Importance of Original Sin

I don't think there is anything "vile" or "immoral" about the Lord Jesus Christ.I think Christ manifested the highest level of morality ever witnessed on this earth.Now I have been speaking about Cain and Abel. We know that Abel's accepted offering foreshadows the offering of Jesus Christ. Here is one passage that proves that Abel's offering POINTS to the offering of Jesus for our sins.

quote:

---

" ... Jesus, the Mediator of a new covenant; and to the blood of sprinkling, which speaks something better than that of Abel." (Hebrews 12:24)

---

The shed blood of Abel speaks something to people of God. The shed blood of Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant speaks something better.Genesis has God saying that the shed blood of Abel cried out for vengence towards Cain his murderer -

quote:

---

" And He [God] said [to Cain] What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to Me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand." (Genesis 4:10,11)

---

The shed blood of Jesus Christ "cries out" for our forgiveness. God has judged the sins of the world upon Christ that we may be justified before Perfect Righteousness. When we believe in Christ substitution takes place and our judgment for sins was accomplished upon Christ.You should see how the death of Abel for his faith and offering to God is a prefigure of the death of the Son of God for His faith towards His Father and offering Himself to be our Redeemer. God does not hold you and I responsible for HAVING the sin nature. That we had no part in. But we are responsible for the transgressions of His law, our sins, our iniquities, our wrong doings, our judging others while we ourselves are guilty and a host of other moral failures.But He has an answer for our guilt in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
This is the One whom you seem to imply is "vile" and "immoral". But God sees Christ as the Lamb without blemish and without spot - perfect.Because He is so profound and wonderful, the revelation of the Bible prefigured and foreshadowed Him in many ways. And we have been seeing some of this is the book of Genesis. Christ is seen there in Genesis.I think these days "Truth is the new hate speech."I think these days to be a follower of Jesus Christ is to be automatically branded as immoral and vile - intolerant and hateful. This is an interesting development. I expect it to increase as we approach the second coming of Christ to establish His kingdom over the earth.But to try to stay on subject here, Christ saves from both the guilt of sin and the power of sin. The last passage concerning the God scolding Jonah that the "collective punishment" was not going to unjustly include those whom God knew should be exempted.

quote:

---

"And I [God], should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and many cattle.?" (Jonah 4:11)

---

Furthermore, you should accept that it is a fact of life that often other people will suffer because of your own wrong doing. Countries DO in fact include the suffering consequences of a segment's errors or a leader's errors.A man's family may suffer for his wrongs.
A man's grand children may experience adverse consequences of the errors of their grand father. This is a fact of life.Why be angry with the Scripture when it indicates negative collective consequences do occur ? All in all I have great confidence in God's overall sovereignty and righteousness. His record of all the details of our lives is infallible. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jesus seems to me to be a fine bloke, but the issue of original sin has nothing whatsoever to do with what a nice chap jesus was. It's the concept of original sin being vile that we're discussing.The rest of your reply also attempts to sidestep the main point by regurgitating your personal interpretation of myth - which is all irrelevant. This gets closer but you've sidestepped the point of original sin again, which is a sin that we are guilty of it at birth. Catholics believe that without this sin being absolved by the sacrament of baptism, an otherwise guilt free child can not get into heaven. [Although I read with amusement a while ago that the concept of Limbo was being scrapped.]Now that's an evil idea. and what a load of old toffee that was. I've never heard anyone call followers of jesus Christ immoral and vile. That's just mad.

In the dogma, yes. But some people are arguing that original sin is not described in the Bible. So jaywill's attempted proofs using the Bible are on point, particularly for discussions in the Faith and Belief forum. The problem is that his attempts are also laughable. Perhaps you are reading it 'wrong'. jaywill has demonstrated that he can find Satan in 'Origin of Species'. Once you can do that, finding Satan in a couple of paragraphs of Genesis is child's play.

That is patronizing. Read His claims. He is either a madman, extremely self deluded, or a liar. Either that or He is speaking the truth.A "Fine bloke" patronizing and evasive of the real details of His claims. The reason that Jesus told Nicodemus that he MUST be born again, proves that Nicodemus needed another life.Something was terribly wrong with the natural life that he was born with. And Jesus informed him that to see the kingdom of God he must be born anew.Don't you think that strongly implies that what you and I were naturally born with is rejected by God's kingdom ?

quote:

---

" Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

​

Nicodemus said to Him, How can a man be born when he is old ? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's wormb abd ve born, can he ?

​

Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

​

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again." (John 3:3-7)

---

The "fine bloke" emphatically informs us that we need a new birth. We need a birth from heaven. We need to be born of God. We need our human spirit to be born again of the Holy Spirit.A new birth strongly implies that something in our original created being has been corrupted to the point of ruination as far as the kingdom of God is concerned. This is like the cancer patient scolding his doctors because they honestly tell him that he has this disease."You vile and immoral doctors! How dare you tell me that I am sick and in need of a cure. Vile, Immoral you are !!"If there was no salvation from God then that would be most hopeless. But the diagnoses is followed by the splendid remedy. God has not left us in such a hopeless state. YOU assume myth.
YOU assume the untruth of the record of the Bible.We're studying the so called "Importance of Original Sin" which I think is someone's rather negative way of speaking of the topic.I am discussing the so called "Original Sin" ( a phrase which I never use myself ) AND including in the discussion the "Original Righteousness" accomplished FOR the sinner in Jesus Christ. If we are descendents of Adam, which I believe we all are, then we inherited sin and death.You seem to want to argue that this is unjust of God to announce that we all inherited the sin nature from Adam's fall.I don't think the diagnosis is immoral. And I am glad that He is able to save us "to the uttermost" who come forward to God through Christ.Incidently, Paul's word on being saved is simply that we believe into Christ calling on His name. He does not specify that one has to believe in "Original Sin" to be saved. Rather that understanding may come latter. What Paul pin points as important to the truth seeker is to believe in Christ who has risen from the dead and is Lord.

quote:

---

" That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. " (Rom. 10:9)

---

Notice Paul does not specify confess with your mouth "Original Sin" or believe in your heart " Adam was the first man who passed on sinning to everyone else."There is no demand that the new believer be conversant in these theological themes. What Paul teaches is confession that Jesus is your Lord and believing that God has raised Jesus the Lord from the dead.As a man embarks out on the Christian life, he eventually will see that ONLY Christ in him can live unto God. He will eventually see that ONLY Christ is absolute for the Father's will. And in that gradual realization he may come to appreciate that we were born with a sin nature which ONLY the indwelling Christ can overcome. Sin is the nature. Sinning comes out of the sin nature.Some call this "Original Sin".I think if we use that phrase we should also use the corresponding expression "Original Righteousness." That would be the justification and righteousness which is Christ on our behalf before God.If we talk of "Original Sin" from Adam let us also speak of "Original Righteousness" from Jesus Christ. This is completely fair and balanced. Go find some Catholics to discuss this with.
Here you are exchanging discussion with me.
And I will not be defending viewpoints that I do not hold.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Well forgive me Lord! My reading of what Jesus is supposed to have said and done, puts him in the category of a very fine bloke indeed. If indeed he ever existed at all of course. The correct analogy is that the doctor first gave us all the cancer, then told us he could cure it. Well you seem to have finally discovered the problem.You see, I've never met Adam, wouldn't know him from, er, Eve. So why should I be punished for something that he did? And it's not as though the punishment is to sit on the naughty step for 10 minutes, it's the worst possible punishment - pushed out of paradise, made mortal and feel pain and death for the entirity of mankind and forever. Very spiteful thing your God. He's going to save some of us from the cancer he gave us - well woopydoo, very moral.

First attitude is to neutralize Christ to be a harmless "fine bloke".
Your backup attitude is to doubt that Christ ever existed at all.I see these patterns of argument quite often. I note how often I end up speaking with questioners who soon retreat into attitude that no such person as Jesus ever lived.Once you get into that realm every topic has to move to one on the historical reliability of the Gospels. And here that is not what the subject is. So I suppose you and I will be winding down until we meet again somewhere and that is the topic of discussion."Well, Jesus never probably lived" is the escape hatch and neutralizing assumption which throws purposely into a fog of ambiguity. Of course if you want to be consistent then if He never lived and never spoke then you should not selectively choose things you want to arbitrarily attribute TO Him for your own reasons. No God did not first give us all the cancer. God warned the first man -

quote:

---

" ... Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:16,17)

---

And when Adam DID disobey God God said -

quote:

---

" ... Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I COMMANDED YOU NOT TO EAT ? " (Gen. 3:11 my emphasis)

---

And if you STILL cannot get the point that it was not God's fault you have God repeat -

quote:

---

" And He said to Adam, Because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree concerning which I COMMANDED YOU, saying, YOU SHALL NOT EAT OF IT; Cursed is the ground because of you ..." (Gen. 3:17 my emphasis)

---

So your analysis is that of someone who has had a Bible study with the lying serpent as the leader.God commanded him not to go and get cancer. Take a look in the mirror. There is a bloke very much like him there. Blaming everyone else for things.You too have a choice between God as life as seen in the tree of life and the death of the result of inherited sin.You see this tree of life is Jesus Christ today - "I am the way and the truth and the LIFE" (John 14:6) He came that we might have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10). "In Him was life and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4)You see, in Jesus Christ this divine life is again presented to us for our choice. We are in a sense between the two trees now - The tree of life which today is the Son of God and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" the effects of which we have seen in the sin and death of all men.Adam had his chance. Now you and I have our chance. I choose life in Christ. "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25) " I am the bread of life " (John 6:48) You see in the picture in Genesis God presented Himself to Adam in the form of food to eat - the tree of life. Today, on this side of the accomplished redemption the way to take in the life of God is again made available.And again God in Christ presents Himself to us in the picture of food. For food is something we must take INTO our being. Food becomes part of us for we are what we eat.So today in the Gospel God as the divine life presents Himself again as the bread of life, the water of life. That is God as Spirit to take into us and to "drink" in by calling on His name. We can receive Christ into us. And again Christ as divine life can be compounded with our life to give us God, to give us eternal life.In the closing climax of the Bible we see no more the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But we do see in the closing pages the tree of life.In Revelation, the last book of the divine revelation we see Christ depicted as the tree of life and the center of the new eternal "city" of God - The Day is coming. The blazing light of a new age is upon us. But before its glory dawns on the world there is this "bright morning star". The morning star is the Son of God proceeding the dawn of the kingdom of God.This One is the embodiment of the tree of life. Through His shed blood of redemption we can wash our robes and have right to the divine life of God imparted into our lives.The tree of life prevails to grow. The other tree finds its destination in the lake of fire.

Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and Satan injected himself into man's nature.The question now is how does the bible show that this injected sin nature first manifested itself? This injected sin nature first manifested itself in man's religion. The religion invented by Cain was the first manifestation of SIN in man.Think on it for a minute and then I will try to get you all convinced.Genesis three shows Adam and Eve taking into themselves Satan's sin nature. Immediately afterward we have this injected nature rearing its head in the form of Cain's invented religion and subsequent murder of his brother Abel.

And indeed I did.But what is fascinating is following: you are not telling me ANYTHING that I did not know already.This is probably one of the more frustrating aspects of engaging in dialog with certain religious individuals. You think that by inundating us with endless scripture and interpretations of that scripture, somehow you will get us to 'see' the world as you do.My friend, as I stipulated earlier, none of this is new to me. I have read it all. I studied it, took classes on the subject, had tests on the material, and scored a relatively high grade I might add. I am not reading anything here that is not common knowledge. Myself and others may disagree on specifics of the interpretations, but the concept is quite simple and easy to comprehend.Ultimately, you are still missing the crux of the baseline argument that both Tangle and myself are stipulating: that the whole notion of Original Sin is abhorrent. It is a barbaric and archaic philosophy that permeated in our more primitive past, as evidenced by various laws that existed at the time, which the law of the Bible borrowed.Now if you want to go off on a tangent again and throw endless streams of scripture at us along with your diagnosis of the words, go right ahead. But to what end? Are you attempting to convey information we did not already know? Doesn't seem so, since this is common knowledge.The point is: I don't care how the spin is conveyed. I am not interested in how you do verbal gymnastics to attempt to explain how Original Sin occurred, how it affected humanity, how Jesus needed to be butchered in the most horrendous way to save our poor souls. The explanations are meaningless because they do nothing to deal with the root of the problem: that the concept of Original Sin is abhorrent. Pure and simple.

In Genesis 4 we see that the evil seed which had been injected into man in Genesis firstly manifested. It manifests itself in what was apparently a good thing - worshiping God.Abel's worship was "by faith" as we see in Hebrews 11.
Cain's offering was like me offering you sewage water to drink. It was an insult to God. And it was not an offering as God must have prescribed.Now the seed of sin entered into man in Genesis 3. Paul calls this sin as well as God does in Genesis 4:7.Like God tells Cain sin is a crouching person seeking opportunity to capture his will so Paul does also. In Romans 7:19-20 Paul says,

quote:

---

"For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil I do not will, this I practice. But if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that do it but sin that dwells in me."

---

Although many Christians are familiar with Paul's words - "It is no longer I but Christ who lives in me" they do not consider the corresponding truth that Romans 7 says - " .. it is no longer I that do it but sin that dwells in me." Christians know that Galatians 2:20 says that it is no longer I but Christ. Christians need to realize that Paul said it was no longer he but sin that dwells in him. By Galatians 2:20 it is clear that the Christ can dwell in a believer. Christ, the very embodiment of God, can dwell in a person. In the same principle, we all can say that the sin which dwells in us must also be a living person. This indwelling sin is the embodiment of Satan.Christ is the embodiment of God dwelling in the innermost spirit of the one who receives Christ as Lord. And sin is the embodiment of Satan dwelling in the flesh of all men.Satan, the evil one, has injected himself into our nature. We need a stronger one to be imparted into our innermost being. That stronger one is Jesus Christ.This evil seed first expressed itself in a religious way, in the way of worshipping God. The seed of Satan indwelling Adam and his children first manifested itself in the invention of a religion. But it was a religion opposed to God's procedure and God's way. It was Cain's presumptuous self chosen way to approach God. And it was an insult to God. God received Abel's offering of a blood sacrifice and the fat portions. God rejected Cain's offering from the crops which he had cultivated.But he did not leave Cain completely discouraged. He told Cain that if he did well he too would be accepted.Abel offered according to God's revelation. Cain offered expressed the indwelling rebellious sin nature injected into man at the first fall.What is the concept of fallen man? It is the expression of Satan in man. Never forget the incident recorded in Matthew 16:20-23 . Peter expressed his opinion that Jesus should avoid the cross. But the cross was the will of God. And Jesus knew that that was the Father's way.Did Jesus take pity on Himself as Peter suggested? No, Jesus turned to Peter and rebuked Satan. Because Satan was lurking in man's opinion Satan got exposed. Jesus detected that hiding out in Peter's opinion was the crouching Devil.This was the same Peter who only a short time before had confessed Jesus as the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Even after such a revelation from God shortly before Peter could be used by the indwelling Satan to be a stumbling block to the Son of God.

quote:

---

Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be merciful to You, Lord! This shall by no means happen to You!

​

But He [Jesus] turned and said to PETER, Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men." (Matt. 16:22,23)

---

Peter and Satan were one at that point. And Cain and Satan were one in Cain's religious offering.So we need to first receive Jesus Christ as Lord. And we need to set our minds on Him once He has come into our being as a life giving Spirit. Then with our minds set on Him our minds will ever be on the things of God.But man can express the indwelling Satan by setting his mind on the things of men CONTRARY to the will and purpose of God.Peter did not realize that Satan was present in his concept, but the Lord Jesus recognized it and called Peter "Satan". The concept of fallen man is simply the expression of the indwelling Satan.It is better that we realize now that we are infested with Satan and ask Christ to come into our spirit than it is to appear before the judgment of God for this truth to finally be revealed to us.To have your religion rejected by God would be a tragedy.
But He will receive our Christ - He is the things of God.

You're a weird one, I've never seen so many straw men erected so quickly. Take it at face value, Jesus was a fine fellow. Well that's an argument for another day and I have no real opinion either way, but it's necessary to mention the fact that not all historians find the evidence for his existence convincing. You can repeat your stories until you're blue in the face - and it seems that you will - I'm no interested in what they say or how you interpret them, I've heard it all before, it's not hidden knowledge that only you have access to, it's taught to children. Sadly.No, the issue is how original sin can be moral. No amount of sermonising can avoid the fact that being punished for a crime you did not commit is wrong.Now please try to answer that without spouting biblical nonsense.

I do like these "Been There and Done That" types who know it all.Tell us please. What did they teach you about what Paul calls "the eternal purpose" ?What is God's "eternal purpose" (Eph. 3:11) ? This is all old stuff for you. So surely you can get off of "Original Sin" just for a moment and explain to us the eternal purpose of God (aside from the whole Sin matter).Diomedes, what is God's eternal purpose ?

So are you but we like you anyway.

Are your buddies helping you ringo ?
You seemed to have sent out the rallying call for assistance."Let's all feed jaywill ! " Are you really an atheist ?
Are you an atheist who likes to bible ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I never claim to 'know it all'. I do however state that I did learn all this in my past. For example, I never took formal classes on Islam or Hinduism. I am familiar with some of their tenets, but I am by no means an expert. Heck, I would not even consider myself an expert on the bible, but I did READ IT. And study it. In the same way I studied trigonometry, algebra, Shakespeare, calculus, electromagnetic theory, particle physics, thermodynamics, etc, etc. From the standpoint of scripture, that varies based on interpretation. Ephesians, which you reference, ultimately pushed forth the concept of One Lord and One Faith. Which ultimately is interpreted as a divine purpose to unify all faiths around a single creator; i.e. the formation of a singular church under the banner of Christianity. God conveyed that he wanted to make his wisdom available through the church which Paul set forth to do. God was a 'mystery' until Paul brought him to light.And once again, part of the overall gimmick. Under the guise of what the creator wants, you must build a church in the name of the god of christianity. And who is this god? Why, he was a mystery until I told you about him, so now you have to go to that big building over there, be humble and toss money into the collection plate.

I think others might be reading along who do derive some benefit.
And since you are so not interested why are you participating the Bible Study ? ? ?I'll be putting you on Ignore from here on out.
Bye.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.