Original Sin

[Candidus]

ok we do understand that there were no witnesses to this supposed "historical event," right

im not really interested in preventing ppl from reading literally if they like, but we have plenty of evidence now, overwhelming evidence, that most of those things we read in the OT likely never literally happened; so i suggest putting away the childish things here, and trying to change the mind completely, and grasping what was meant rather than what was literally written, to hide wisdom from the wise.

One can still believe a literal woman bit an apple from a literal tree if they like, and still contemplate other, more pertinent to us possibilities, imo

But the Bible takes it literally, or the whole Gospel scheme is not literal.

Scripture contrasts the universal effect of Adam, and the universal effect of Christ. Let's consider Romans 5:14,15, and 17-18. "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression... But not as the offense, so also is the free gift.. . For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness... Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed unto all men. If Christ did not correct something that Adam caused, then did He really accomplish anything in retrospect to Adam? Did Christ undo anything for us racially if Adam did not do anything that affected the entire race?

 

[Candidus]

In Mark 10:6, Jesus said that God created man and woman, and even mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51.

Did Jesus deceive? Is Jesus lying? Jesus didn't think that the record in Genesis was childish myth, but a reality in which the truth of our existence is built upon. Later in Scripture, Paul took these things literally, hinging the Gospel and the work of Christ to it. Paul would not have done something so "childish" as to deceive people into building doctrines of death and life upon something he knew was a myth.

If your denial of an "Original Sin" or "Inherited Depravity" must lead you to deny that Scripture presents a reality, and that Jesus and Paul are deceived, what hope could possibly be left besides being "more right" than Jesus and Paul?

What is the end result of having more faith in a theory than the teaching of the Bible? Making Moses, Jesus and Paul out to be liars and deceivers leaves us with what?

 

[bbyrd009]

But the Bible takes it literally, or the whole Gospel scheme is not literal.

well, so you say, and i am not inclined to dispute with you, but we debate the definition of "Gospel" anyway right? So im not quite sure what you mean there i guess. But imo How is it you did not know that I was not talking about bread? should also be considered

In Mark 10:6, Jesus said that God created man and woman, and even mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51.

Did Jesus deceive? Is Jesus lying? Jesus didn't think that the record in Genesis was childish myth, but a reality in which the truth of our existence is built upon. Later in Scripture, Paul took these things literally, hinging the Gospel and the work of Christ to it. Paul would not have done something so "childish" as to deceive people into building doctrines of death and life upon something he knew was a myth.

If your denial of an "Original Sin" or "Inherited Depravity" must lead you to deny that Scripture presents a reality, and that Jesus and Paul are deceived, what hope could possibly be left besides being "more right" than Jesus and Paul?

What is the end result of having more faith in a theory than the teaching of the Bible? Making Moses, Jesus and Paul out to be liars and deceivers leaves us with what?

ha well you say "liars and deceivers," but i suggest that they well understood the symbolism of "fruit" and "tree" that Scripture provides for us also, as well as there are no male and female in the kingdom

So imo Scripture presents a "reality" sure enough, but it is a spiritual reality, presented to us in symbols, that are defined elsewhere, even as wisdom is hidden from the wise (in their own eyes) which i think those who read literally usually demonstrate without my help anyway right

 

[charity]

well, not saying "dont" ok bc that is not for me to say, but i can say that when what yall are discussing as ancient history is applied to our lives, today, and the symbolism of "fruit" and "tree" and etc is applied, the guessing about an ancient history that likely never happened anyway just sort of becomes moot imo.

we get plenty of clues that Adam and Eve were "one," and i suggest that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge is something we all do, in the West anyway, as opposed to eating manna, what is it?, which im sure you can agree even sounds opposite to "tree of knowledge"

ok we do understand that there were no witnesses to this supposed "historical event," right

im not really interested in preventing ppl from reading literally if they like, but we have plenty of evidence now, overwhelming evidence, that most of those things we read in the OT likely never literally happened; so i suggest putting away the childish things here, and trying to change the mind completely, and grasping what was meant rather than what was literally written, to hide wisdom from the wise.

One can still believe a literal woman bit an apple from a literal tree if they like, and still contemplate other, more pertinent to us possibilities, imo

Hello @bbyrd009,

Christ Himself validates the Old Testament Scriptures by His use of them, referring to such characters and events as that of,
- Satan and Eden by inference (John 8:44),
- Abel, and the prophets (Luke 11:49-51),
- Noah (Matthew 24:37-39),
- Moses and the Genesis account of creation (Matthew 19:4-6)
- Jacob's dream by inference (John 1:51)
- Jonah (Matthew 12:39-41, Matthew 16:4).

Peter and James also referred to Noah, and the angels that sinned (1 Peter 3:19-20; 2 Peter 2:5-7; Jude 1:14-16),
Paul also speaks of Abel, Enoch, Noah and the rest of the Old Testament saints in (Hebrews 11).
With such validations as these I would say that the Old Testament Scriptures should be treated with the same acceptance of faith that the New Testament Scriptures receive.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[marks]

'And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,
Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
thou shalt not eat of it:
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
(Gen 2:16-17)

Hello @bbyrd009,

Why should @Prayer Warrior not take what is written literally?

Adam was given the commandment directly from God: Eve must have received it from Adam. In her response to Satan's question, 'Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?' She said, ' We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.' She made the mistake that we are all capable of making: she did not quote God's words correctly; but leaned to her own understanding; adding and embellishing God's words in the process; thereby leaving herself open to the master of all deceit, who knows how to handle the word of God deceitfully in order to beguile and deceive the unwary.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,

Another possibility I've considered is that maybe Adam added the extra wording, maybe that "fence" idea.

Much love!

 

[marks]

well, not saying "dont" ok bc that is not for me to say, but i can say that when what yall are discussing as ancient history is applied to our lives, today, and the symbolism of "fruit" and "tree" and etc is applied, the guessing about an ancient history that likely never happened anyway just sort of becomes moot imo.

This is a difference between you and I. You don't think this really happened, and I do.

I know I'm looked down on by a number of people here for that, but I don't care.

Much love!

 

[Grailhunter]

It does not hurt to speculate on what happened in Paradise.
We are looking for the justification for the doctrine of Original Sin.
Might as well track it like detectives.

 

[marks]

In Scripture, the idea of Flesh on its own seems to be aligned with the absence of spirituality.

We are born of the flesh; we are not born spiritual. "We were by nature children of wrath" [Eph. 2:3].

Paul uses the term "Sinful flesh" as a synonym for "human nature."

In John 3:6, where Jesus replied, "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3: 3, 6, 7). John gives us no indication that that which is born of the flesh (infants) are birthed spiritual. Paul writes that Jesus Himself, came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom.8:3), yet was not actually birthed with a fallen flesh. Keep in mind, Jesus "came" as a baby, but only in the likeness of sinful flesh. To say that all infants do not inherit a sinful disposition, or that they are born spiritual, is to say that Jesus coming in the likeness of sinful flesh was not anything unique at all. John's record is clear that no man is born anything other than the flesh. All must be born of the Spirit in order to be spiritually fit for heaven.

That's a very good point I think!

Much love!

 

[marks]

So imo Scripture presents a "reality" sure enough, but it is a spiritual reality, presented to us in symbols, that are defined elsewhere,

So show that to the rest of us.

 

[Grailhunter]

@marks
Well, break out the pipe and the magnifying glass, Sherlock. I’ll be Watson…By the way I like Watson in the last Sherlock Holmes movies.

So lets look at the OT, if babies are born with sin, its “sherly” not just a post biblical belief manifested by the Augustine and the Catholic Church…that for some reason the Protestant denominations decided to agree with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[charity]

Hi Chris,

Another possibility I've considered is that maybe Adam added the extra wording, maybe that "fence" idea.

Much love!

'And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and that it was pleasant to the eyes,
and a tree to be desired to make one wise,
she took of the fruit thereof,
and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her;
and he did eat.'

Hi @marks,

I thought this may be said by someone. We do not know: but I am inclined to believe that it was of Eve's devising, because of what is said concerning her thinking in Genesis 3:6 (above), and what is said by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. 'But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.' Also in (1 Timothy 2:14) 'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.'

* Adam was not deceived. He knew the truth, having heard it from God Himself. He believed God. He knew therefore the consequence of the action his wife had taken. She was 'bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh' (Genesis 2:23). It was after this that Adam named his wife, 'Eve', for he knew that she would be the Mother of all living (Genesis 3:20) . God's words had assured him that death was not to fall upon them at that time, for the promise of the coming one (the seed of the woman) was made to Eve, and it had to be fulfilled. It was then that God clothed them with the skins of an animal, losing it's life as an atonement for sin that they may live. A picture of the sacrificial offering of Christ (the coming one), who died that we also may live.

Praise God!

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Grailhunter]

Original Sin…

I love steaks! Now I can probably find a scripture that would insinuate that Christians should be Veggiens. But for me to make that a religious belief that would entirely jump the OT and just appear in the NT, it would have to be a well defined and clear scripture and history would have to show that Christians became Veggiens. So I do not believe that Christians should not eat steak and I am going to eat steaks.

Now for me to believe that babies have original sin….the evidence would have to be distinctly defined and direct.

If this were true, it should have been addressed in the OT and something like this, if God believed it, “sherly” He would have included it in the Mosaic Law. This is referencing an OT event so it should have been well defined in the OT.

Now if it jumped the OT and it was a new belief, than all the more reason that it should have been addressed by Christ Himself, if not, if it is an Apostolistic belief, without support of the OT or Christ, then it would have to be a rather lengthy and clear discussion, best supported by more than one Apostle. For me to believe that babies have sin or that babies go to hell if not saved someway…it is going to take an incredibly clear set of scriptures.

The divisions of the Church have been partly caused by people jumping on unique, vague, and singular statements and making religious beliefs out of them. If we are going make Christian religious beliefs out of vague and singular scriptures…the sky is the limit to what can be dreamed up.

What does not qualify, is the thoughts of Augustine. Augustine was an incredibly troubled individual. A sinner that none of us could keep up with. By his own admission he had no control of his desires. So he figured no one had control and blamed it on his parents, something inherited from his parent…from all Mankind….presto chango Original Sin.

Unfortunately Christianity has been influenced by people that were near to insane. Augustine, John Calvin, Charles “Taze” Russell and then Thomas Aquinas was not much better. Their views on sex and women were deranged, saying it nicely.

 

[bbyrd009]

It does not hurt to speculate on what happened in Paradise.
We are looking for the justification for the doctrine of Original Sin.
Might as well track it like detectives.

remember the day you chose the world over Christ? Most likely before you were even fam with the Name?

 

[bbyrd009]

So show that to the rest of us.

ha well ok we are told that the two will become one elsewhere, and even though A&E were never officially "married" i guess, that might do for a start on accepting that they are both you, thinking and emotions, perhaps; "fruit" has a symbolic meaning that i doubt i have to expound on, and so does "tree," unless im mistaken these symbols are not much disputed?

and as to the op, we are told that we sin from a young age, iow not "at birth"
so imo the doctrine of OS is religious yack

 

[bbyrd009]

with the skins of an animal, losing it's life as an atonement for sin that they may live.

only you made all that up, see; it cannot be Quoted from Scripture
and Yah made garments of skin for them

although i would grant that it is written in such a way that someone wise (a hegelian thinker iow, us) would assume that

 

[marks]

What does not qualify, is the thoughts of Augustine. Augustine was an incredibly troubled individual

Please don't confuse me with Augustine.

Much love!

 

[Grailhunter]

Please don't confuse me with Augustine.

Much love!

Hey buddy....would not think of such a thing. You need to get some of his books to realize how nutty he was.

 

[charity]

charity said: ↑
with the skins of an animal, losing it's life as an atonement for sin that they may live.

... only you made all that up, see; it cannot be Quoted from Scripture
and Yah made garments of skin for them. Although i would grant that it is written in such a way that someone wise (a hegelian thinker iow, us) would assume that

Hello @bbryd009,

Yes, that is an assumption, I agree. Though I believe it to be justified: for the Lamb had been slain 'from the foundation of the world' (Revelation 13:8); so God had provisioned for this eventuality in His foreknowledge.

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Candidus]

Hello @bbryd009,

Yes, that is an assumption, I agree. Though I believe it to be justified: for the Lamb had been slain 'from the foundation of the world' (Revelation 13:8); so God had provisioned for this eventuality in His foreknowledge.

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

What we do know is, this is the first example of God shedding blood to cover humanities sin. It in no way contradicts that sins were never forgiven/atoned for without blood sacrifice. It is more than a mere "assumption," but a logical conclusion on how God always deals with sin.

While not directly stated, it is strongly inferred in the example.

 

[Nancy]

'And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and that it was pleasant to the eyes,
and a tree to be desired to make one wise,
she took of the fruit thereof,
and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her;
and he did eat.'

Hi @marks,

I thought this may be said by someone. We do not know: but I am inclined to believe that it was of Eve's devising, because of what is said concerning her thinking in Genesis 3:6 (above), and what is said by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. 'But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.' Also in (1 Timothy 2:14) 'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.'

* Adam was not deceived. He knew the truth, having heard it from God Himself. He believed God. He knew therefore the consequence of the action his wife had taken. She was 'bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh' (Genesis 2:23). It was after this that Adam named his wife, 'Eve', for he knew that she would be the Mother of all living (Genesis 3:20) . God's words had assured him that death was not to fall upon them at that time, for the promise of the coming one (the seed of the woman) was made to Eve, and it had to be fulfilled. It was then that God clothed them with the skins of an animal, losing it's life as an atonement for sin that they may live. A picture of the sacrificial offering of Christ (the coming one), who died that we also may live.

Praise God!

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

The first sacrifice...I wonder if God had Adam kill the animal. Would have been hard and sad for him to do, as the animals and Adam and Eve were kind of a kindred to one another...ate the same food, was no "meat", no fear between them. I kind of liken the choice that Eve made by eating the apple, and giving up her life (so to speak) to Esau and the stew, giving up his birthright. Of course, his was allowing his physical appetite to override what was rightly his being the first born. Eve allowed her appetite for knowledge and power to override Gods command. Yeah, there are differences yet...same outcomes pretty much.