|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You sound like Jesus came from outer space. Basically, Jesus taught that people should repent and start behaving. Once one has repented and continues to behave, one is safe from God's wrath that was to come. Repentance was always an option. Paul makes very long arguments. One needs to read the whole thing to get a feel for what he's trying to argue and then check to make sure his argument is sound. Paul used Adam as an example of disobedience contrasted with Christ's obedience. It 's not uncommon for people to use fictional characters to make a point. It wasn't that Adam was a real person, it was what he represented: Disobedience.
Secular Example: Gordon Gekko is a fictional character and the main character and antagonist of the 1987 film Wall Street by director Oliver Stone. Gekko was portrayed by actor-producer Michael Douglas, in a performance that won him an Oscar for Best Actor. ... Gekko has become a symbol in popular culture for unrestrained greed (with the signature line, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good"), often in fields outside corporate finance. ... On October 8, 2008, the character was referenced in a speech by the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his speech "The Children of Gordon Gekko" concerning the Financial crisis of 2007-2010. Rudd stated It is perhaps time now to admit that we did not learn the full lessons of the greed-is-good ideology. And today we are still cleaning up the mess of the 21st-century children of Gordon Gekko.[8] On July 28, 2009, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone cited Gekko's greed is good slogan in a speech to the Italian senate, saying that the free market had been replaced by a greed market, and also blamed such a mentality for the 2007-2008 financial crisis.[9] Do Jews Believe In Sin? Jews believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions and that "sinning" occurs when someone does something wrong. Paul was a Jew. If you read enough of his writings, you will understand that he also felt people were responsible for their own actions. Why is Adam associated with disobedience when Eve was the first to bite? We have to remember that the word adam also means mankind. Both Jesus and Paul wanted people to behave at least civilly and ethically towards each other. As I said, the creation story is not essential to Judaism and it really isn't essential to Christianity unless one believes in the later doctrine of Original Sin. Accepting the creation stories as myths does not negate the teachings of Jesus. We've seen cases on this board where doctrines didn't hold up to what was actually written in the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Basically, Jesus taught that people should repent and start behaving. Interesting that I cannot find to word "repent" anywhere in the Gospel of John. But I find "believe/s" quite often in that gospel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Basically, Jesus taught that people should repent and start behaving. Interesting that I cannot find to word "repent" anywhere in the Gospel of John. But it is in the Gospel of Matthew, (3:2 for example), Mark (1:15), Luke (13:3) and in Acts (26:20).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Paul spoke of Christ the same way that Christ spoke of Himself, that is as a Living Spirit that could enter into people's actual spiritual being.
Let's compare some of Christ's words to Paul's way of repeating the exact same manner:
Christ - " If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father with love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23) The Apostle Paul - "But if Christ is in you ... " (Rom. 8:10)"Jesus Christ is in you ..." (2 Cor. 13:5) "Christ in you, the hope of glory" ( Col. 1:27) "Christ make His home in your hearts through faith" (Eph. 3:17) "Christ is formed in you ..." (Gal. 4:19) As you can see Paul echoed Jesus Christ in the teaching that Jesus could come into His followers and live in and through them.
Christ - "And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." ( Matt. 28:20) The Apostle Paul - "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim. 4:22)"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all" (2Thess. 3:18) "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." (1Thess.5:28) "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit" (Phil.4:23) "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers ..." (Gal. 6:18) "But the Lord stood with me and empowered me ... "(2Tim.4:17) As you can see Jesus Christ said He would be with His disciples.And Paul repeats that Christ and His empowering grace is with the believers, with thier spirit, the innermost kernel of their being. The enjoy Christ Himself as grace. Paul was so faithful to pioneer into the experience of all that Christ taught and explain the way further to the church. \[b\] Christ - "In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20) The Apostle Paul - "For as many as have beeb baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27) "But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have become near in the blood of Christ: (Eph. 2:13) "Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ..." ( 1 Thess 1:1) " ... the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 1:1) " ... you have heard Him and have been taught in Him as the reality is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21) " ... I say and testify in the Lord" (Eph. 4:17) " ... I, the prisoner in the Lord" (Eph. 4:1) " ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28) " ... but as out of God, before God we speak in Christ" ( 2 Cor. 2:17) \[/b\] As you can see Paul speaks of Christ the living Lord as the realm and the sphere within whom he, his co-workers and all the saints live. Praise the Lord for such a faithful servant of Christ. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, the author(s) of the Gospel of John was a revisionist, that is why John is not included in the Synoptic Gospels.
John is different from the other Gospels since it is the only one where the author has the Jesus character expound at length (although usually only to his disciples) on his divine nature, something missing from the three earlier stories, and on the nature and purpose of the miracles performed. It is also different because it has few if any of the morality and life lessons found in the parables of the other three Gospels, takes a totally different position regarding salvation and appears to be a transitional work written at a time when a separate "Christian" identity as opposed to Christianity as simply another Jewish sect was beginning to emerge. It's most likely that there was no single author of John, that none of the various authors had any personal experience of Jesus, that the book itself evolved into its current state over period of a quarter century or more within a separate sect of members of a John based chapter of Club Christian. The Gospel of John though is totally irrelevant to anything related to the issue of Original Sin which is an even later product created during the second century CE.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The importance of Original Sin is to convince you that you really need what its promoter is selling.
If this story is not vital at all to the necessity of the jesus character, how does one explain it? Its just an oral tradition explaining man's place in the world.
Is there some other reason we are natural sinners in need of salvation? We're animals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
to the issue of Original Sin which is an even later product created during the second century CE. I think this is a very important point. Fundie Christians tend to think that the ideas they have have existed since time immemorial. This is a very clear and important example that some of the important concepts they hold dear are much later concepts than they think. Those interested should read up on Irenaeus.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: You might look at the thread Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? which Jar started awhile back. You might also look at the wikipedia article on original sin. As they show, it is a basic tenet of Christian orthodoxy, both for Catholics and for Protestants. The Eastern Church expresses it a bit differently, but has a similar concept. The only strong denials come from heterodox cults. Jar implies that his denial of "original sin" is consistent with mainstream Anglicanism, but I doubt that most Anglican theologians agree with Jar's position. Edited by kbertsche, : Clarification"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Paul used Adam as an example of disobedience contrasted with Christ's obedience. It 's not uncommon for people to use fictional characters to make a point. It wasn't that Adam was a real person, it was what he represented: Disobedience. Without addressing the idea of whether Adam was real, I've never seen the point of the doctrine of original sin. I've never met a single adult who even attempted to indicate that he had always behaved exactly as God required of him. So the need for salvation is universal even without blaming Adam and Eve. What does the doctrine of original sin add that personal responsibility for one's own sins does not already cover?
Why is Adam associated with disobedience when Eve was the first to bite? We have to remember that the word adam also means mankind. Why does the captain get blamed when the ship goes down, even if he's asleep at the time someone else messes up? My wife explained to me that Adam was off naming the animals when he should have been hitting the snake with a shovel. Adam was the one who got the original instructions from God, and he apparently failed to effectively get the word to Eve. But my take on this Genesis story is that humans inherited free will (from Adam?) and are inevitably going to use that power to be disobedient to God. It is not literally true that when parent's eat sour grapes, their children's inherit teeth set on edge. Edited by NoNukes, : Removed bad apostrophe. Gotta quit doing that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:It brought forth the need to baptize babies. IMO, the implication is that we cannot control ourselves without the help of Jesus. Unfortunately that is contrary to what God told Cain and what is presented in the OT. We do forget that religions are not immune to outside influence. The Original Sin Doctrine was influenced by Platonism according to this article: The Original View of Original Sin But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy. So it seems the idea came first and the use of Paul as support came considerably later.
Augustine’s outlook on sex was distorted by ideas from the world outside the Bible. Because so much philosophy was based on dualism, in which the physical was categorized as evil but the spiritual as good, some philosophers idealized the celibate state. Sexual relations were physical and therefore evil. Apparently once the idea that sexual relations even in marriage were bad (not a Jewish concept). Their philosophy created a little bit of a problem when it came to Jesus, so they had to create another story to keep Jesus "clean". Immaculate Conception Augustine’s association with Neoplatonic philosophers led him to introduce their outlook within the church. This had its effect in the development of doctrine. For example, Jesus was considered immaculately conceivedwithout sin in that His Father was God. But because His mother, Mary, had a human father, she suffered the effect of original sin. In order to present Jesus Christ as a perfect offspring without any inherited sin from either parent, the church had to find a way to label Mary as sinless. They did this by devising the doctrine of her immaculate conception, though this inevitably leads to further questions. Then we get to the need for baptizing babies.
Other babies were not so fortunate. Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation. Of course the babies that are baptized don't necessarily refrain from sinning. None of it changes the fact that humans have good inclinations and bad inclinations. We can go either way and we can change back and forth. We are still responsible for our actions. They just made the issue more complicated. I think it's a guy thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It brought forth the need to baptize babies. Not sure about that. Most churches that I've attended don't take baby baptizing seriously.
IMO, the implication is that we cannot control ourselves without the help of Jesus. Unfortunately that is contrary to what God told Cain and what is presented in the OT. Are you sure about this? Doesn't original sin mean that the need for salvation attached without any evil actions on your part. If it was instead about lack of control, wouldn't that undercut the need to baptize babies. Did anyone ever believe that babies acted better after being baptized?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Humor, sorry. Catholics. I don't know how serious they take it. quote:Which means we don't have any control over getting rid of it either. Dualism-The physical is bad and the spiritual is good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Jay,
Just a couple of quick questions. How many places could the physical man Jesus be in at once? If the physical man Jesus is in us why did he say:
quote: quote: What was Jesus talking about in this statement?
quote: Why did Paul make this statement:
quote: Why did Jesus tell Nicodemus:
quote: It seems to me the Spirit of God is the one who indwells mankind sealing his spirit until the day of redemption, and leading us in all truth. The problem is most people that claim to be a christian does not have the Spirit of God indwelling in them. Now my two cents on original sin. There is no discussion of original sin in the Bible. The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 that God breathed the breath of life into was a perfect man without sin. He alone was commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He was told the day he ate of that fruit he would die. The woman was deceived and she ate the fruit. Her eyes were not opened at that time. She then gave to her husband and he chose to eat the fruit, he was not deceived. After the man ate the forbiden fruittheir eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. The only way you can come up with the term original sin is that this was the first sin that was ever comitted by mankind. Up until this time God walked with mankind and talked with them. From the time God sent them out of the Garden man was separated from God because of that first sin. According to Paul that initial separation caused the separation of all mankind that followed and all are under the penalty of death. Someone has said there was death before this man was formed from the dust of the ground. According to Genesis 2:5 there was no living life form that existed before the man formed in Genesis 2:7. That being the case death did not exist until this man disobeyed God and chose to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Basically, Jesus taught that people should repent and start behaving. Ok, I can dig that. However, why do we sin in the first place? How were we able to sin? If we were created "in god's image", why is there evil? Or were we not created in god's image? Were we created with sin? If we were, then that means god has sin/evil. Now, if you can say were weren't "created" and are a theistic evolutionist: why did god take so fucking long? Humanity has been around for a long damned time, but he waited until just 2000 years ago to send himself to save us from himself?
you will understand that he also felt people were responsible for their own actions. Then I see no need for this jesus character. I don't need a third party to absolve me of my wrong doings. I can just say "damn, I screwed up. Lesson learned, better not do that again.". ya know, the way millions of people do every day that live just fine without religion or god.
Accepting the creation stories as myths does not negate the teachings of Jesus. His teachings? Perhaps not. But his necessity? I think so. Did he not come to "wash the world (that means EVERYONE, no?) of sin? Perhaps I am coming at this a tad basic, but I see it this way: take someone who is a good person and has never heard of the bible. If we "choose" whether or not to do bad things ("sin"), why does this person need redemption or salvation? From what? "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
You might look at the thread Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? which Jar started awhile back. My apologies to all concerned (Percy) for re-hashing an existing topic. I didn't find this thread when I looked. If you want to possibly merge the two 9move all these replies over there), that's fine.
You might also look at the wikipedia article on original sin. As they show, it is a basic tenet of Christian orthodoxy, both for Catholics and for Protestants. The Eastern Church expresses it a bit differently, but has a similar concept. The only strong denials come from heterodox cults. Admittedly, I haven't actually looked anything up on it. I suppose I would rather have the opinions of religious persons and hear the different spin they put on it. It has already become apparent that it's open to interpretation, just like the rest of the bible. I just hope it doesn't come off as me not wanting to do my homework....
Jar implies that his denial of "original sin" is consistent with mainstream Anglicanism, but I doubt that most Anglican theologians agree with Jar's position. In my opinion, the biblical matters have left themselves so open to different interpretations, every opinion on it is just as valid as the next. It's impossible to tell ANY religious person "you're reading it wrong"."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024