Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Importance of Original Sin
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 1198 (633779)
09-16-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
09-16-2011 11:45 AM


Re: There is None Righteous
That section is an editorial comment by the author of John it seems and not what Jesus said.
But it does say that it is related to sin if you actually look at the whole passage and don't just quote mine.
quote:
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
So it seems it is not just believing in something but rather behavior. And it also seems the belief does not refer to Jesus but rather to God.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2011 11:45 AM ICANT has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 47 of 1198 (633876)
09-16-2011 10:50 PM


I learned a couple things from this thread. I came in with questions that have, IMO, yet to really be effectively answered. However, it is not for a lack of the thread participants efforts. I think I see now how the religious feel when they attempt to discuss their beliefs and are met with dissenting views. When it comes to fairy tales; it's difficult to tell the real from the fake, I guess. It's difficult to see some things from a different angle. How the hell is that sentence even possible when I think it's all nonsense anyways?????
I came into this thread, not with conviction, not with a belief held close to me, but with a question about something that I had (somewhat) been taught and (somewhat)raised around. Something that seemed to be pervasive throughout christian culture....at least the christian culture I witness firsthand. It seemed as though I was backed into a corner to defend something I don't even believe, just by virtue that I wasn't convinced by any of the reasoning that was offered.Call me stubborn, hard headed, whatever. I feel that some of the responses would have been different if it wasn't so obvious that I am an atheist. I feel they would have been different if I was a naive believer. ....but that is just my opinion.
As I said upthread on a couple occasions: I didn't exactly care to get into a lengthy I-need-to-do-homework debate about this because frankly, I could give two shits about it all (at least as far as delving as deep into as you lot do). I just thought it odd what jar said in the other thread. This all would have been better in the thread jaywill mentioned.....if at all.

"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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2011 11:42 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 48 of 1198 (633880)
09-16-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by hooah212002
09-16-2011 10:50 PM


View from the other side
I contributed a post way upthread in which I opined that the concept of original sin is about the most evil idea ever to enter the fevered minds of shamans.
I have yet to see a meaningfulresponse to this opinion.
Is belief such a powerful force that it can't tolerate any dissent? Or are contrary opinions better just ignored?
From my view, the whole idea of "the fall" is religious belief with no empirical evidence to support it. It is worthless and completely evil.
I have seen no evidence presented to challenge this opinion.
Is the belief system surrounding "the fall" not worth defending, or is it only defensible among those who already believe?
I would like to see some evidence for this "fall" which does not rely on religious belief. Is there any such?
If not, why should I accept it?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by hooah212002, posted 09-16-2011 10:50 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by purpledawn, posted 09-17-2011 4:57 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 49 of 1198 (633921)
09-17-2011 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
09-16-2011 11:42 PM


Re: View from the other side
quote:
I have yet to see a meaningfulresponse to this opinion.
Whether the concept of original sin was a good idea or not isn't the topic. That's why you haven't gotten an answer.
It is more about the importance of the A&E story as the basis for Christianity's need for salvation. From Message 1.
hooah212002 writes:
If this story is not vital at all to the necessity of the jesus character, how does one explain it? Is there some other reason we are natural sinners in need of salvation?
quote:
From my view, the whole idea of "the fall" is religious belief with no empirical evidence to support it. It is worthless and completely evil.
It is a religious belief. This is the Bible Study Forum, on the religious side of the board. In this thread people have given evidence that the idea of original sin isn't based in the Bible. It was a later development.
quote:
I would like to see some evidence for this "fall" which does not rely on religious belief. Is there any such?
If not, why should I accept it?
The thread is more about whether Christianity falls apart without the A&E story or not. It isn't about proving whether the "fall" actually happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2011 11:42 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 50 of 1198 (633963)
09-17-2011 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
09-15-2011 4:55 PM


Re: A question
The Jews break sin into three categories. Sins against God, sins against another person, and sins against oneself.
All sinning is against God. Even that which is against a neighbor or against oneself is also against God.
This is why when David acknowledged that his sin against Bethsheba and Uriah was ultimately against God:
"Against You [and] You only have I sinned, And I have done what is evil in Your sight. Therefore You are righteous when You speak; You are clear when You judge." (Psalm, 51:4)
Against God and against God only his sin was. That is David's conviction. The sin against the neighbor or against one's self is ultimately against God.
Psalm 119 tells the same.
"In my heart I have treasured up Your word that I might not sin against You, O Jehovah;" (Psa. 119:11)
There is no such thing as a sin committed which is not committed against God Himself. And the sin commited against one's neighbor God says that He will repay and vengence belongs to Him.
Deut. 32:35 - "Vengence is Mine and [so] is retribution ..." is what Paul quotes in instructing the NT believers to leave their vindication up to God:
"Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath [of God], for it is written, "Vengence is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
But if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thristy, give him a drink; for in doing this you will heap coals of fire upon his head." (Rom. 12:19,20)
In the OT time God limited the amount of payback an offended person could seek. That was His permissive will. His perfect will was that vengence and retribution belong to Himself alone because all sinning is actually against God.
The fact that people will "miss the mark" at least once in their life is not in question. Once a society has rules they are going to be trespassed at some point and people suffer the consequences.
The Bible does not teach that we are sinners because we sin. Rather it really teaches that we sin because we are sinners. We are constituted with a sinning nature.
The revelation of the Bible is progressive. And the sinning nature may be more brought out by the New Testament Apostle then in the OT prophets. However, I showed you that it was not altogether absent. The leapard not being able to change its spots and the Cushite not being able to change his skin color, were Old Testament utterances to show that sinner had a sin commiting NATURE.
The progressive revelation of the Bible is to teach us. It is not as if God needs to be taught. God knows. God knews throroughly all along, man's condition. We require the progressive education. It is not that God needs to be taught about us.
And in the Old Testament practice of circumcision, the idea is brought home that it is something of a NATURE attached to man which needs to be eliminated. The cutting off of part of the flesh in circumsicion was a sign that belonging to God's salvation was a matter of a nature being CUT OFF.
Something had attached itself to man as a evil parasite. That is a SIN nature. Thought more light comes to us in the NT, even in the OT some light is shed upon the fall of man into this sin nature.
I disagree that Paul is saying that "all" mankind is under condemnation because we misbehave to varying degrees. He can only refer to the inhabited part he knows. Odds are it is an exaggeration anyway.
It is not Paul's opinion. It is the revelation of God. That is how I take it. Romans is the oracles of God and not a faulty opinionate commentary on the Hebrew Bible.
In Romans, we, whoever we are, are exposed as guilty by the fact that we judge others:
"Therefore you are without excuse, O every man who judges, for in what you judge another you condemn yourswelf; for you who judge practice the same things." (Rom. 2:1)
That the salvation may be presented to all mankind, all mankind is under condemntation. The self righteous are particularly guilty as seen in this previous verse (2:1-16). The religious are also specificially guilty as seen in 2:17-3:8.
It is true, however, that occasionally, on a relative basis, the OT did say that this or that person was righteous. On one level, comparitively to others, one was said to be righteous.
However, ALL have sinned. And this concept did not originate with Paul. Paul quoted as much from the Old Testament. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with it.
The creation story is not the foundation of his argument. His argument would be the same whether he mentioned Adam later or not.
Paul is tracing the history of mankind. It seems that he has opened before him the book of Genesis. And in chapter 5 it is quite obvious that he traces the intrance of sin and death into the world through Adam:
"Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus death passed on to all men because all have sinned - " (Rom 5:12)
SIN entered into the world through one man - Adam. So the Genesis account of the creation and fall of man is definitely Paul's basis for the passing of the sin nature into all mankind.
SIN refers to that power within us that motivates us to commit sinful acts.
SINS, [plural] refer to the particular individual sinful acts that we commit outwardly.
Terms like "root of sin" or "source of sin" or "original sin" have been concocted by theologians. I don't know how fruitful it is to argue about such terms, including "Original Sin".
If we want to differentiate clearly between the SIN man has and the sinful acts he commits the first 8 chapters of Romans are a big help. These chapters show us the significance of SIN as a kind of nature in the sinner.
From chapter one through 5:11, only the word SINS is mentioned; SIN is never mentioned. But from 5:11 until the end of chapter eight, what is read concerns SIN rather than SINS. From chapter one through 5:11, Romans shows us that man has committed sins against God (whether private, self inflicting, or against the neighbor). Man is therefore a sinner before God.
From Romans 5:12, Romans exposes something deeper. That is the SIN nature. Its healing is a matter of man being made ALIVE in the divine life. There is no mention of the dead being made alive prior to Romans 5:12.
This is a brief word. Sins as acts need forgiveness. The Sin as nature needs a divine life to overpower it , swallow it up, terminate it, circumise it away, cross it out through the power of the Spirit of Christ the sinless Man who became life giving Spirit -
" the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" ( 1 Cor. 15:45) .
Paul pulled various lines from hymns that suited his purpose. We can take line from the same hymns and support that there are righteous people and the songs are speaking of the wicked and not all of mankind.
Paul as Christ's apostle, was completing the word of God:
" .... I Paul became a minister .... of which I became a minister according to the stewardship of God, which was given to me for you, to complete the word of God." (See Col. 1:23,25)
Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God."
That is true. The atheist in his or her heart is certainly a fool.
They deal corruptly, their deeds are vile, not one does what is right.
Don't they ever learn, all those evildoers, who eat up my people as if eating bread and never call on Adonai?
There they are, utterly terrified; for God is with those who are righteous.
For you, Adonai, bless the righteous; you surround them with favor like a shield.
The righteous will surely give thanks to your name; the upright will live in your presence. etc.
Paul is probably using the passage for those who act as if there is no God in addition to believing that there is no God.
Some act as there is no fear of God for them. Some act as if there will be no reckoning. They think no one sees. They think God may see but doesn't care.
Whether the basis for sinning is atheism or acting practically as there is no God (with not sense of the need for repentence and forgiveness) ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
But the wonderful and gracious salvation is extended to all as well.
There are people who are considered righteous.
I already conceded that on a relative basis, the bible does speak of this or that righteous one. Comparitively, to others in that generation, some were said to be righteous.
Nevertheless, only Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was completely righteous.
Job, Samuel, Noah, cannot be compared to the Son of God, though the OT did say such were relatively righteous.
In my opinion he is being rather dramatic to make the point that if Jews who have the Torah to follow are facing judgement, then those without the Torah are no better off. IOW, that is his way of getting the Gentiles on board.
Maybe. It is discussable. My point was that both Jews and non-Jews were all under condemnation. The Apostle firmly establishes that point.
And, as a Christian, I do not regard Romans as a error prone commentary on the Hebrew Bible. I regard it as the oracles of God as Genesis, Exodus or any other book in the Old Testament canon.
As Paul said the Gospel was not received by him from man:
"Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead."
For I make known to you, brothers, [concerning] the gospel announced by me, that it is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:1,11,12)
The creation story has no bearing on any of this. When people ask questions like: "Why do people misbehave, why do people hurt others, or why do elephants have long noses, etc...."; people come up with stories to answer those questions.
You're ignorant of the book of Romans for sure.
"Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and this death passed on to all men becuse all have sinned. -" (Rom. 5:12)
Adam was the first man created. His history and geneology is found in the book of Genesis. And Paul says through him sin and death came into the world.
This is the basis for Paul establishing that there is a Second Man or the last Adam.
"For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22)
"For since through man [Adam] came death, through man [Christ] also came the resurrection of the dead." (1 Cor. 15:21)
"So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul"; the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)
"So then as it was through one offense unto condemnation to all men, so also it was through one righteous act unto justification of life to all men." (Rom. 5:18)
"For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were CONSTITUTED sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be CONSTITUTED righteous." (Rom. 5:19)
From a Biblical standpoint, the doctrine of Original Sin isn't necessary. Good way to lay a guilt trip on people, but not really necessary for belief.
The theological phrase "Original Sin" is not really necessary to use. It is quite obvious that the Bible does trace the entrance of sin and death into the world through the first man Adam.
We can simply go by what the Bible utters. We need not adopt the phrase "Original Sin". We should not try to twist away what Paul has revealed about the first man Adam, and his disobedience, with its result to mankind AND the second Man, the last Adam, and what His obedience does for believers.
You have tried in vain to twist the teaching of the New Testament.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 09-15-2011 4:55 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 09-18-2011 8:28 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 54 by Bailey, posted 09-18-2011 3:14 PM jaywill has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 51 of 1198 (634002)
09-18-2011 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
09-12-2011 8:23 PM


Re: Enough of this OLD sin, bring me some NEW sin
jar writes:
Is Adam the pattern of Jesus? Reading the story in Genesis 2&3 I cannot see that.
Second, if Paul is claiming that death entered through Adam, then again, Paul is simply wrong. Death exists before Adam is even created and can be seen because in the story, God creates the Tree of Life. If death did not already exist then there is no point to even create a Tree of Life.
First of all, its quite an assertion to claim that Paul was simply wrong. You tend to shoot holes in the whole idea of Christianity when you say things like "God lied, Satan told the truth" and "Paul was wrong". Critics would say that you yourself had no idea of the problems you might cause by shaking up peoples belief systems. We simply cannot have a religion where God is imperfect and people are responsible. People have not proven that they can handle responsibility in such great measure. We want our rescuer. We want a perfect God. Nothing less will do!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 09-12-2011 8:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 09-18-2011 8:01 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 52 of 1198 (634010)
09-18-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
09-18-2011 3:33 AM


Re: Enough of this OLD sin, bring me some NEW sin
Read what the stories say.
I'm sorry if you need a rescuer.
Good luck.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 09-18-2011 3:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 53 of 1198 (634012)
09-18-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by jaywill
09-17-2011 1:52 PM


Creation Story and Original Sin
quote:
The Bible does not teach that we are sinners because we sin. Rather it really teaches that we sin because we are sinners. We are constituted with a sinning nature.
You aren't really saying anything different than I am. Humans are capable of breaking the rules of civilization. Getting into why is more of a psychological discussion, not Bible Study.
The A&E story tells the audience that people will go against the laws of the land if it suits their purpose. It also tells us that people suffer consequences for breaking the laws of the land.
The main point of this thread though is that the A&E story isn't necessary to the Jewish religion. The story can be removed and it won't damage the religion. It isn't the foundation of the religion. Jar also commented that it wasn't necessary even for some sects of the Christian religion.
IMO, the Paul's arguments do not depend on the A&E story either. We can remove the part with Adam in it and it wouldn't change Paul's point concerning sin.
1 Corinthians 15
33Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals. 34Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.
It may be in our nature to break the rules, but I don't see in the OT or the NT the idea that we don't have control over our "sinful" nature.
Even in the story with Cain God said Cain didn't need to give into the "evil" nature.
Paul's point also is that we are all responsible for our actions. Belief doesn't absolve responsibility.
I showed in Message 25 that using Paul's writing as a proof text was done many many years after the fact. The idea of original sin wasn't developed by Paul or from Paul's writings.
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.
Paul stressed that we are saved by faith alone, but this faith is inseparable from following God's rules on how we are to live. Right behavior is still necessary. Sin intentionally and one still suffers consequences.
Removing the A&E story or realizing that it is a myth, doesn't change Paul's teachings or the teachings of Jesus. It really wouldn't have a negative impact on the Christian religion overall. How it impacts individuals may be a different issue. People tend to have varying depths of belief concerning various parts of a religion. It depends on what one's foundation is built upon.
How crucial is the A&E story to the Christian Religion? That is the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jaywill, posted 09-17-2011 1:52 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jaywill, posted 09-19-2011 7:26 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 58 by iano, posted 09-19-2011 7:37 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 54 of 1198 (634049)
09-18-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jaywill
09-17-2011 1:52 PM


Re: A question
jaywill writes:
The atheist in his or her heart is certainly a fool.
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.
You have tried in vain to twist the teaching of the New Testament.
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 Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar ..

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jaywill, posted 09-17-2011 1:52 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jaywill, posted 09-19-2011 5:17 AM Bailey has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 55 of 1198 (634052)
09-18-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
09-12-2011 4:57 PM


Death as a Catholic Condition ..
It was my understanding that this story is told to explain why we are dirty vile sinners in need of redemption; even at birth, thus the necessity for the jesus character.
If this story is not vital at all to the necessity of the jesus character, how does one explain it?
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).
Is there some other reason we are natural sinners in need of salvation?
Could this mean, why aren't we born with knowledge instead of having to learn?
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 09-12-2011 4:57 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 56 of 1198 (634092)
09-19-2011 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Bailey
09-18-2011 3:14 PM


Re: A question
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.
However, I am not calling anyone "You knucklehead!" or "You Idiot!" or even "Dumb Fool!" in a perjorative way out of anger. I am not calling names to degrade or humiliate. I am pointing out the foolishness which, the word of God declared, not me.
Jesus also said "And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them shall be likened to a FOOLISH man who built his house upon sand." (Matt. 7:26, my emphasis)
This is warning word out of love. This is not name calling. Likewise Paul would write \[b\]"Look therefore carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise. Redeeming the timee, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be FOOLISH, but understand what the will of the Lord is." ( Eph. 5:15-17, my emphasis).
This is an exhortation not to be "unwise", ie. not to be foolish or a fool. This is a word spoken in love not a hurtful word to humiliate.
And Solomon, after speaking much about the plight of a fool, said that there was more hope for a fool then there was for a person who is wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:12).
So my agreeing with the Bible that a person actually thinking there is no God is a fool, is not name calling in anger to degrade. But God will be the judge, won't He ?
But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of Gehinnom.
Now, you should not try to use this sober warning against anyone saying "Amen" to Psalm 14:1 .
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?
Your first objection was clever but too mechanical. Your second objection is also clever. Christ recovers beyond what Adam lost. Christ does not simply recover to the point of innocence lost by Adam. Christ recovers to the point of the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose and endless kingdom.
"To the extent His kingdom and peace there shall be no end." (See Isa. 9)
Are you judging "success" by numerical size ? The result of Adam's sin may be a larger number of fallen people. And I can't say that I know that. But if true, the outcome of the New Jerusalem is, to me, a greater success than the sin cursed world issuing from Adam.
So I look at the matter qualitatively more than quantitatively. And quantitatively, the salvation of the second man, the last Adam, is pretty impressive anyway. At least John said he saw a crowd of the saved which no man could number !
"After these things I saw, and behold, [there was] a great multitude which no one could number, out of every nation and [all] tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the Lamb, ... And they cry with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb." (Rev. 7:9a,10)
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?
Now, this observation seems to not be about numbers but awareness somehow.
This is not a matter of the unsuccessfulness of Christ's redemption. This is a matter of the need for the redeem's deeper knowledge. And I agree on one level.
The worth of what Christ has done in "paying my mortgage" so to speak, will probably require eternity to appreciate. I don't think I know how effective and how deep this redemption is, even after being one rejoicing in it for over 30 years.
The appreciation of the deepness and effectiveness of Christ's finished work DOES indeed make one feel like yesterday he knew very little. You have a point on one level.
This is why when I do fail I am less surprised. God knows perfectly what I am. It is no surprise to Him. It is only a surprise to me because I still somewhat trust in the fallen Adamic nature.
The positive side of this is that the trust in Christ as the indwelling Savior and Lord deepens and grows. The appreciation for the love and price paid by my Savior can only grow as I am gradually more enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
Life grows. Divine life also grows. Being "born again" is not an end of a process but a beginnning. So all in all, Christ's salvation is far more impressive to me than Adam's failure.
Are you actually arguing how limited in scope Joshua's ransom towards life was compared to Adam's slavery to death?
You would have to elaborate if you think you have something here.
I go along with Paul about the "much more" of Christ's salvation.
"But it is not that as the offense was, so also the gracious git is; for if by the offense of the one the many died, MUCH MORE the grace of God and the free gift in graceof the one man Jesus Christ have abounded to the many." (Rom. 5:25)
"For if by the offense of the one death reigned through the one, MUCH MORE those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." (5:17)
" ... but where sin abounded, grace has super-abounded." (5:20)
But I would not disagree that we Christians need "much more" appreciation of the "much more" . But we count Jesus Christ's work far more profound and impressive than Adam's fall.
Why would you wish to exalt Adam above Christ anyway ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Bailey, posted 09-18-2011 3:14 PM Bailey has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 57 of 1198 (634094)
09-19-2011 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by purpledawn
09-18-2011 8:28 AM


Re: Creation Story and Original Sin
You aren't really saying anything different than I am. Humans are capable of breaking the rules of civilization. Getting into why is more of a psychological discussion, not Bible Study.
I think people sometimes define "Bible Study" based on what they are willing to study and not study in the Bible.
We are talking about the effect of Adam's fall on all sinners. And Romans is the place in the Bible where we can examine that matter, in addition to Genesis.
All the lawlessness against civilization's rules had root in man taking in the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was a prohibition of God and not any human culture.
While I cannot know all that this means, I know enough that this "fruit" brought man under the authority of God's enemy, poisoning him, corrupting him, and constituting man with some kind of evil element the nature of which, perhaps, our science cannot touch.
But man took into himself a foreign element which brought him into a kind of Satanification. While there is much that I cannot explain about this, I can know that Christ and His salvation is the counter force for certain. And Christ is a living Person.
Compare the work of SIN in Paul to the work of Christ the indwelling Spirit in Paul:
SIN - "But if I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me." (Rom. 7:20)
Christ - "I am crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself up for me." (Gal. 2:20)
Negatively, it is SIN that dwells in the sinner. Postively, upon receiving Jesus Christ as the "life giving Spirit" He became (1 Cor. 15:45), it is Christ who lives in the believer.
Put another way, Christ living in the believer is the motion of GRACE.
"But by the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace unto me did not turn out to be in vain, but, on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Cor. 15:10)
The indwelling living Person of Christ in Paul is the grace of God moving and empowering in Paul. It is the same with every believer. The grace of God is the enjoyment of Christ to be our inward empowering and enabling.
So Paul's word that Christ with the believer's spirit is also the grace of Christ with the believer's spirit:
"The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." ( 2 Tim. 4:22)
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." ( Phil. 4:23)
"Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruptibility" (Eph. 6:24)
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers, Amen." (Gal. 6:18)
We are still studying the Bible.
The A&E story tells the audience that people will go against the laws of the land if it suits their purpose. It also tells us that people suffer consequences for breaking the laws of the land.
I know that you are fond of reading some kind of cultural sociology into Genesis. There is a limit to this kind of reductionism.
There is something divine in the account. And that touches the economy of God and the eternal purpose of God.
This prohibition was not the typical moral prohibition of human societies. Adam was not commanded not to divorce, not to steal, not to do some bad thing in the typical sense.
Adam was told to be careful what he ate. It communicates to all generations something about the danger of taking INTO man something which does not belong in man. This "fruit" brought the Satanic element into man and man began to express its Satanic source.
The next account of Cain and Abel show how this "sin" was working in Cain - crouching, seeking opportunity. Cain must master it. But it is exceedingly strong.
And by the time of Noah's flood we see God saying that He Himself is striving by His Spirit. But fallen man has become "flesh".
"And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever, for he indeed is flesh; so his days will be one hundred twenty years." (Gen. 6:3)
God's Spirit and man's human conscience were working against this evil force in man. But a judgment of God is the result and a salvation is needed from the guilt and power of this sin. The Bible's revelation is progressive and unfolding more and more throughout the 66 books.
Perhaps you only see, and want to see, some sociological and cultural matters here, like hunter / gatherer concepts and so on.
To a great extent what kind of Bible people have depends on what kind of people they are. And people tend to read into the Bible their interests.
I have received a living Lord Jesus. I have come to see this living Lord in the whole Bible. I think the writers intended that also, that is to convey the living God to people.
The main point of this thread though is that the A&E story isn't necessary to the Jewish religion.
I will go back and look at the OP. But the BIBLE is the Old Testament and the New Testament.
And the phrase (of which I would never insist has to be used ) "Original Sin" is a NT theological concept. But more to the point is that if you only have a "Jewish religion" view of Genesis, you are deficient on your understanding of Genesis. And someone like myself will point that out.
Though you don't like it, I will point it out just the same. Some people who come to Bible Study to buy your product should be informed that it is not a good product in terms of the revelation of the whole Bible.
tory can be removed and it won't damage the religion. It isn't the foundation of the religion. Jar also commented that it wasn't necessary even for some sects of the Christian religion.
The poster is "objective". The real intent is to oppose the Christian faith. And I may comment on this Public "Bible Study" that I noticed the intent and offer some correction here and there.
Your comments about Paul were off. So even though the poster is "Jewish Only Bible Study" the potshots at Paul and frankly at Genesis too, may not go unchallenged.
IMO, the Paul's arguments do not depend on the A&E story either. We can remove the part with Adam in it and it wouldn't change Paul's point concerning sin.
I don't know about that. The scheme of the FIRST and SECOND Man is very important to the New Testament.
And I would say that the concept does not originate only with Paul. Jesus Christ, in the Gospel of John, gives a allegorical comparison between Himself and the brass serpent lifted in the wilderness.
The poison of the serpents which was killing the Hebrews Christ compares with the sin which is causing man to be condemned and judged. He, Christ, is like the brass serpent lfted in the wilderness. To look upon that serpent was to be healed and saved from the poisoning death. And to believe into Christ is to be saved from eternal damnation and justified unto eternal life:
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes into Him may have eternal life.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life." (John 3:14-16)
Though Adam is not mentioned, the context and the symbolism seem to indicate the poisoning of man at some point. It is not only a Jewish poisoning as if He speaks of failure in Egypt or the wilderness. But it is an analogy applied to all the world - "God so loved the world ...".
All the world has this "serpent poison". And to believe into Jesus Christ is to be saved from God's judgment and justified into eternal life.
So far from assigning such concepts as an Adamic fall to Paul alone, we have to notice that Jesus taught the same. Paul got it from Jesus and from the Scriptures. Paul did not invent it. He may have been eloquent to teach it. But he did not invent it.
Brass is often a symbol of judgment. And for Jesus to compare Himself with the brass serpent suggest that He was judged in the form of Satan. In other words, Christ was made the recipent of the judgment of God which should fall upon Satan and sinners. He had the form of a sinful mankind yet not the actual nature. He knew no sin. But He came in the form of a fallen man.
He came as the brass serpent to be lifted up on the cross and judged. The actual poisoned people, bitten by the real serpent of the Devil, may look upon this lifted up brass serpent, the Son of Man, and be healed and saved.
1 Corinthians 15
33Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals. 34Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.
It may be in our nature to break the rules, but I don't see in the OT or the NT the idea that we don't have control over our "sinful" nature.
We do have a breaking system. We have a conscience that convicts us. We have an internal breaking mechanism, thank God. Cain had one but ignored it.
Though we do have a breaking system convicting us we do not have to power to ALWAYS go along with it. To the extent that we do, of course God knows. And God will bring that into account.
But the fact of the matter is that in spite of our conscience, we simply cannot overcome this sin nature in ourselves. We need salvation from both the guilt of our sinning and the power of sin within us.
But relatively speaking, some as much as they do, go along with the conscience sometimes. In Noah's day the conscience had been totally surpressed. And in some of the Canaanite societies also, the conscience had been totally supressed and the divine judgment was extensive and seemingly total, at least in this realm of physical life is concerned. We do not know of the eternal destiny of the Canaanites.
Conscience is a God created breaking system that activated in fallen man. I believe that if we continue to listen to our conscience we should recognize the love and salvation in the Son of God and not resist His work to save us.
Self righteousness should not be the result of the work of man's conscience, but repentance toward God.
Even in the story with Cain God said Cain didn't need to give into the "evil" nature.
Cain did not master the indwelling evil. Did you miss that ?
Not only he failed but he had NO REMORSE about his failure. He only had remorse for the degree of his punishment. He had absolutely no remorse and no repentance concerning his crime. The degree to which he had become hardened is noted by God. And the record is there to show the progressive falling away of man from God's goodness.
It is BEFORE the crime of Cain, that he is told by God he must master the crouching sin:
"And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Gen. 4:7b)
Instead sin ruled over Cain. Cain murdered Abel in jealousy. The offerings must have been atonements for the inevitable sinful failures of sinners. It is not as if there were no repentance and remedy for being mastered by the evil nature. There were the offerings.
Perhaps Cain should have shown faith in offering a sin offering. Rather he went out from the presence of God caring only for human vengence. And he began to develope the world system without God. He built the first city that the Bible mentions (Gen. 4:16,17)
Paul's point also is that we are all responsible for our actions. Belief doesn't absolve responsibility.
No one said we are not responsible. But we also are no strong enough to overcome the sin nature. We have varuing degrees of striving against it. But no one can live up to the standard that God had for mankind. Jesus Christ alone is the One with Whom God is well pleased.
To say, it is sin within me, driving me, is not to absolve myself from responsibility. We are responsible for not repenting when God opens a door of salvation. We are responsible for stubburnly trusting in our own self righteousness when it is so apparent the we fall short of the glory of God and need forgiveness.
We are responsible not believing into the Savior when God points out the way of salvation. There is nothing in the New Testament teaching that the sinner is not responsible, in spite of the indwelling power of SIN.
I showed in Message 25 that using Paul's writing as a proof text was done many many years after the fact. The idea of original sin wasn't developed by Paul or from Paul's writings.
And I showed that it is not necessary to either use or defend the theological phrase "Original Sin".
It is sufficient to show that Paul, in the fact and not after the fact, TEACHES that through one man sin and death came into the world. That is the ancient Greek text of his letter.
That it was ignored for a while may be an argument. Many truths were neglected for a long time. And many truths were recovered after years of neglect. This is not the same as inventing "after the fact" as you suggest.
Romans Five is not inserted after the fact. It is what Paul wrote.
The Original Sin Doctrine was influenced by Platonism according to this article: The Original View of Original Sin
To repeat again - It is not necessary to either use or defend the theological phrase "Original Sin". And that some treatise in use of it may have gotten mixed with Greek philosophy, I would not deny.
What is important to my study of the Bible is that Plato is not responsible for this:
"For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were CONSTITUTED sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be CONSTITUTED rigthteous." (Rom. 5:19, my emphasis)
Paul, not Plato, said it is a matter of two constitutions and the tension between them. One issuing from Adam unto sin and death. And the other issuing from Christ issuing in righteousness and eternal life.
But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin.
Doesn't matter much. Romans pre-dates Augustine. And Paul elaborates much in his epistles about the grace and power of Christ to overcome sin and sinning.
And Peter too speaks of the believers as partakers of the divine nature. They invented nothing. They built on what they received from Jesus.
Augustine's writings I do not know in great detail. I suppose as any theologian he said some good things and made some mistakes.
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.
These theologians had thier various mixtures of some enlightened exposition with some probably less well taught concepts. I can't think of any perfect theologians.
But you seem to using them as excuses to discount what is in the New Testament, which we Christians see as the they should be seen, the oracles of God.
I mean I appreciate a impressive display of familiarity with the history of Christian theology. But I for one, will not be overwhelmed that what I plainly read in the New Testament is from Plato or Origen or Augustine per se. The church theologians may have commented on the NT and on Plato. There are some good and useful things in their studies as well as probably some less useful things.
The letter of these church fathers are not part of the canon of the New Testament. And we can get along quite will with the Sciptures alone. This is neither to exalt these theologians too highly or dismiss them in contempt. This is neither extreme. This is simply a balanced attitude of seeing that they have their place and their human errors as well.
Paul stressed that we are saved by faith alone, but this faith is inseparable from following God's rules on how we are to live. Right behavior is still necessary. Sin intentionally and one still suffers consequences.
Paul taught reward and loss suffered for moral living unto those for whom the problem of eternal salvation is settled in the affirmative.
Paul didn't teach what some have called "Cheap Grace". This argument I have never seen made successfully.
If you look up every intance of Paul's usage of the phrase "eternal life". I wager that the vast majority of them are spoken in the context of this "eternal life" being the ISSUE of LIVING in moral conformity with how Jesus lived.
Don't take my word for it. Get out your Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and study Paul's usage of the phrase "eternal life. There is rarely any sense of it being a cheap and easy matter. Rather, if I recall right, it is usually the result of and the outcome of proper cooperation with God in living.
It may be a case that much evangelical Christianity has stressed Justification By Faith to the extent of neglecting transformation and sanctification in living. That argument could be made.
Don't blame that on Paul. Don't blame that on the New Testament.
Removing the A&E story or realizing that it is a myth, doesn't change Paul's teachings or the teachings of Jesus. It really wouldn't have a negative impact on the Christian religion overall. How it impacts individuals may be a different issue. People tend to have varying depths of belief concerning various parts of a religion. It depends on what one's foundation is built upon.
Well, you have repeated this a number of times. I will agree that there is no requirement of the New Testament upon salvation that one believe in Adam and Eve. No where did Christ teach that believing in what happened in Genesis was mandatory to receive salvation.
I think your understanding is weaker to not realize some of these things. But I would never suggest that it was a requirement of receiving Christ.
I came to Genesis only after learning that Jesus could be trusted. I eventually decided that if Genesis was good for Him it must be good. Through learning of Christ's unquestioned integrity, I came gradually to believe the rest of the Bible (with needed proper interpretations).
How crucial is the A&E story to the Christian Religion? That is the question.
Religion is not that positive a word to me. God and Christ are living. I don't think God is the God of religion. I think God is the God of reality.
It is important to see the extensiveness of Who Christ is. He is not simply my individual loving Savior. Though He is personal, intimate, loving and certainly the Friend of sinners, He is much more.
He is the Head of a whole new humanity. He is the Head of a new race in the similar sense that Adam was the head of human kind. Christ is what God intended by human being. Christ as the man mingled with God - the God-Man, is what God intended in placing the created man before Himself as divine life signified in the tree of life.
Christ, as God and man united, is the center and circumferance of creation. He is the Second Man as the one into whose hands God has placed all dominion and authority. So it is crucial in appreciation of the extensiveness and all-inclusiveness of Christ, to compare Him to the first man Adam.
And this comparison is biblical. It is important to Paul's most basic treatise on the nature of the Christian faith and church - the book of Romans.
While the comparison between Christ and Adam is not a requiremnt to receive the divine life it is important to getting the needed vision of the all-inclusiveness and extensive vastnesss of Christ and His salvation, His kingdom.
For personal piety alone, maybe it matters not too much. For a vision of God's eternal purpose it matters much. And Paul's ministry was not merely to produce scattered individual spiritual people. Paul was building up the Body of Christ for the kingdom of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 09-18-2011 8:28 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 58 of 1198 (634095)
09-19-2011 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by purpledawn
09-18-2011 8:28 AM


Re: Creation Story and Original Sin
jaywill writes:
The Bible does not teach that we are sinners because we sin. Rather it really teaches that we sin because we are sinners. We are constituted with a sinning nature.
Purpledawn writes:
You aren't really saying anything different than I am. Humans are capable of breaking the rules of civilization. Getting into why is more of a psychological discussion, not Bible Study.
The A&E story tells the audience that people will go against the laws of the land if it suits their purpose. It also tells us that people suffer consequences for breaking the laws of the land.
The main point of this thread though is that the A&E story isn't necessary to the Jewish religion. The story can be removed and it won't damage the religion. It isn't the foundation of the religion. Jar also commented that it wasn't necessary even for some sects of the Christian religion.
IMO, the Paul's arguments do not depend on the A&E story either. We can remove the part with Adam in it and it wouldn't change Paul's point concerning sin.
Paul's argument is that all mankind stands guilty before a holy God (rather than an unholy civilization). He could simply state it - as one could the answer to a math problem - without showing his work. But the argument is better made by showing how it is you come to make the claims you do.
If setting out the remedy to a problem it might be considered important to establish that there is indeed a problem to be resolved.
-
It may be in our nature to break the rules, but I don't see in the OT or the NT the idea that we don't have control over our "sinful" nature. Even in the story with Cain God said Cain didn't need to give into the "evil" nature. Paul's point also is that we are all responsible for our actions. Belief doesn't absolve responsibility.
The argument appears to be that we have control over our sin in the same way that the pilot of a stricken aircraft has control over the place where it ploughs headlong into the earth. No amount of control can avert the crash and so the offer is put that the pilot bale out.
-
I showed in Message 25 that using Paul's writing as a proof text was done many many years after the fact. The idea of original sin wasn't developed by Paul or from Paul's writings.
The Original Sin Doctrine was influenced by Platonism according to this article: The Original View of Original Sin
The question isn't where the idea might or might not have arisen. The question is whether we can conclude original sin today from the text. I think that's certainly a possibility.
-
Paul stressed that we are saved by faith alone, but this faith is inseparable from following God's rules on how we are to live. Right behavior is still necessary. Sin intentionally and one still suffers consequences.
If you are defining saving faith as involving 'believing in what God says' and if believing that God says he has provided you a sure salvation from your failure to adhere to his rules then faith and rule-following are separable.
You are saved despite failing (and continuing to fail) to follow God's rules.
-
Removing the A&E story or realizing that it is a myth, doesn't change Paul's teachings or the teachings of Jesus. It really wouldn't have a negative impact on the Christian religion overall. How it impacts individuals may be a different issue. People tend to have varying depths of belief concerning various parts of a religion. It depends on what one's foundation is built upon.
How crucial is the A&E story to the Christian Religion? That is the question.
Establishing man as constitutionally unholy is, I think, vital. A proof of this comes from a myriad of world where man is told that if he tries hard enough, he can make himself right with God.
Someone convinced that their very constitution prevents them from ever meeting the standard will be forced to seek another solution. Salvation by (Christian-style) faith is the single alternative to various shades of working for your salvation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 09-18-2011 8:28 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by purpledawn, posted 09-19-2011 8:23 AM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 1198 (634096)
09-19-2011 8:21 AM


Importance of Original Sin
The only importance attached to the concept of Original Sin is its value as a marketing tool to persuade folk that they need to join the club. Beyond being an easy pathway into the gold mine income stream it is worthless.

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

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 60 of 1198 (634097)
09-19-2011 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by iano
09-19-2011 7:37 AM


Re: Creation Story and Original Sin
quote:
Establishing man as constitutionally unholy is, I think, vital. A proof of this comes from a myriad of world where man is told that if he tries hard enough, he can make himself right with God.
Someone convinced that their very constitution prevents them from ever meeting the standard will be forced to seek another solution. Salvation by (Christian-style) faith is the single alternative to various shades of working for your salvation.
We know the point of Paul's argument, but the creation story doesn't present mankind as constitutionally unholy.
Paul could still make his argument by using the songs and prophets as he did. The creation story isn't vital to his argument. Even before Jesus there was Biblical criticism and Jews who understood that the creation stories were legends, not fact.
Paul could have used any other disobedient person to contrast Christ.
The concept wasn't passed down from Paul. The lack of a creation story doesn't negate the teachings of Jesus or Paul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by iano, posted 09-19-2011 7:37 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by iano, posted 09-19-2011 8:37 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 64 by jaywill, posted 09-19-2011 9:34 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024