Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?

What do you think the first words will be if jesus actualy does come back.I think he will say something like thisWhat the %&$# #$%" you F#$%&%$# brainless, hairless monkeys what the hell did you do whit my religion, i got crucified for this "#$%# morrons, i talk of love you spread hate, i talk of peace you bring ware, lucifer is going to have a field day whit this f%$# planet. The whole hevan deal is out of the picture for you $%&$ idiotic imbiciles. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

No, I don't think so. I am trying to allow the original grammar, culture, and history to tell me what the text says. What is important is the "plain reading" of the text to the original audience, not to a modern audience. I don't think I've admitted that, have I? I have agreed that Rom 5 is our main teaching of the doctrine. Trying to understand the meaning of the original author to the original audience is not "looking for deep meaning." Rather, it is looking for the intended meaning of the passage. Trying to yank the passage out of its historical-cultural-grammatical context and read it simplistically and naively is simply irresponsible.

The original audience was Jewish and the Jews don't have a doctrine of original sin. Go figure. Then for God's sake, tell us what that other support is. I've asked for it several times already. And yet my reading seems to tally better with the Jewish reading than yours does. Go figure again.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Others here have claimed that God lied in the story, based on a modern understanding of the text. It has not been shown that the original author and his audience understood it this way.In fact, if they did understand this story to be teaching that God lies, the author/redactor of the Pentateuch would not have included this story in the biblical text, as it contradicts the teaching of the rest of the Pentateuch, e.g.:

The original audience was Jewish, long before the time of Christ. I believe you are correct that modern Jews don't have a doctrine of original sin. But what about ancient Judaism, or first-century Judaism? Perhaps they did not have the concept of original sin, and Paul was the first to suggest it. But it is also possible that this view was extant in the first century, perhaps as a minority position, and that Paul heard it from his rabbis. Do you have any references that would help to address this question? Perhaps when we are done discussing Rom 5 and with Gen 2-3 we can explore this question. Does it really? Can you please provide support from some leading Jewish textual scholars (e.g. Nahum Sarna or someone of his caliber)?

It's entirely possible that Paul didn't personally invent the idea of original sin. The topic is about Biblical support, though. If you have references that Jews read the Bible that way, at any time in the history of the planet, feel free to present them. I thought you said we were at an impasse regarding Romans and Genesis. So move ahead. Show us the support for original sin elsewhere in the Bible. I think the onus is on you to show that Jewish scholars (of any caliber) agree with the concept of original sin.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

No, the original audience was not Jewish. The audience were Gentile converts to Christianity. If the audience was Jewish , the Gospels would not have been written in Greek.

The audience for Paul's letters were folk that would have been Gentiles, particularly when we come to Romans. By then the audience certainly identified itself as separate from Judaism.I've never been able to find any support though within the Jewish community for the concept of "Original Sin". I will admit that Paul can be interpreted as suggesting something like that, but even in the passage used from Romans 5 the support is really weak.The Gospels are even more removed in time.One thing that is really still missing though are the many and varied voices of this new creation, Christianity. We get a few hints, in the form only of passing mention, of some of the names of the voices, but we have very little evidence of what they said or preached.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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 source of Paul's interpretation is a very interesting question, central to the questions in the OP, but I don't have easy access to Jewish reference works. Where did I say that we were at an impasse? I don't think we have yet resolved what Genesis 2 and 3 really say and mean (i.e. what they were trying to communicate to the original audience in the original historical and cultural context). Do you believe we are at an impasse on this? I have asked questions about the Jewish reading and interpretation of Gen 2-3, and about the ancient Jewish understanding of original sin. I have not made any claims as to the view of Jewish scholarship regarding original sin, so I bear no onus to show anything in this regard.You, on the other hand, have made an unsupported claim that your reading of Gen 2-3 agrees better with the Jewish reading than mine. You may well be correct; I am simply asking you to support this assertion, per EvC forum guideline #4:

duplicateEdited by kbertsche, : duplicate message; can't delete?

Sorry for the confusion; ringo and I were discussing the original audience of the Garden of Eden story in Gen 2-3.

The topic is about showing Biblical support for original sin. There's no obligation for me to prove (a negative) that there isn't any support. In Message 146, you said:

quote:

---

I would think that what the text says should be fairly objective. But you claim that we disagree on what the text says even before considering what it means. We can each produce our own textual arguments for what the text says, but how do we resolve an impasse?

---

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. In Message 170, you conceded that modern Judaism has no concept of original sin:

quote:

---

The original audience was Jewish, long before the time of Christ. I believe you are correct that modern Jews don't have a doctrine of original sin. But what about ancient Judaism, or first-century Judaism?

---

There is no obligation for me to prove (another negative) that the Jews have not done a 180-degree turn on that subject.I've asked you many times to show something new from somewhere else in the Bible. Please do that. Maybe it will help to clear up the confusion/disagreement about what Genesis says/means.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

However the celebration of Yom Kippur, the tradition that every year people are born again and that the fate of the new year is solely based on their behavior during the previous twelve months certainly implies that the concept of some Original Sin was NOT relevant to the ancient Hebrews.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

All sin comes from the genetic traits in our DNA that gives power to deceive our thoughts. Our thoughts come from our created image in God, who is nothing but thoughts. Our brains are only processors of our thoughts and where our memory is stored.Memory is a contributor to the sin process. When a young man discovers a new sin that gives him pleasure, it is locked in his memory. Each time that memory is triggered somehow, his desire takes over and causes him to act on his sin.The only way to stop this power of sin is to change the genetic traits. This is what God had to do in his chosen ones like Jesus and us saints to make us sinless. Sinlessness is required to receive the knowledge of God, which is the truth.

Cute, utter nonsense but not just irrelevant, it is off topic.Do you have anything related to the topic?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!