|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ramoss writes:
Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul.
There are problems with the claims in Acts. 1) Acts was not written by Paul, so, it isn't Paul who is making the claims. ramoss writes:
Interesting speculations. But as far as I know, the only solid historical information on Paul comes from the New Testament. Perhaps Josephus, Pliny, or someone else wrote about him? If you have more historical sources on Paul, they are welcome.
2) When it comes to the theology and information that is discussed by Paul, rather than show any kind of knowledge of what Gamaliel taught, there is instead a contempt of what 'living under the law' meant. The lack of discussion of the theology of Gamaliel, and the very non-Jewish attitude towards the Law suggest this statement is inaccurate.. either a lie by Paul, or a story made up in his name.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
kbertsche writes: I'm sorry, but I had (and have) a lot of trouble parsing your OP. First, please explain what you mean when you say "Paul admits that he is being imprecise and inaccurate." He does not say this explicitly in the quote you provided, and I do not understand how you are reading Paul to come up with this claim. Please explain it in excruciating detail, for those like me who can't follow you. Second, it is dangerous to accuse an author of "imprecision and inaccuracy" if this is not explicit. It is more likely that the reader simply does not understand what the author is saying. First, no it is certainly not dangerous to accuse an author of anything. Get serious. And I can see no politer way to describe the discussion then as imprecise and inaccurate. Note Romans 5:12 and then Romans 5:13.
quote: Now forget for one moment that not only are both of his assertions in Rom5:12 not supported by the Genesis 2&3 fables but rather refuted by Genesis 2&3. He then goes on in the very next sentence to contradict and try to qualify, hedge, what he just said.
kbertsche writes: jar writes:
Why do you believe these claims? Where is your evidence for them? 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. Evidence? Reason is my evidence. How can you sin if you don't even have the capability to know right from wrong? It really is that simple. And please get serious about the nonsense that death is caused by sin. Death is the result of being born. I can find NO support for Paul's contention that death is the result of sin unless of course, you assert a truly evil God as much of Christianity seems to do.
kbertsche writes: jar writes:
Where does he say this? Of course, in that passage Paul seems to point out that Jesus should also be held responsible for his behavior. Huh?
quote: More of Paul's muddy thinking it seems. If Adam is the patter for Jesus then Paul needs to 'splain how Jesus is not one who sins and causes death. The whole passage is more like Madison Avenue tap dancing than reason or logic IF it is taken as addressing death and sin. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
kbertsche writes: No, Paul certainly does not say that "Sin that is not charged to an individual is of no consequence or relevance." He says the opposite, in fact. He says that though this sin is not charged as law-breaking, it causes death in the individual. Death is a significant consequence, don't you think?
jar writes:
No, Paul certainly does not say that "Sin that is not charged to an individual is of no consequence or relevance." He says the opposite, in fact. He says that though this sin is not charged as law-breaking, it causes death in the individual. Death is a significant consequence, don't you think?
It is even recognized and acknowledged by Paul in the very passage.
quote:Sin that is not charged to an individual is of no consequence or relevance. Death is not caused by sin and again, so far I have found no support for Paul's assertion that it is. Death is caused by being born. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I agree it is not Paul's argument.
I'm saying that I cannot find any support for Paul's position, he is just flat wrong. A sin that is not charged to someone is still of no consequence or relevance. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jar writes:
Maybe he didn't repeat it in the other epistles because he couldn't remember the steps. The whole passage is more like Madison Avenue tap dancing than reason or logic IF it is taken as addressing death and sin. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think part of the problem is that folk forget what Epistles are. They are a letter, addressed to an audience, not something written to anyone alive today. We only have one side of a conversation, cannot place much of it into the real context, and often cannot tell if something said would make more sense if we could see the whole discussion.
The idea that Death is the result of Sin and the idea of Original Sin are great examples. When they are questioned, the only support so far is "Paul said it". Well, Paul may have been wrong or we may have misunderstood him or what he said might even make sense if we had teh context of the rest of teh discussion. But we don't. So we need to look at what we do have and ask, "Does that make any sense at all?" Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul. Again I have to ask for evidence for your assertions. There is a considerable lack of consensus that Luke is the author of Acts.
quote:Source Whoever the author of Luke and Acts is there are also those that do not feel he was such a careful documenter.
quote:Source quote: SourceOriginal Source It seems there are a few scholars that would disagree with your assessment of Luke's capabilities. You are very good at presenting opinions as fact. There is little fact known in biblical authorship. So unless you can provide evidence of Luke as the author and back up your assertion that he was a "careful documenter" then all you have is a bunch of hooey. I have yet to see evidence for this assertion by you.
kbertsche writes: Paul was trained by the leading rabbis Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Your approach is dangerous if you are truly trying to understand Paul, meaning that you will likely misunderstand him. But more and more it appears that you do not really want to understand him at all, but rather to stand in judgment over him.
First, no it is certainly not dangerous to accuse an author of anything. Get serious. And I can see no politer way to describe the discussion then as imprecise and inaccurate. jar writes:
I see absolutely no reason to charge imprecision, inaccuracy, contradiction, or hedging. Qualificatin and clarification, yes. Your charges indicate that you are not understanding what he said and meant.
Note Romans 5:12 and then Romans 5:13.... He then goes on in the very next sentence to contradict and try to qualify, hedge, what he just said. NET Bible writes:
I still don't see any imprecision or inaccuracy, and I don't understand how you are reading the text to get this. I asked you to explain your reading in excruciating detail, which you did not do. Until you present your own phrase-by-phrase paraphrase and I can see how you are reading the text, we are probably talking past each other. Rom. 5:12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned—Rom. 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. I'm not sure that you even want to understand what Paul was saying. But in case you do, I would recommend reading this passages in some other translations or biblical paraphrases. Here are a few:
Paul, Rom 5:12-14 writes:
NIV:Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned Rom. 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. God's Word:Rom. 5:12 Sin came into the world through one person, and death came through sin. So death spread to everyone, because everyone sinned. Rom. 5:13 Sin was in the world before there were any laws. But no record of sin can be kept when there are no laws. Rom. 5:14 Yet, death ruled from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. Adam is an image of the one who would come. The Message:Rom. 5:12 You know the story of how Adam landed us in the dilemma we’re infirst sin, then death, and no one exempt from either sin or death. Rom. 5:13 That sin disturbed relations with God in everything and everyone, but the extent of the disturbance was not clear until God spelled it out in detail to Moses. So death, this huge abyss separating us from God, dominated the landscape from Adam to Moses. Rom. 5:14 Even those who didn’t sin precisely as Adam did by disobeying a specific command of God still had to experience this termination of life, this separation from God. But Adam, who got us into this, also points ahead to the One who will get us out of it. jar writes:
You are coming to the text and insisting that it follow your understanding of the terminology. This is again dangerous (in the sense that you will likely misunderstand what the text is trying to communicate).
kbertsche writes:
Evidence? Reason is my evidence. How can you sin if you don't even have the capability to know right from wrong?
jar writes:
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. Why do you believe these claims? Where is your evidence for them? It really is that simple. jar writes:
Paul clearly states that "sin entered the world through one man and death through sin." In other words, death is the consequence of sin, according to Paul. You are free to disagree with Paul on this, but you cannot ignore this claim and hope to understand his logical argument.
And please get serious about the nonsense that death is caused by sin. Death is the result of being born. jar writes:
Evidence has been presented to you multiple times, but you simply ignore it as if it didn't exist. This is the third time I will have pointed out that the wording regarding Cain's murder of Abel intentionally ties back to God's curse on Eve--look back at my earlier post for the details.
I can find NO support for Paul's contention that death is the result of sin unless of course, you assert a truly evil God as much of Christianity seems to do. jar writes:
No, the muddy thinking is all yours. If you look at the context (the next few verses after 14, especially verse 18) you will see what Paul means by a "pattern." It's not what you claim. quote:More of Paul's muddy thinking it seems. If Adam is the patter for Jesus then Paul needs to 'splain how Jesus is not one who sins and causes death. The whole passage is more like Madison Avenue tap dancing than reason or logic IF it is taken as addressing death and sin. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
First, it's presumptuous to claim you know what the authors intentions were. Second, you're adding to the author's point by adding the word "controlling" to Eve's desire. Third, if the link between the stories is so strong, then Eve is the equivalent of sin. Eve would have a controlling desire for Adam; sin had a controlling desire for Cain. The author is intentionally and pointedly tying Cain's sin back to the curse on Eve. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When Paul begins his argument with fallacies, it is not surprising if he ends up with a fallacy.
I have pointed out many times here at EvC that had Paul used Cain as his reference, he might have been able to make some case for death entering through sin. It would still have been a weak case and I believe one that again would be wrong and could be shown to be wrong. But he didn't. I also have absolutely no problems if YOU happen to read Romans 5 and come to some different conclusion. But for you to continue to use terms like "dangerous" just comes across as silly. I will admit that I am amazed that you cannot see inconsistency when Paul says sin entered the world through one man but sin was in the world already. BUT... as I read it Paul is saying something entirely different then the concept of "Original Sin" as commonly marketed by much of today's Christian Churchs. There is no "Original Sin" that is inherited. Nor is death caused by Sin. Death is the result of being born, and always was. If that was not true then there would have been no purpose for the creation of the Tree of Life. But humans are different than the rest of the animals (although we are now learning that we are not as different as Paul thought) in understanding that there is right and wrong behaviors and in building a society based on a set of laws prescribing and proscribing behavior. If a lion kills its brother lion over breeding rights or food or position in the hierarchy, it is an amoral act. It was not seen as a sin because other animals were not seen as knowing right from wrong. Humans though, have the Great Gift from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We have been given the tools needed to make good choices. That Gift though also entails responsibilities, we are charged to try to do right and will be judged, unlike the other animals, on how well we perform. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 326 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Hows abbout you ask the Jews they use the same text the only thing missing is the new testament cause they dont belive jesus was the messias.
And i do not think Jews have a concept of original sin. So if you want to find something that points to the original sin it would be found in the new testament. Though why the original sin would be hidden from the knowlage of man kind until jesus came along is a noter question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
You may replace "Luke" in my sentence above by "the author of Luke/Acts" if you wish. I don't believe there is serious scholarly disagreement that the same person wrote both books. The early church Fathers (second and third centuries) attributed both works to Luke, the companion of Paul. As you say, current scholarship is not unanimous on this point. kbertsche writes:
Again I have to ask for evidence for your assertions. There is a considerable lack of consensus that Luke is the author of Acts. Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul. If you accept that the same person wrote both Luke and Acts, his own claims as to his goals are pertinent:
NET Bible writes:
Luke 1:1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,Luke 1:2 like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. Luke 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, Luke 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught. Theodoric writes:
Yes. Almost every claim that one can make in any field of study can and will be criticized by someone, as you so aptly illustrate by your criticisms. Biblical studies is not unique in this respect; the same is true of global warming, the age of the earth, etc. Whoever the author of Luke and Acts is there are also those that do not feel he was such a careful documenter.... It seems there are a few scholars that would disagree with your assessment of Luke's capabilities. The scholarly view in the nineteenth century was that "Luke" was a poor historian and geographer who had no first-hand knowledge of the region he wrote about. But this view came from armchair archaeologists who themselves had no first-hand knowledge of the region. Their claims were effectively challenged by Sir William Ramsay, who spent his career in first-hand studies of Asia Minor. Ramsay made a strong case for Luke being an excellent historian who new the region well. Apparently some want to deny this and to cling to the nineteenth-century view (just as some want to deny evidence for the age of the earth or for global warming). For more information, see:
Short article re Luke and Ramsay "Luke the Physician" by Sir William Ramsay
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
I disagree. I assume that the author/redactor was writing intentionally, trying to communicate something to his original audience. If so, we must pay attention to his word choice and grammar. He personifies "sin" as an animal, which "desires" Cain, using the same word "desire" as used in God's curse on Eve in the preceding chapter. This is seen by most textual scholars as a significant linkage of the two events, e.g.:
kbertsche writes: Eve would have a controlling desire for Adam; sin had a controlling desire for Cain. The author is intentionally and pointedly tying Cain's sin back to the curse on Eve. First, it's presumptuous to claim you know what the authors intentions were. Victor Hamilton, Genesis 1-17 (Eerdmans 1990) writes:
(Gen 4:7)"Its urge is toward you." Sin's urge is aimed at Cain. The word for urge here, tᵉqā, is the same word used in the previous chapter for Eve's feelings toward Adam (3:16). Similarly, what Cain can do to sin you are the one to master is described with the same verb used for Adam's actions with Eve ("he shall be master over you," 3:16). -----
ringo writes:
No, I'm not adding anything:
Second, you're adding to the author's point by adding the word "controlling" to Eve's desire. NET Bible writes:
The sense of the text is a "controlling" or "dominating" desire.
Gen. 3:16 To the woman he said,I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you. Gen. 4:7 Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.
-----
ringo writes:
No, it sets up an analogy, not an equivalence.
Third, if the link between the stories is so strong, then Eve is the equivalent of sin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
The scholarly view in the nineteenth century was that "Luke" was a poor historian and geographer who had no first-hand knowledge of the region he wrote about. But this view came from armchair archaeologists who themselves had no first-hand knowledge of the region. Their claims were effectively challenged by Sir William Ramsay, who spent his career in first-hand studies of Asia Minor. Your authority on history and archaeology died in 1939? Do you not think the fields of history and archaeology have come some way since 1939? The one link you provided is a book published in 1908!This link is worthless Short article re Luke and Ramsay Looking at his website shows he is clueless about a vast array of subjects. The only place I can find any of the cites are on fundie and apologist websites. The last lines are a fine example of the quality of the information posted.
quote: This is written to make it seem Sherwin-White wrote both lines. He did not. The first is by Norman Geisler in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999, 47. The cite is correct but there is no mention of Geisler in the article. The writer of the article seems to want to camouflage that it was said by Geisler. I can see why. Sherwin-White's specialty was Rome and roman law. He was not a biblical specialist. His prime issue was with form-criticism. I think he may not have understood it.
Geisler is an evangelical scholar, and the author or coauthor of over fifty Christian books defending the Christian faith through logic, evidence, and philosophy. He has also authored many articles and theses on other Christian topics. Dr. Geisler has taught at the university and graduate level for over forty years. Geisler's work Baker Encyclopedia of Christan Apologetics has been well received and is considered a systematic and comprehensive work of Christian apologetics.
Source Geisler has no training in history or archaeology. To present him as an expert in the field is laughable. He is an apologist, nothing more. The majority of cites are to this.Pat Zukeran, Archaeology and the New Testament, 2000, 4, Archaeology and the New Testament This is an article on a fundie website. I think if someone wants to be taken seriously they should use serious scholarship.
Probe Doctrinal Statement quote: Yeah I can see real objectivity from them. There is also a cite to Apologetics Press
Here is the belief statement for Apologetics Press.quote: Yeah they are going to be objective. The final cite is also to a fundie website. If you are going to post something and expect me to take it seriously maybe you should not post things from fundie/apologist sites that just use other fundie/apologist sites as their source. oh could you provide evidence for this statement?
The scholarly view in the nineteenth century was that "Luke" was a poor historian and geographer who had no first-hand knowledge of the region he wrote about.
I find it mentioned on many fundie/apologist websites but have never seen any backing for the argument. It may very well be true, but I would like to see some evidence that backs the statement. Now back to my original problem with your post. You admit that there is
As you say, current scholarship is not unanimous on this point. But in your original post you state such things as facts. Also, it seems quite obvious that stating.
Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul.
is very much not universally accepted. You speak in absolutes. You make statements expecting that since they a bible based others will just accept them as is. What you accept as fact is in fact not universally accepted and there is a lot of dissent on the subject. Edited by Theodoric, : Link to doctrinal statement, spelling Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
I think you're projecting what you see as the "meaning" of Genesis 4:7 backward to colour your reading of Genesis 3:16. He personifies "sin" as an animal, which "desires" Cain, using the same word "desire" as used in God's curse on Eve in the preceding chapter. I think you should be reasoning in the opposite direction, using the well-known desire of a woman for her man to understand the metaphoric relationship between sin and man. If you start that way, there's much less temptation to try to shoehorn control into the text.
kbertsche writes:
I don't think it is. As the KJV puts it:
The sense of the text is a "controlling" or "dominating" desire. quote:The control is in one direction only, us over sin. The emphasis is that we can control sin or we can fail to control sin. Sin's "desire" is a literary device, nothing more. Edited by ringo, : Fixed typo: "the" --> "that". "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024