his heart seeking opportunity to drag him down into an evil act.I have used no reference to a Pauline statement yet. This proves that Paul was only echoing what he read in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and what he experienced in his own life. Of course he also wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.There is no evidence that Paul was chosen to the "Apostle to the Gentiles" or that he was in fact "Apostle to the Gentiles". [/qs]Twenty seven books are in the New Testament canon. About thirteen of them are the writings of the Apostle Paul. And the book of Acts gives considerable attention to the history of the early church. That history includes how God used Paul to preach the new covenant to the nations beyond the Jewish.Since so much bulk material comes from the teaching of Paul it is not hard to see why he is called an Apostle to the Gentiles. Of course we see him quite concerned to preach to the Jews also.In fact in the church which Paul describes as normal there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. There is what he calls "one new man" . This statement I would agree with in part. I would not take it totally. But to some degree it is so.This of course does not mean that anyone wishing to become a Christian should HAVE to follow the same mistake. And in fact many take the Pauline ministry today as he taught it originally. That is to as much a degree as we can discern he taught. We do not have EVERY message Paul preached.What God has allowed to survive and be included in the New Testament cannon is adequate. I firmly believe that it is what the sovereign God wants us to know of what all Paul taught - no less and no more.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And what do you base either of those assertions on?

I don't see where anything you said points to subsequent transgressions being "effects" of the first transgression.

Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden ? Why were their children not able to freely enter it ?

Because the God character in the story was afraid that Adam or Eve would eat from the Tree of Life and become Gods according to the story. It had nothing to do with sin, something neither Adam or Eve is said to have committed.

I take your answer as yours, and Ringo's answer as his. Maybe he is waiting to see how your reply works. I don't know. Sin makes a separation between man and God. "No, Jehovah's hand is not so short that it cannot save; Nor is His ear so heavy that it cannot hear.

​

But your iniquities have become a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear." (Isaiah 59:1,2) The reason God is not real to you and that you feel alienated from God is because of your sins which need forgiveness and cleansing away in His redemption.

Why could not Adam and Eve's children not simply go back into the garden of Eden from which their parents had been expelled ?Whatever reason Adam and Eve were expelled must have continued to be the same reason Cain and Abel could not simply boldly go back into the garden. Instead we see them coming with an offering to be accepted or rejected by God.Abel's sacrifice - with blood, was accepted.
Cain's sacrifice - without blood, was rejected.
And in a fit of unnecessary jealously murdered his brother.Latter we see that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Abel's sacrifice was a foreshadow of Christ's redeeming death.
Cain's sacrifice was the invention of the world's first religion in man creating his own terms by which he thinks God will accept him.The problem that entered into Adam passed down to his children.
That is that sin was crouching at the door of their hearts enticing them towards evil doing and further rebellion against God.God to Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve - " ... sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Gen. 4:8) Aside from this the New Testament is the word of God and needs no apology. It is authoritative as God's word that Paul says that through Adam sin entered into the world (Rom. 5:12). "Therefore ... through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus death passed on to all men because all have sinned ..." I have only shown that Paul's revelation is quite consistent with Genesis and other portions of the Old Testament. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

To me, your world view is not a traditional Christian Theistic one at all. For starters, you never directly talk of knowing God at all-hence you cannot see how Paul was doing anything other than marketing for his own ends. Tell me what salesman you know in this world would risk his life the way Paul did simply to sell something? I guess I should elaborate and say that what frustrates me about how you picture Paul is that Paul is not a servant of Jesus Christ as he claims to be but is simply a man with an ego selling a product. So in a sense I suppose that Ringo was right in that I DO have issues with how you frame Christianity into your narrow framework and give no honor to the time tested idea that God is living and personal. I know that I was changed and have been changed, and the change was initiated by more than a "bad burrito"...Perhaps I waste too much time here at EvC trying to convince people that my belief is valid...perhaps I should be out "marketing" to those willing to accept the product. All I can say in my defense and maybe self justification is that the product is worthy of acceptance and if I didn't have this important concept known as God to talk about, I would be rather bored and hollow---not to mention feeling as if my purpose in life was not that big a deal in the grand scheme of reality. Does that answer your question or did I find a rabbit trail?

Could it be that a man who does not know God is also unable to comprehend what sin is? Or would you say that everyone intuitively knows...?

People know when they have been wronged. To that they are very sensitive.When they have wronged OTHERS, they usually are somewhat less sensitive but not totally so.We demand rectification when we are on the side of being sinned against.
We may be less concerned when we have sinned against another, but not always totally so. It depends on the God created conscience within, whether we heed it or not.I think SIN literally means to "miss the mark" refering to archery. I could be mistaken. But I recall hearing that. When others "miss the mark" concerning us we usually know it. When we do so to others we sometimes are aware and sometimes not wanting to admit it.This means we are not equal. We are IN-EQUAL here. We commit INIQUITY - being unequal in judgment - biased.So I believe knowing God well or not man is aware of sin.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Again, you simply post utter bullshit.God was not separated from Adam and Eve in the story. Have you ever actually read the Bible? Why do you feel you must misrepresent what the Bible actually says? And yet more bullshit.What is not real to me is the tiny little picayune god you try to market; a pathetic and revolting caricature of the Christian God that any honest person would and should oppose. You are trying to sell a cheap copout version of Christianity based on nothing but FUD.

Several thoughts.

If it turned out that jaywills God was in fact the real one, would you still refuse to worship It? What if the God that you suggest to us is not the real One either? Christians generally agree that God is knowable.

First, absolutely nothing in your reply addresses the questions asked. Once again you simply pontificate and try to misdirect attention. Let's look at the conversation.In Message 287 you said: In Message 289 I replied: Now granted, I should have asked "On what do you base those two assertions" but in debated we often use idiomatic and even grammatically incorrect wording.So in reply to that conversation you now post: What does any of that have to do with what I asked?How much have you studied "traditional Christianity"? Do you even have a clue what that is or are you speaking idiomatically and pretending that what YOU have personally experienced is traditional Christianity?You claim that you think but is this an example of what you mean by "thinking"?I have asked you several times to explain how you "Know" god but you never provide the means of determining whether it is actually knowing god or a bad burrito. What I don't do is call out "Lord, lord."Lot's of people risk their lives to market what they believe; some examples are the 9-11 hijackers, James Jones, Ted Kaczynski, lots of fanatics so Paul's behavior (if we actually knew his behavior) really says nothing about whether or not he was correct.