Importance of Original Sin

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin.But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of Gehinnom. Jaywill, are you implying Adam was more successful then Joshua the Anointed One in the magnitude of his cosmic reach and the consequence of his action?I mean, if someone paid off the mortgage on your home and you were not aware of it, living as one who was in still in debt, isn’t the mortgage still paid off?Are you actually arguing how limited in scope Joshua's ransom towards life was compared to Adam's slavery to death?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar ..

For Paul, sin is a theological lynchpin (more of a preamble) in that it serves as an effective springboard to death (his point).There is a strong sense that Paul uses the story to bridge the gap between the Yuhdeans and the Gentiles of his day. He appears to use the Adam story to structure the culminating nature of his cosmic eschatology - a start and finish if you will.In this focus, a central issue of Paul's teaching comes into view. A large portion of latin theology and scholarship sees no place for such teachings, and so adapt their exegesis of Paul's writings through a cultural lens which better suits them.Yet, with ethnic tensions raging over many economic, social and political issues attempting to establish boundaries of cultural and national identity, Paul draws attention to an issue with much further reach than any of these - namely the universal condition of death (spirit of Adam). This naturally leads to its cure which Paul speaks very intimately of ...Which is, of course, being resurrected to life (spirit of Joshua). Could this mean, why aren't we born with knowledge instead of having to learn?One Love

How can we be sure this isn’t the central message of early Catholicism or perhaps your imagination rather than one of their competitors such as Christianity, or are we simply going to conflate them all in typical apologetic fashion? Completely false dichotomy - santa needn’t be corporeal for children to behave properly. Fortunately, you're saying so doesn't actually make it so.That Paul needs sin to accomplish death is central to his message, otherwise his resurrection fails. It's fairly simple - God can forgive a sin if a repentant heart requests, yet how can one be resurrected if they don't complete their death?Paul doesn’t seem to have employed the creation myth to really support a consistent tradition of sinning. Much less did he use it to support any ‘mechanical’ view describing penal substitution or the likes. He usually personifies sin, which then allows it to accept a certain amount of responsibility for itself. Keep in mind, Paul most always builds to a climactic point.And so, we’re then ‘held captive’ by sin in a similar manner as Eve was deceived by the serpent - not in cahoots with it by way of a necessarily malicious motivating impulse as some would have us believe. Sin is then classically represented as a means, not an end and in this way Paul stays consistent with the early tradition, rather than restructuring the narrative to fit a later doctrinal interpolation. More importantly, this allows sin to take its lowly place within Pauline eschatology, serving as an effective steppingstone to death - its wages by Paul’s measure, standing tall as his primary point.And this sets the stage for the emergence of the good news - not only that Joshua is the Anointed King of all Yisraelites and Gentiles, rather than Tiberius Claudius Nero - Caesar Augustus Germanicus or the likes as another gospel proclaimed, but that all will be subjected to a resurrection in the fashion of that which which issued the decree of Joshua’s reign.The much later substance, if such diatribe could be called so, concerning the original sin doctrine is found to be classical latin interpolations, probably best viewed through a lens of medieval feudalism. This is apparently what happens when you process timeless truths through the blender of Augustine, Anselm, Aguinas, Luther, Calvin, etc., and then completely ignore that they hashed up revisionist creations. Fortunately for the benefit of humanity, the historical evidence speaks for itself and the stumbling of apologists simply provides the icing for the cake, as eternal repetition doesn’t actually modify reality. The issue is you haven’t provided any evidence that early Catholicism or Christianity supports your position, and you’ve provided even less that your representing Paul’s theological exegesis accurately. Try it with your eyes open .. That you find Joshua’s message irrelevant to your alleged version of Christianity is very revealing. Now your just trying to connect random dots ..Calgon^TM - take meh away.One Love

Then who keeps getting on your keyboard and fleshing out Catholic doctrines?? Irrelevant.You argued if the story contains mythological elements, it explains nothing - a statement which is demonstrably untrue.Perhaps more than a say so or a hashed up catholic conviction should be forthcoming if you are suggesting the meanings of wisdom traditions are deserted and somehow lose effectiveness once integrated with mythological elements. Nevertheless, how a sinful heart may come to repentance appears more simple than advertised by some apologists. Here you've conflated a possibility of performing sinfully out of naivety with the conscious decision to perform sinfully.Again you undermine the scripture in an attempt to misrepresent Paul. Bravo. Yet, the point remains, Paul's binding dilema culminates with the universal condition of death; sin is simply the vehicle that gets him there. He clearly understands the condition of sin had been dealt with thoroughly and consistently through out the various radical prophetic traditions.That said, while Paul - and so Christianity, may need sin to accomplish death, no one needs 'original sin' to accomplish a resurrection. On the contrary, a resurrection was displayed in opposition to the sinful act of sacrificing an innocent human.In this sense, Christianity needs the universal condition of death, yet sin ..Not so much. It's not a matter of whether maintaining consistency with an earlier tradition is more advantageous, regardless of the alleged accuracy of the target. The point is Paul utilized an extant tradition to establish the framework of his eschatalogy.You're attempts to perform similarly appear to fail.This seems due in part to your refusal to maintain consistency with history and Paul's message (your 'extant tradition' which you're constantly restructuring to support your whim). However, you can overcome the challenge, just have faith. I stated 'sin is then classically represented as a means, not an end' - pay attention. Again you restructure Paul's message in the style of Augustine or Anselm, however the booklet of 1st Timothy, whose authorship is at times attributed to Paul, is very clear that God 'is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe'.You will no doubt argue He wouldn't dare save all mankind, just the 'especially' ones (after all, that is why the word "especially" is there, right?). Some even go so far as to say that the Greek word behind 'especially' means just that.As far as I can tell, this is how one goes about straining at gnats in order to swallow a camel, however it's usually the best those who believe in eternal torment can do with these scriptures. Let's demonstrate how easy it is to deflate such weak reasoning. At the 10th verse of the 6th chapter of Galatians, the reader finds the following admonishment ..

quote:

---

Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

---

So, is Paul saying that we are only to do good to the 'household of faith' or is he saying we are to do good to 'all', but especially the 'household of faith'? Obviously, the ones who choose to perform are to do good to both groups.In like manner, Joshua is - in fact, asserted to be Savior of all mankind and Savior of those who know they are saved. He is the Savior of both groups. The Greek word in both passages is the same Greek word - malista, which means 'most of all'.So then, we are admonished through scripture to do good to all, most of all to the household of faith, and Joshua is declared Savior of all, most of all to those who already have an earnest of the promise within them.At this point, the less inclusive apologist usually begins to try to interpret 'all men' or 'all mankind', etc., (depending upon the translation) as meaning 'all sorts of men' such as some Europeans, some Americans, some Africans, etc..IOW, God may save some out of all mankind, but He won't save 'all of mankind' (if they can help it). Now they realize that's not what the passage plainly says, but they feel they believe that's what the passage means, even though none of the leading bibles translate the phrase that way. However, the Jehovah Witness' bible translates it 'all sorts of men' ..So perhaps you find yourself in agreement with a group notorious for putting their own interpretations right in the bible ..If not only catholics and murderers. Yes, this is your issue - you ignore facts and nullify historical realities that compete with your adopted idea of an acceptable theological framework, rather than making any earnest attempt to reconcile what is actually written in scripture with them. No old friend. You said you're unfamiliar with early catholicism and then proceed to quote it's arguably greatest theologian to support something you say is other than catholicism. You then admit Calvin engineered the 'systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism', while attempting to deny he did so. I require you to stop lying - Augustine was Catholic.Calvin was just a plain demented murderer and your inability to acknowledge this doesn't appear to be serving you well.Perhaps the realization that Luther was a devout anti-semite may? Incorrect - you stated 'Jesus mission in so far as it relates to Judaism' was irrelevant to your christian tradition. Message 199Also, your view isn't interchangeably or necessarily 'Christianities view' as your slight of hand presents.Either way though, Purpledawn has simply exposed your catholic musings as non-christian. Abstract and misleading either way Not to mention oppressive One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : gr.Edited by Bailey, : metanoia

Julius Wellhausen's main contribution may be seen as arranging the various JEDP authors chronologically, and so, placing them firmly within a coherent setting describing the evolution of Yisrael’s religious history as one of ever-increasing priestly power. And while numerous versions of the Documentary Hypothesis have been proposed by various scholars over the years, the terminology and insights contained within the extensive nature of the Wellhausen theory continue to provide the framework for most modern theories in describing the ToRaH’s origins.Richard Elliott Friedman’s most well known for furthering the development of the Graf-Wellhausen theory and providing it with substantial evidences regarding textual criticisms. I’ll tell ya Jaywill, if you’re at all put off by the seemingly abrasive style of scholars such as Ehrman, you may find Friedman’s apparent sincerity a breath of fresh air. That has been my experience when introducing each of them to western apologists.I highly recommend Friedman’s work entitled, The Hidden Book In the Bible. God willing, I hope you’ll search it out ..One Love

Another issue seems to be many often appear more willing to settle for two minas later, than pay one of ‘em now. I mean, even when we know pain’s inevitable and will indeed not be avoided; we find some way putting off ‘til Tuesday what could have been dealt with today. Which reminds me - I have to schedule a dentist appointment soon lol ..One Love