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

Your evidence that Paul was 'trained by leading rabbis" is solely based upon his say so?He mentions one leading rabbi and you embellish on this to be many leading rabbis.There seems to be some scholarship that his studying under Gamaliel is doubtful.

quote:

---

Helmut Koester, Professor of Divinity and of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University, is doubtful that Paul studied under this famous rabbi, arguing that there is a marked contrast in the tolerance that Gamaliel is said to have expressed about Christianity with the "murderous rage" against Christians that Paul is described as having prior to his conversion.

---

SourceSo your evidence for stating this is based upon his say so that he studied under a certain well known rabbi.Seems to be pretty thin gruel to me.I guess that I come from a historical research tradition makes me expect and demand corroborating evidence and multiple sources, before I accept something as having some factual basis.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I found a web site for Holland which seems to have the book online. Tom Holland: Contours of Pauline TheologyIt looks like Chapter 5 deals with Adam. Again I'm just skimming. This quote is from page 71 and gets more interesting.Enjoy!

Could you supply some biblically-based argument for this statement?

I don't need that. I have reason, logic and reality.But I have presented the evidence. It is explicit in both Genesis 2&3 as well as in Roman's 5.It is also totally irrelevant to the topic.Edited by jar, : add last line pointing out that iano is once again simply presenting attractive rabbit holes.

---

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

That's a pretty tall order jar

quote:

---

Explicit: fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal.

---

Here's the Romans 5 passage dealing with the issue. Where does it explicitly say that one needs a knowledge of right and wrong in order to sin?

quote:

---

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

​

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 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 is a pattern of the one to come.

​

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

​

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

​

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

Perhaps you meant to say implicitly? It's not much better but it allows you at least some wiggle room.ABE: if it's totally irrelevant to the topic then why do you make the claim as recently as post 193. Let's make a deal: if you stop posting irrelevancies, then I'll stop challenging you tio support them.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Nah, it's pretty simple.It is even recognized and acknowledged by Paul in the very passage.

quote:

---

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

---

Sin that is not charged to an individual is of no consequence or relevance.And so far no one has shown any way that someone who is not capable of understanding right from wrong can sin.It really is that simple.Original Sin, even if that is what Paul was talking about, is just plain not supported by the Bible and is quite honestly, simply a travesty and con game played by those who market much of Christianity today, a pitiful joke.

---

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

Your claim:

quote:

---

Until we have the capability to judge right from wrong, there can be no such thing as sin.

---

The (supposedly) explicit support from Romans 5 for this claim you say is:

quote:

---

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

---

How can a verse which makes no explicit mention of a knowledge of right and wrong explicitly support your claim?Indeed, how can a verse which makes no implicit mention of a knowledge of right and wrong implicitly support your claim?-

quote:

---

Sin that is not charged to an individual is of no consequence or relevance.

---

Er..relevance to your claim?-

quote:

---

And so far no one has shown any way that someone who is not capable of understanding right from wrong can sin.

---

Which would be fine were somebody making that claim. But they're not. It's your claim we're examining - not a contrary claim nobody has yet made. ...that disjointed ... is the word that actually springs to mind. Regarding the defence of your claim, I mean.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Because as I mentioned, "Sin that is not charged to an individual is of no consequence or relevance."There is no sin unless as Paul put it "13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law."There is no way to know someone should obey a law until they know right from wrong, at least so far no one has shown that it is possible.AbE:Remember, I also pointed to reason, logic and reality.I also see that I missed this: HUH?Are you saying that "Original Sin" does not exist?Edited by jar, : No reason given.Edited by jar, : missed partEdited by jar, : fix quote box

---

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

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.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. l

Paul doesn't say there is no sin. He explicitly says there was sin but it wasn't charged to someones account prior to the law being given. That it wasn't charged to someones account doesn't mean it ceases to exist - at least, your claming it so doesn't make it so.Not only are you not tying this 2nd claim together (sin not charged > sin non-existant), you're failing to show explicit support for your 1st claim. You did say Romans 5 explicitly supported your 1st claim. The topic is your claim regarding sin, not law. Additionally, it's for you to support your claim, not others to prove any claim they might make.Could you halt with the misdirection already

I believe I have presented the support I use for my position.If you have some support for some other position, you are free to present it.

---

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

Thank you. I expect our audience can make up it's own mind as to the coherency of that support.

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. Why do you believe these claims? Where is your evidence for them?Nonetheless, I don't see how they are relevant to Rom 5. Paul is addressing why people died between the time of Adam (after eating from the tree) and the time of Moses (when the Law was given). He makes these points in the verses you quoted above:1) sin existed in the world, even before the Law was given.
2) these sinners (between the time of Adam and Moses) were not guilty of law-breaking, since there was no law yet to break (they could not be charged with breaking of a future law).
3) nevertheless (though they had not broken a law) they were sinners; this is evidenced by the fact that they died. (Paul claimed earlier that death is a consequence of sin.) They did not sin by breaking a command (which is a subset of the more general category of "sin"). Where does he say this?

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?

This is your unsupported claim, not Paul's argument . see my previous post. Note that Paul explicitly said that there is sin ("sin was in the world"). It existed, but was not charged to the sinners as law-breaking.