Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

Despite your reasoning as to why paul isn't to blame for the evolution of christianity,but luther, my question is what would he be talking about if not original sin? "...as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"thats the line i am talking about that fundis use to justify original sin, you must admit unless he is talking about something other than what people think it is it must be something really obscure

But once again, what is happening with that line is classic quotemining. Romans is one long letter. When you go in and grab a piece out of context, which is what they are doing when they grap that line out of the 16 Chapters that makes up Romans, they miss the context of what Paul is saying.To understand Paul, to understand Romans you need to look at the whole letter. Paul is using a reference to a tale the audience probably has heard before, the tale of Adam and Eve. The reason he uses it (this is from Romans 5 incase you want to look it up) is to set the stage for the next point he was going to make, which is AbE: if you go on to read the verses I included above, you'll see that they are a pretty good refutation of the idea of original sin anyway.And, as usual, Paul returns to the theme of "it's what you do that counts" in Romans 6 anyway.This message has been edited by jar, 04-11-2006 10:43 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have me there jar
the fundis have me believing some twisted version of the NT, rather than the real thing
lol i will again say what i said earlier, about the fact that fundis want to believe their version of christianity is the one people have always believed itits easy to fool people even those who try to read and understand the bible ( though i think i need a new bible, i hate kjv )

Legend,Thx. I much prefer this. Down to real facts. That last sentence I can agree with if we don't have to use Martin Luther's definition of justification. Justification, to Paul and all the early Christians who read his letters, meant more than just being forgiven. It meant being made righteous. It meant, first and foremost, being delivered from the power of sin, even more so than being delivered from the penalty of sin.You mentioned Gal 2:21 and 3:11-13. Notice a statement that's between them in 3:5. "Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now BEING PERFECTED by the flesh?"Paul's focus was always a transformation in behavior. It is Luther who focused on the penalty of sin. Luther loved Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, but look at how all three books end. They all end with things that don't look anything like Luther's justification by faith. Ephesians has 5:3-5 saying that you won't inherit the kingdom of God without avoiding immorality, uncleanness, and greed. Galatians has 5:19-21 and 6:8,9, both clearly prescribing doing good works and avoiding works of the flesh for eternal life in the kingdom of God. Romans has 14:9, which says Jesus' death was so that he could be Lord of the living and the dead; it has 8:3,4 which says Jesus' death was so that we could walk by the Spirit and fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law; and it has 6:14, which says that grace is so that sin won't have power over us.Notice Rom 3 and Rom 7. Paul appeals to Psalms mostly, but also Isaiah, to say that even ancient writers notice how bad people are. They have the poison of asps under their lips, their throats are an open grave, and there's none good, no, not one. He didn't make that up. He's quoting that.Then in Rom 7, he says, "Hey, I find that sin in me, too." Hardly anyone I know can't identify with Rom 7. Goody for those that can't; I think that's wonderful, but most people I know can.It is that which Paul deals with, and it is that which he calls death in Rom 5:12. He's not talking about God being angry with people for what Adam did. He's talking about people being as described in Rom 3 and struggling as in Rom 7. He calls it the law of sin and death. Sin is in our body, and whenever the Law comes--whenever God tells us what to do--this thing in our body rises up and causes us to do what's wrong. "Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord."Notice that he did not say, "Oh wretched man that I am, who shall appease this angry God?"Sure, Rom 3:28 says that we are justified by faith apart from works. However, again, he is not using Luther's definition of justification. Justification, to Paul and all his hearers, was primarily being delivered from the power of sin and only secondarily being delivered from the penalty of sin.I hope I addressed enough of Romans above to make my case, because I've already used up enough space in this post without continuing on and on and on, which I could do. Matt 26:28 says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."Matt 8:17 quotes Is 53 in reference to taking our infirmities and bearing our sicknesses. Isaiah adds "wounded for our transgressions" in that passage.1 Pet 3:18 says, "Christ has suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God."1 Jn 1:7 says, "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin."Rev 1:5 says he "washed us from our sins in his own blood."It is not just Paul who says these things. Paul was just unfortunate to have spoken in such a way as to have been redefined by Martin Luther 1500 years later. He's not any different from any of the other NT writers, including the writers of the Gospels, who all, except John, have the reference to Christ saying the cup was the New Testament in his blood, shed for the remission of sins. Paul does not say the penalty of sin is transferrable. He is explaining what everyone knows, which is that everyone sins. It was Solomon who first mentions this, saying, "For there is no one who does not sin." I think Paul does a sufficient job on his own of finding other references for you, in Rom 3, which is all quotes from others. I think I understood you, and I think Ps 51 says the same as Paul. It does not only say "conceived in sin." It also says, "I was shapen in inquity." David is clearly trying to say that he was a sinner from birth. It's not the focus of the Psalm, but the focus is deep repentance, and part of that is completely maligning himself. "I didn't just sin here, God. I was made in inquity, and my mother conceived me in sin. I'm terrible to the bone, forgive me." I don't think there's anything novel here. It is a small step. All you have to do is redefine justification. However, if you redefine justification, then everything else Paul says about deliverance from sin and entering or not entering the kingdom of heaven becomes nonsense. As a result, fundamentalists today have hundreds of "difficult verses" they have to explain away. Make justification to be primarily "made righteous," a definition that is listed first in every lexicon, and everything Paul said fits right together.I don't think, however, that Paul can be blamed for Luther changing the focus from deliverance from sin's power to deliverance from sin's penalty. It took over 1400 years for that to happen.

RevDG, He is talking about the fact that everyone sins and everyone struggles with sin (Rom 3 & 7 describe these things). He blames that on death that is passed down from Adam to all of us.His whole focus in Romans is on how to overcome that death and become righteous, something made possible by Christ's death.Paul's issue is the power of sin and becoming righteous, not the penalty of sin and appeasing an angry God."Original sin" is the doctrine that Adam's descendants should be punished for Adam's sin. Paul nowhere hints at this. He says that Adam died, and we live with a death in us; thus we sin (Rom 3) and find it impossible to overcome sin (Rom 7). The whole book of Romans is the answer to that problem, breaking the power of sin by grace (Rom 6:14) and being enabled to live in the righteous requirement of the law (Rom 8:3,4). To Paul, we are punished for our own sin, not Adam's.

Even if true, isn't it a minor distinction? Romans 5:12 tells us: Had Adam not sinned then all men that followed would not have sinned, and there would be no death. While it might be true that they're being punished for their own sin and not Adam's, it is Adam's original sin that caused them to commit the sins they're being punished for.--Percy

Percy, I address that specific quote in Message 152.IMHO the problem is that Paul, like John (or the authors who's material was attributed to those worthy gentlemen) produced large complex works. Romans is one letter, but it is 16 Chapters long. Lots of folk love to grab one line out of it to prove some point, but don't go on to ready the rest of it.If you go on to read past that line, what you see is that Paul was using that line, a reference to a story many would have heard, as a lead in to saying that all that is now past. He goes on to say that GOD has sent Jesus to remind us that all is forgiven, that we don't have to worry about that anymore.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Before Adam's sin there was no death, and afterwards there was. Even after Jesus died for our sins there was still death. Paul is explaining that Jesus's sacrifice provides the opportunity for eternal salvation after death, not that death, the responsibility for which must be laid at the feet of Adam, is rescinded. Jesus brings forgiveness for sins and eternal salvation, not the end of original sin and death.--Percy

But reading Romans (I can include other parts of the Bible as well) I simply don't see any justification for the concept of original sin beyond explaining the fact that everybody dies. Paul is not saying that everyone is damned because Adam committed some sin. He is only using it as a preface for one point in a very long and detailed letter.I don't think Paul ever held a concept of Original Sin as it is used by Luther.And I don't believe the Bible supports the idea that before Adam there was no death. Death existed from the beginning, else there would have been no need for GOD to create a Tree of Life. Death did not come into existence because Adam sinned. It was always there. But the cure for death was also supplied, and because Adam (and Eve) sinned, two things happened. One is that the sin gave man the ability, the gift, the knowledge and the responsibility to do good instead of evil. Second, the direct access for death was sanctioned.Paul's reference is not to Original Sin as espoused by Luther. Rather he is saying that after someone dies, they will be judged based on their personal behavior, not on what those who came before them did.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, okay. We probably don't agree enough on anything to have a conversation about this.--Percy

That depends on the issue. As a theological statement, I agree that it's a minor distinction.However, the complaint that Legend and others have is with this belief that righteousness doesn't matter. It's only belief in Jesus that matters, and that forgives sin, and behavior after that is irrelevant to God's rewarding us.The original sin issue is simply part of that. Paul focuses on why we can't obey God, which is because there's sin and death in us. This is one small part of my whole point, which is that Paul's focus is our transformation, not paying the penalty for sin. I actually agree with this, and did from the beginning.My issue is that Paul deals with how to stop sinning, not how to get sins paid for.The reason this matters is because this thread suggests that Jesus focused on obeying God, and Paul didn't, and I think there's not a shred of truth to that.

I didn't see your post to jar until I had already answered your post to me. Let me add: This is what I absolutely do not agree with. Jesus brings the end to sin and death, and that is EXACTLY Paul's point."For the Spirit of Life has set us free from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:2).He describes the law of sin and death in Rom 7. He has been describing it up to that point, too, while mixing in has answer for deliverance from that law, which is faith.At the end of Rom 7, he asks, "Oh, wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death?" Notice that he did not ask who shall pay for his sins.Then he answers the question:"The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death, for what the Law could not do, being weak because of our bodies, God did. By sending his own son in the likeness of our sinful bodies, as a sin offering, he condemned the sin in our bodies, so that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."If you read Rom 7, you will see that this quote here in Rom 8:2-4 is an exact undoing, using the same words, of Rom 7.Paul's focus was deliverance from sin and death. Eternal life was extremely important, of course, but the way to eternal life is to be delivered from bondage to sin and death, not to get your sins paid for.Way back in Ezekiel, it was already provided by God that if any wicked man turned from his wickedness and did righteousness, then all his wickedness would be forgotten and he would live. Paul's message is how to facilitate that turn, which will take care of the forgiveness of sins all by itself.

I didn't want to leave you hanging, so I just stopped by to let you know that I've read and understood your posts, but I couldn't think of any response that would be on-topic. I don't want to draw the thread off-topic, but I don't want to be mysterious, either, so I'll just say that I can't figure out how to respond to claims of the correctness of any particular Biblical interpretation, not just yours, but Jar's, too. It seems Talmudic, meaning in this case a process that by infinite dissection can yield any particular conclusion you like.Maybe I'm just not suited for discussions involving Biblical exegesis. I'll creep back to my corner in the science forums.--Percy

I have a comment on your post that I think makes for an interesting discussion. I'll start a topic on it. You may well not be interested in discussing it, but I think you should at least see the OP.

What often strikes me is that all through the universe gravity, weak and strong and electro magnetic forces work. The whole things works over a large complexity of scale. Impressive. Then people come along and claim that the creator wrote or caused to be written a manual to this universe and this manual lacks clarity, hasn't been properly preserved, and is lacking key information, is filled with ambiguity etc. etc.Seems to me that we can be certain that the universe and the bible were not the product of the same entity. The level of craftsmanship is a dead give away. The bible looks just like the kinds of things committees of human beings are producing even to this very day.lfen