No Adam = no Original Sin - right? (moral, genesis, moral)

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

The concept of original sin, as understood in Western Christianity, is nowhere to be found in the Genesis account, or indeed anywhere in the Bible, and is foreign to both Judaism and Eastern Christianity.

That's simply historically false. St. Augustine of Hippo made the doctrine more explicit, but he didn't invent it. It had wide circulation in the Eastern churches before Augustine, although not specifically in an Augustinian form. (Besides, Augustine was from North Africa, so does that make him "Eastern" or "Western"?)

It's also misleading to say that doctrines "don't appear" in scripture. The bible contains almost no extended didactic treatments of any doctrines. It contains mostly narratives. The doctrines must be derived mostly from the narratives.

The only true statement in your post is that the concept of original sin is foreign to Judaism. However, all we know is that it's foreign to mainstream Judaism. Since the doctrine is reasonably derivable from scripture, it's at least logically possible for there to have been Jewish groups that have formulated that doctrine.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

There is no Biblical support for the concept of "original sin". In fact, I defy you to find the term in scripture.

I'd have to agree with you here......

The bible, from what I have read, says basically that everyone is responsible for their own actions. You will not be judge by what you parents did nor will they be judge by what you have done.....

That...is ...if you believe anything the bible says though.....

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by gnostic

The Enuma Elish, the myth that you are referring to Tiamat and Marduk, was written in the later part of Old Babylonian (literary) period, and written in 16th century BC. Before that time, there was no evidence of this being known in the early part of Old Babylonian period.

And there is certainly no myth of Tiamat and Marduk in the older Sumerian literature. He is mention in Sumerian literature, but Marduk was a very minor god in Babylon, until the 16th century BC. There was no war in heaven or vying for powers in Sumerian legend.

There are several different versions of Sumerian myths where a god, sometimes Enlil and sometimes Enki, had created humans from clay or earth. There is even one in which humans were created by the goddess. And there were no war in any of them.

There are Sumerian versions and Akkadian-Babylonian versions in regarding to building of the ark-like boat, during the Deluge. When was Genesis composed? Centuries later, after these myths were composed, and you think that Hebrew created their own Creation and Flood myths? I don't think so, especially considering that stories of Gilgamesh and Ziusudra/Atrashasis/Uta-naphistim were known in as far west as Hittite Empire, Canaan, Syria and even in Egypt, from the evidences that clay tablets were found in all these regions. Many of these tablets may have been fragmented, but enough is recognisable that epic of Gilgamesh is recognisable and known in the region where Israel would later occupied by Joshua.

So spare me the excuse that the Hebrew came to their creation myths alone, without any influence by Sumerian/Babylonian/Egyptian.

Even the myth of Jesus in regarding to his resurrection, is not only derived from Mithra, but also from Egyptian myth about Osiris, Isis and Horus, long before any Christians wrote gospels and letters. There are also sins and cleansing of sin, self-sacrifice, resurrection and afterlife in heaven in Greece and Asia Minor, also centuries before the Christian Era.

Also note that those tablet stories that are in circulation are only but a fragment of what was "allowed" to be translated. There are doezens and doens more of these tablet stories. Who knows how much more of the bilical story these will tell.....

[logician]

W/O a supposed Adam, of course, we don't need a supposed Jesus as a supposed atonement for our "sins'. The whole shabang is a house of cards that falls flat with the slightest puff of wind.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by logician

W/O a supposed Adam, of course, we don't need a supposed Jesus as a supposed atonement for our "sins'. The whole shabang is a house of cards that falls flat with the slightest puff of wind.

Again, that's false (although slightly off topic). The first 11 chapters of Revelation set up the problem, and the rest of the bible is the story of God's resolution of it. The problem, according to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, is our predilection for sin. The third chapter of Genesis portrays its introduction into creation in poetic form. Although expressed poetically, the problem is real. Christians hold that what happened to Jesus wasn't a freak accident, but an essential part of salvation history. It was a giant step forward toward the final resolution. You may not believe the accounts, of course, but a poetic expression of the problem does not entail a nonreal status of the referent.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by logician

W/O a supposed Adam, of course, we don't need a supposed Jesus as a supposed atonement for our "sins'. The whole shabang is a house of cards that falls flat with the slightest puff of wind.

Even though I'm Atheist here's how I see it.....The biblical "Adam" has to be a "REAL" person. The bible talks about him as though he is real. In the book of Luke he is referred to as "The son of God". The supposed genealogy of man starts with him. If he is not real then the genealogy is a lie. If "adams" beginning, life and death are a metaphor then there is no such thing as "original sin" and maybe a very large portion of the bible is myth......

If you are a believer in the genealogy then how can you not believe the story to be literal? What evidence has been used to show that it should not be taken literally? And if it can't be taken literally then wouldn't that mean "adam" wouldn't have existed in the first place?

Logician...you may be on to something here. I see the biblical stories actually coming out of those that were written before it.

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by gnostic

If you look at Genesis 1 on the 6th day, God created man and woman. There were no first and second here, and they weren't given names. Only in Genesis 2, do we see woman was created after man.

The Genesis is contradictory, so do you believe the more dramatic storytelling version (2) or the the bland version (1)? Neither is believable, because of the amount of exaggeration in both versions, and the mythological aspect seemed derived from the older myth of Sumer.

I believe that those who think there are two stories about the same event are mistaken and that the reality is that there are two events. The Adam and Eve story is a beginning but not the very first beginning that is described earlier.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Again, that's false (although slightly off topic). The first 11 chapters of Revelation set up the problem, and the rest of the bible is the story of God's resolution of it. The problem, according to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, is our predilection for sin. The third chapter of Genesis portrays its introduction into creation in poetic form. Although expressed poetically, the problem is real. Christians hold that what happened to Jesus wasn't a freak accident, but an essential part of salvation history. It was a giant step forward toward the final resolution. You may not believe the accounts, of course, but a poetic expression of the problem does not entail a nonreal status of the referent.

The book of Revelation was written by a madman, I don't think that can be used as referential.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Even though I'm Atheist here's how I see it.....The biblical "Adam" has to be a "REAL" person. The bible talks about him as though he is real. In the book of Luke he is referred to as "The son of God". The supposed genealogy of man starts with him. If he is not real then the genealogy is a lie. If "adams" beginning, life and death are a metaphor then there is no such thing as "original sin" and maybe a very large portion of the bible is myth......

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem. Perhaps the original authors thought Adam was a person rather than a group. Let's assume for sake of argument that they were mistaken about that, and that the original "human" was actually a community that had evolved from a prehuman ancestor. Let's further assume that the point of the genealogies is to make a connection between the contemporary people of God and "Adam." How is the genealogy a lie? And how does this cast doubt on the Christian claims about Jesus? As far as I can tell, if Adam were a community rather than an individual, the point of Genesis and the genealogies is still the same. Ditto for the theological claims about Jesus. Please spell out exactly how an alternative understanding of "Adam" as a community calls into question Christian claims about Jesus.

Incidentally, I could take the first 11 chapters of Genesis as myth (actually, I do so take it) and still affirm its theological claims. On this point, too, I'm afraid I have no idea why logician would be on to anything. But perhaps that's because I'm not a logician?