|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi The Word,
Normally we give new members quite a bit of leeway as they familiarize themselves with how EvC Forum works, but you seem to be spamming the website so I'm suspending you right out of the box just to get your attention. When you return tomorrow you will post messages that are on topic and address the current discussion or I will suspend you permanently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
I'd characterize the topic somewhat more generally, as "exploring whether or not there is biblical support for original sin." But what you and some others really mean by this is, "Is there biblical support for original sin in addition to Romans 5?" I haven't seen anyone here try to deny that Rom 5 teaches original sin or that Rom 5 is part of the Bible.
kbertsche writes: And if you (or anyone else here) have references to the effect that the concept of original sin was completely absent from Judaism, feel free to present them as well. The topic is about showing Biblical support for original sin. ringo writes:
Unless you make the positive assertion that there is no support, in which case you should be prepared to back up your assertion with reason or evidence.
There's no obligation for me to prove (a negative) that there isn't any support. ringo writes:
We seem to agree in principle. We both agree that what the text says should be a fairly objective question. We both agree that the "meaning" should be what was understood by the original audience.
In Message 146, you said:
quote:I agree that a plain reading of the Genesis text is fairly objective but it's very different from the way you read it. You want to play Duelling Commentaries and I want to cut to the chase and go with what the original audience (the Jews) think of it. I don't mind "cutting to the chase" and investigating what the original audience thought of it; in fact, I have argued for this. But who was the original audience of Gen 2-3? It was Old Testament Jews, not modern Jews. How do we determine what OT Judaism though of Gen 2-3? Modern Judaism and modern Christianity both descended from ancient Judaism, but neither necessarily has the same perspective as the ancients did. You apparently don't like my suggestion of deferring to textual scholars. So what is your suggestion?
ringo writes:
Wrong. If your argument rests on the claim that modern Judaism has the same view of Gen 2-3 as did OT Judaism, then you certainly do bear the obligation to support this claim. There is a tremendous difference in time and culture between the OT and today. We would expect that a first century Jewish scholar would be closer in time and culture to the original audience of Gen 2-3, so why not trust a highly trained first century Jewish scholar on the matter? Why do you think modern Judaism has a more accurate perspective than the Apostle Paul?
There is no obligation for me to prove (another negative) that the Jews have not done a 180-degree turn on that subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
Not at all. Continuity of Judaism is the default position. If you think there's been a major change in the Jewish reading of Genesis or the speed of light, the obligation is all yours.
If your argument rests on the claim that modern Judaism has the same view of Gen 2-3 as did OT Judaism, then you certainly do bear the obligation to support this claim. kbertsche writes:
Because the Apostle Paul wasn't selling Judaism; he was selling Christianity. If all he was saying was what the Jews already believed, he was completely redundant.
Why do you think modern Judaism has a more accurate perspective than the Apostle Paul? kbertsche writes:
I don't see much point in having a whole thread to state a tautology. If there is any other evidence, for the love of God present it. I haven't seen anyone here try to deny that Rom 5 teaches original sin or that Rom 5 is part of the Bible. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In the Opening Post I said:
quote: It explicitly asks "Does Paul have some basis for the assertion in Romans 5?" We've examined Romans 5 and so far the ONLY support in it has been a reference to Genesis 2&3, the Garden of Eden story, and looking at those books I can see no support for Original Sin. We do know that the tradition of Yom Kippur goes back at least to when Leviticus was written, so attributed to Moses and likely formulated and finalized around 450 BCE. We also know that at the same relative period people the concept of the 'scape goat' developed where a goat was selected by lot to carry the iniquities of the nation away. So there appears to be ample evidence that the concept of some "Original Sin" was certainly not a major belief in Judaism. The question remains, in Romans 5, is Paul even proposing Original Sin as currently marketed and if so, is there any support for his position? Edited by jar, : fix date Edited by jar, : add word period to explain relative time period for the concepts of transitory as opposed to Original Sin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Sorry, but simply asserting a "default position" does not constitute logical support or reasoned argumentation for your view. Continuity of the Old and New Testaments is the "default position" of Christianity. Why is the modern Jewish "default position" any better than the Christian one? kbertsche writes: If your argument rests on the claim that modern Judaism has the same view of Gen 2-3 as did OT Judaism, then you certainly do bear the obligation to support this claim. Not at all. Continuity of Judaism is the default position. If you think there's been a major change in the Jewish reading of Genesis or the speed of light, the obligation is all yours. Asserting a "default position" strikes me as an attempt to avoid the hard work of actually interacting with the original text, history, and culture.
ringo writes:
Paul was trained by the leading rabbis, still saw himself as a Jew, and still attended the Synagogues. In his day Christianity was a sect of Judaism.
kbertsche writes: Why do you think modern Judaism has a more accurate perspective than the Apostle Paul? Because the Apostle Paul wasn't selling Judaism; he was selling Christianity. If all he was saying was what the Jews already believed, he was completely redundant. ringo writes:
Yes, I'm still a bit unsure of the thrust of the OP; its wording is a bit difficult to parse. If the teaching of Rom 5 is clear regarding original sin, then original sin is a biblical doctrine by definition, no matter where Paul got it from or how he supported it. The questions of why Paul interpreted Gen 2-3 the way he did, and whether or not it was viewed this way by the original audience, are good questions which I am interested to engage. But ultimately these questions have no effect on the question of whether or not original sin is a biblical doctrine.
kbertsche writes: I haven't seen anyone here try to deny that Rom 5 teaches original sin or that Rom 5 is part of the Bible. I don't see much point in having a whole thread to state a tautology. If there is any other evidence, for the love of God present it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
What is the evidence for this?
Paul was trained by the leading rabbis Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
The Old Testament is a Jewish book. The Jews naturally have a better claim to continuity than a dissenting sect. I find it bizarre that you think you understand their book better than they do themselves.
Continuity of the Old and New Testaments is the "default position" of Christianity. Why is the modern Jewish "default position" any better than the Christian one? kbertsche writes:
Your continuous refusal to provide any other evidence strikes me as an attempt to hide the fact that you don't have any.
Asserting a "default position" strikes me as an attempt to avoid the hard work of actually interacting with the original text, history, and culture. kbertsche writes:
So, why didn't Paul push the idea of original sin to all of that Jewish sect? Why only the Romans?
Paul was trained by the leading rabbis, still saw himself as a Jew, and still attended the Synagogues. In his day Christianity was a sect of Judaism. kbertsche writes:
Again, I have no doubt that you can find scholars who can spin original sin out of Genesis. But you'd have a much more convincing argument if you could find it anywhere else in the Bible. Once and for all, can you provide evidence for original sin outside of Genesis 2-3 and Romans 5? If you can, present it. If you can't, admit it. The questions of why Paul interpreted Gen 2-3 the way he did, and whether or not it was viewed this way by the original audience, are good questions which I am interested to engage. But ultimately these questions have no effect on the question of whether or not original sin is a biblical doctrine. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
This article, Reconsidering Paul on Original Sin, gives a different view of reading Paul. The idea is to view Paul as presenting a new Exodus. IOW, Paul framed the Christ event in the imagery of the Old Testament Exodus.
If sin is about membership with a group rather than about some innate taint, then our reading of Paul completely overturns the notion that Paul taught anything like the doctrine of Original Sin. Holland is clear on this point (Contours, p. 110):
"It follows that the body is not in some way the bearer of sin nor is sin a deformation that is biologically inherited as some have suggested...[Sin] is relational rather than legal...Whether a man or a woman is righteous or a sinner in the biblical pattern of thinking depends upon the community to which they belong." I haven't looked at all that Paul wrote through this lens, but it is an interesting theory and makes more sense in some cases. Thought you might find it an interesting read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I touch on that aspect in the OP.
quote: The problem is that yet again, he does not provide his support for that being anything more than his position. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Yes, I think we all agree that Paul supports his argument from Gen 2-3. I have already pointed out that there are hints of the concept of original sin in Gen 2ff (e.g. the wording of Cain's sin explicitly ties back to the curse on Eve). But the text of Genesis does not develop it nearly as far as Paul did. It explicitly asks "Does Paul have some basis for the assertion in Romans 5?" We've examined Romans 5 and so far the ONLY support in it has been a reference to Genesis 2&3, the Garden of Eden story, and looking at those books I can see no support for Original Sin. If we really want to answer your question, we need to try to determine two things:1) how the original audience (OT Jews, not modern Jews) understood Gen 2-3 2) how Paul (first century Judaism) understood Gen 2-3. So far, I see no evidence that anyone here is willing to engage these questions in a scholarly way. All I see is anachronistic, lazy appeals to the absence of the doctrine of original sin in modern Judaism. jar writes:
I thought we agreed on this, but perhaps not. I have already given my explanation of Paul's logical progression in Rom 5. If you disagree, please present an alternative explanation for what he is saying.
The question remains, in Romans 5, is Paul even proposing Original Sin as currently marketed and if so, is there any support for his position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Theodoric writes: What is the evidence for this?
kbertsche writes:
Paul was trained by the leading rabbis NET Bible writes:
Acts 22:3 I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated with strictness under Gamaliel according to the law of our ancestors, and was zealous for God just as all of you are today.Acts 22:4 I persecuted this Way even to the point of death, tying up both men and women and putting them in prison, Acts 22:5 as both the high priest and the whole council of elders can testify about me. From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I was on my way to make arrests there and bring the prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished. Gal. 1:13 For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I was savagely persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it.Gal. 1:14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my nation, and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Paul made his case by referring back to Genesis. We are trying to discuss whether or not his case made valid use of Genesis. For this, we need to determine how Genesis was understood in the OT and in the first century. We have not yet resolved this, and you continually refuse to engage the textual scholarship necessary to do so. Instead, you want me to make a case for original sin that is different from Paul's?? I view your request as a red herring and an attempt to avoid the topic at hand. Again, I have no doubt that you can find scholars who can spin original sin out of Genesis. But you'd have a much more convincing argument if you could find it anywhere else in the Bible. Once and for all, can you provide evidence for original sin outside of Genesis 2-3 and Romans 5? If you can, present it. If you can't, admit it. I have access to a number of textual commentaries on Genesis from a Christian perspective. I (again) invite you and others to present Jewish textual scholarship here, which I don't have easy access to. As I've said earlier, I would be very interested to see what Nahum Sarna or someone of his caliber says about the Garden of Eden story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
kbertsche writes: jar writes:
I thought we agreed on this, but perhaps not. I have already given my explanation of Paul's logical progression in Rom 5. If you disagree, please present an alternative explanation for what he is saying. The question remains, in Romans 5, is Paul even proposing Original Sin as currently marketed and if so, is there any support for his position? I did, in the Opening Post.
quote: Is Paul saying what I have also pointed out repeatedly. Until we have the capability to judge right from wrong, there can be no such thing as sin. There is no Original Sin, but after we ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we became responsible for our behavior. Of course, in that passage Paul seems to point out that Jesus should also be held responsible for his behavior. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
You're trying to narrow the discussion to that one area. I'm trying to find out if there's any other support for original sin. Is there any?
Paul made his case by referring back to Genesis. We are trying to discuss whether or not his case made valid use of Genesis. kbertsche writes:
Of course. Why on earth wouldn't you want to consider all of the evidence?
Instead, you want me to make a case for original sin that is different from Paul's?? kbertsche writes:
The topic at hand is any support for original sin. You're the one who's avoiding it. If there is no other support, say so. I view your request as a red herring and an attempt to avoid the topic at hand. I've asked before:
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
purpledawn writes:
Interesting article; thanks for the link. I'm curious how Holland understands Rom 5; the article doesn't say.
This article, Reconsidering Paul on Original Sin, gives a different view of reading Paul. The idea is to view Paul as presenting a new Exodus. IOW, Paul framed the Christ event in the imagery of the Old Testament Exodus.If sin is about membership with a group rather than about some innate taint, then our reading of Paul completely overturns the notion that Paul taught anything like the doctrine of Original Sin. Holland is clear on this point (Contours, p. 110): I haven't looked at all that Paul wrote through this lens, but it is an interesting theory and makes more sense in some cases. Thought you might find it an interesting read.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024