|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The topic isn't really about whose to blame for why man is the way he is. My position and I think jar's is that the A&E story was created to try and explain why man is the way he is. It isn't describing an actual event. Paul wanted to say that we have always been the way we are, so he used the creation story for a visual. I don't have an issue with that. Jesus didn't use the idea of original sin to spread the good news. Paul used Adam to make an argument that we've always been able to sin, but he could still make that argument without the creation story. Someone could still make that argument today by using evolution. Not as interesting a story, but it could be done. The Doctrine of Original Sin came into play through reinterpretation of the creation story by Greek church fathers. Message 25 Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles. The creation story wasn't essential to Judaism and wasn't essential to Jesus' message. His message would be the same without it. The OT doesn't support that the messiah was coming to save people from their sinful nature. I agree that apologetics and evangelicals probably need the concept, but Jesus didn't and I don't feel Paul did either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The Jewish religion began with Abraham. The Jewish relationship with God began with Abraham, not Adam, because Abraham (according to legend) reasoned that there was only one God. One's relationship with God is right when one is behaving appropriately. If you really have to look at Adam and Eve as real people, their relationship with God wasn't due to having no sin nature. They already had the sin nature. The whole point of the OT is that when his people misbehave, God hides his face and they suffer; and when his people behave, he blesses them. The same thing happened to Adam and Eve. The sacrifices in the OT didn't make people right with God, repentance did. Continued right behavior. That's what Jesus and Paul taught. No one else can restore our "right relationship" with God except us through repentance and continued right behavior. Since Jesus didn't present himself as a sacrifice to patch mankind's relationship with God, the creation story only impacts those who feel the story is real or have learned that our operating system was different than they are now. It is clear that the importance of the creation story to some Christians is a later development, not something that Jesus or Paul presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:There was no real relationship with Adam. The God of the OT and the NT is the God of Abraham, not the God of Adam. quote: Ezekiel 18:21-22 But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. Ezekiel 18:24 But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die. quote:They don't really. A sentence can be misleading. Paul makes very long drawn out arguments. One has to find the point of his argument. We have to remember that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He was trying to bring these people into the family of the God of Abraham. Paul's overall point is that the Jews weren't chosen because of their stellar behavior. Abraham believed in the one God and God chose to protect Abraham and his descendants. But...within that chosen group those who were in right standing with the God of Abraham were the ones who were behaving. Paul presents the Gentiles as adopted into that family. His argument is that they weren't adopted in because of stellar behavior, but through belief just like Abraham. (Romans 4) But...being part of the family also means one has to behave according to the rules of the family. All are loved, but all are to behave or suffer the consequences. (Romans 6-7) Getting into God's family takes belief, but being in right standing with God takes right behavior. Unbelief gets one removed from the family, not wrong behavior. (Romans 11)
Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done, by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. (Romans 15:17) Now we may have a different idea of what right standing means, but either way the message is the same. If one feels that right standing means in the family, then belief gets us there. If one feels that right standing means God isn't angry with us, then right behavior gets us there.
quote:But it hasn't. Tradition says that Moses wrote the Torah not the writings in the Bible. Even before Jesus was born some Jews knew the Torah wasn't as old as tradition led them to believe. In the book entitled "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, Johnson notes that intellectual Jewish Reformers, about 170 bce, understood that the Law they had was not very old and did not go back to the time of Moses and they found the Torah full of fables. (Page 101) Like all creation stories, it is a nice tradition to pass on, but of all the 613 commands that the Jews pulled from the Torah, not one came from the A&E story. Only one came from the Genesis 1 story and that was to be fruitful and multiply. Don't really need a law for that.
quote:Yes Jesus came to restore right relationship with God, but through repentance. That's why his message was to repent and be baptized. Right behavior cancels out the memory of wrong behavior. His death did not restore right relationship with God, just as the animal sacrifices didn't restore right relationship with God. Repentance is the key and always has been in the Bible. There is no indication that Jesus or Paul were trying to restore all humanity to a "Garden of Eden" state. Jesus wanted the members of the family to start behaving better and Paul wanted Gentiles adopted into the family and behaving better once they were in. The creation story isn't necessary for that message. There's nothing in the Bible that presents God as a being who wanted man not to be able to make mistakes. That's why I feel the absence of the creation story wouldn't impact the message of Jesus or Paul. The idea of the Original Sin issue came from the idea that flesh is bad and spiritual is good. If the creation story wasn't part of the Bible, they could still have developed that idea. The Greeks did and they didn't have our creation story. I do agree that the creation story is important to those who feel it was an actual event, but it doesn't change the value of one's belief if one sees it as a myth. IMO, we are adopted into the family because of true unconditional belief, not because we want to avoid supposed consequences. Abraham didn't believe to avoid consequences. We behave to avoid consequences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
If you feel the creation story is a myth, why continue to ask questions as though it is real?
quote:Yes, you can infer what you want with any story, but then you are adding to the story just as others do. According to the story, God did not send the snake to Eve; and Adam wasn't tricked. If you feel this is a myth, then you should understand that the characters in the story are consistent with the characteristics of humans.
quote:This is a tribal story. Even within the Bible writings we can see that religion wasn't quite the same in the tribal days as it is today. quote:This is the religious side of the forum, he can believe it is real all he wants. This thread isn't about proving that the story is fact or fiction. You believe it is myth as I do, but he believes it is fact. Other Christians believe it is a myth and are still Christians. Writings don't have to be factual to be used to teach. I don't see that your line of discussion makes a case either way.Do you feel that if the story is fact is it more important to the concept of original sin than if it is fiction or vice versa? Origen, one of the early christian scholars, felt the creation stories were myth, but that didn't stop him from inferring certain things from the story and using Adam to represent a type when it comes to original sin.
De Principiis (Book IV) by Origen 16. ... Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. ... As in Philo, in Origen Adam is still a type: the type of the "earthly" man, and the type of the sinner who repented. We cannot ascribe to him the classical notion of original sin developed by Augustine. Paul's sentence, "In Adam we all sinned" does not have the same meaning in Origen and in Augustine. In Origen it means the universality of sin. In Augustine it means the inheritance of sin.
IMO, there is much more to the development of the idea of original sin than the creation stories. It takes some reading.
Models From Philo In Origen's Teaching on Original Sin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
The A&E story is not really about relationships, IMO. It isn't uncommon for ancient stories to portray the subject of the story speaking with their respective gods.
These are stories told in a way that they are easy to remember. That Adam & Eve talked with God isn't the point of the story. God is presented as the God of Abraham in the old and new testaments. IMO, the writers understood the creation stories for what they were, stories. Judaism began with Abraham, not Adam. That's why I feel the creation stories would not adversely impact Judaism or the msgs presented by Jesus and Paul if the stories were not in the Bible or deemed fiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
This is a debate, not twenty questions. My position is that the Jewish religion is not dependent on the creation stories or the concept of original sin. The Jewish religion started with Abraham.
Judaism began with Abraham, who had felt uneasy about all the pagan gods and who decided to leave home and follow the call of one true god. quote:No I don't feel Paul considered the A&E story to be history. As I said, the Jewish religion began with Abraham. quote:The Bible stories are local, not planetary. Not The Planet I don't see that this line of questioning has anything to do with the importance of the original sin doctrine to Judaism or Christianity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The foundational myths would continue whether they were in the Bible or not. My point is that removing the A&E story from the Bible, or deeming it fiction would not change the fundamentals of Judaism. You haven't shown me that it would. I also stated that removing the A&E story from the Bible or deeming the A&E story to be fiction would not change the messages presented by Jesus or Paul. You haven't shown me that it would. The original sin doctrine is a later creation influenced by Platonism. Message 25 quote:No you can't tell from his writings if he personally felt the A&E story was fact or fiction. Paul used Adam as an example of disobedience contrasted with Christ's obedience. As I showed in Message 16, it is not uncommon for people to use fictional characters to make a point. Adam represented disobedience. As I presented to you in Message 44, the A&E story is not the foundation of Paul's argument. His argument would be the same whether he mentioned Adam or not. If you disagree, explain how Paul's message would change without the use of Adam to make his point.
quote:Except that the writers weren't today's modern man. They were men who lived in a time when the planet wasn't known. We have to understand what they were saying to their audience. Their audience would not have visualized a planet with those words. If you want to argue about whether the words referred to a planet or just the local area, go to the thread entitled Not The Planet. Show me there that the authors had a planetary understanding. Even if one feels that God dictated the story, God would be using a word that had no meaning to the people of the day. If today's translators wanted us to understand that the writers were talking about the planet, they would use the word planet or capitalize the world Earth to signify the planet. In modern vernacular, that is what tells us that it is the planet. I still don't see what the planetary issue has to do with the positions I've presented concerning the A&E story and the original sin doctrine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I use the definition in the dictionary. I have not made an assumption that has no evidence to back it up. If you wish to discuss why the Christian creation myth should be considered true over any other creation myth, then proceed to the appropriate thread. Why prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions?. quote:That is not my position. My position is that Judaism doesn't rest on the creation stories. It can survive without them if they disappeared or are considered fiction. This thread is about the creation stories and the importance of original sin.
quote:I haven't amputated anything. The religion doesn't rely on the Adam and Eve story. quote:Show me how it is weakened. If the religion wasn't based on the A&E story, how can its absence or viewing it as fiction weaken the religion? Even with Jesus and Paul, the idea of original sin is a later concept. They didn't present it so how can their message be weakened when their messages didn't rely on the story anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Please stick to the topic. If you want to discuss current events or politics, please go to the Coffee House or Free for All.
Please stick to the point of this thread and the positions actually presented by participants. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
That humans are capable of behaving badly is not the issue. The issue is the Doctrine of Original sin.
I showed in Message 25 that the doctrine is a later development by reinterpreting the A&E story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The rule to rest on the seventh day came from Exodus 23 written by the E writer, which was written before the Genesis 1 creation story according to Friedman's Documentary Hypothesis. The parts of the Exodus story connecting the Sabbath with creation were written by the Priestly writer. So their rule for resting on the Sabbath doesn't hang on the Creation story.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024