Originally, where did original sin come from?

[sincerly]

I see we're in full agreement here. And thank you for the welcome.

Forgive me if I wasn't clear about Jesus living among us. Jesus sharing our human experience was His way of reconciling, as I said, our humanity to His Divinity. His death was the means by which He fully reconciled humanity to Divinity, and His life-giving Resurrection opened the way to Paradise and to reunite with God, the Source of Life. Or, as you put it, to receive a "divine transfusion." And we receive this transfusion by sharing in God's life, cooperating with God's grace/energies, being transformed and renewed in them.

And BTW, what was your intention in providing 2 Peter 1:20 in the discussion about resolving the rift between God and man?

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

Sorry, my error. That should have been 1Peter 1:20, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, "

Jesus Christ was the "back-up" plan for the redemption of mankind should they disobey.

 

[Katzpur]

Before I knew any thing about God and religion, I had a predisposition to be self-centered. If I were an monkey and I stole another monkey's banana or coveted his monkey girl friend, in my monkey thoughts, I wouldn't call it sinning. I'd call it "doing what comes naturally."
I think religious laws very well could be man's way to get groups of people to act more civil to one another. A religion also needs to come up with a good explanation why people should believe in it. Most religions have enough weird things mixed in that it becomes very easy for me to agree with atheists and say that, indeed, people made the whole thing up. Yet, religion works--It gets people to at least try and be other-centered and not feed their selfish nature.
Having been selfish and self-centered for as long as I can remember, I know I acted angry, greedy. I stole and lied and lots of other things to stay out of trouble. I had to be taught that those behaviors were wrong. I was taught those things as a kid. Now, sixty-two years later, when I get angry or act greedy, I feel it. I feel dead inside. So I do believe there is something to religion, but several religions would do a pretty good job at teaching me a better way. Several religions could come up with a good explanation as to why there is evil in the world and why I'm messed up. Instead of sin, though, could it be selfishness? Could that be the original problem with people? I'd like to hear more of what you as a Latter Day Saint think about this whole thing.

I definitely believe that we, as human beings, are predisposed to sin, and that if left to our own devices will inevitably sin at some point in time. On the other hand, I believe that we sin when we intentionally disobey a religious law or moral principle. Since I don't believe it possible for a baby or small child to be able to understand the difference between right and wrong, I don't believe it is possible for him to actually sin. Instead, he "does what comes naturally," as you pointed out. Selfishness, for instance, is natural in human beings. What starts out as a natural behavior becomes sinful as we become capable of knowing that what we are doing is wrong (i.e. displeasing to God).

To me, the biggest flaw in the concept of Original Sin is that God would continue to hold us responsible for something over which we had no control -- particularly when Christianity is founded upon the belief that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the world. If Christ's sacrifice atoned for my sins, why would that same sacrifice have not also atoned for Adam's sin? (I should probably point out that I don't really believe Adam's trangression was a "sin" per se, since he did not know the difference between good and evil until after he ate the forbidden fruit, but that's probably the topic for another thread.) At any rate, if Christ atoned for Adam's "sin," then Adam was forgiven. If Adam was forgiven, why do so many Christians believe that God is still punishing his posterity? It makes no sense.

 

[Shiranui117]

If Christ's sacrifice atoned for my sins, why would that same sacrifice have not also atoned for Adam's sin?

Here's the thing: It did.

From http://www.printeryhouse.org/ProdPage.asp?Prod=M30:

The story of Jesus descending into Hell to raise up Adam and Eve does not come from the Bible, although the first letter of Peter (3:18 to 4:6) speaks of his proclamation of the Gospel to those who had died before his coming. The Apostle’s Creed includes: "He descended into Hell ..." The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, written in the second century, describes the meeting of the Risen Christ with Adam and Eve:

And, behold, suddenly Hades trembled, and the gates of death and the bolts were shattered, and the iron bars were broken and fell to the ground, and everything was laid open. ... Then the Lord Jesus, the Saviour of all, affectionate and most mild, saluting Adam kindly, said to him: "Peace be to thee, Adam, with thy children, through immeasurable ages of ages!" Amen. Then father Adam, falling forward at the feet of the Lord, and being raised erect, kissed His hands, and shed many tears, saying, testifying to all: "Behold. the hands which fashioned me!" And he said to the Lord: "Thou hast come, O King of glory, delivering men, and bringing them into Thy everlasting kingdom." Then also our mother Eve in like manner fell forward at the feet of our Lord, and was raised erect, and kissed His hands, and poured forth tears in abundance, and said, testifying to all: "Behold the hands which made me!"

This dramatic scene communicates the great power of Christ’s saving action on the cross. The second person of the Trinity entered human history and died to save us from our sins. However, this salvation reaches back in history to save those already dead. This icon depicts “The Descent into Hell”—Jesus’ gift of paradise to those who have waited in the abode of the dead before the Paschal Mystery has effected their liberation. Christ is the new Adam who overturns the fault of the father of our race. We also see the righteous Kings David and Solomon in company with John the Baptist: the former representing the just of the Old covenant, the latter that Christ is the True King and the fulfillment of the prophets’ message. Unlike most iconic portrayals of Jesus, here he is dressed in a white robe rather than in his pre-resurrection red tunic and blue cloak. He is surrounded by an aura of divine light, a mandorla, forever defeating the darkness of death. His halo bears a cross and the Greek letters; omicron, omega, nu; spelling "HO ON"; this in English is becomes "He who is," as in, “He who is, who was, and is to come at the end of the ages.” Below Christ’s feet are the broken gates of Hell with shattered lock and key falling into the abyss.

Adam is shown as a very old man, since he lived (according to Genesis 5:5) to the ripe old age of 930! The position of Jesus’ hand on Adam’s wrist is a subtle detail reminding us that it is Christ’s work of redemption that raises fallen Adam, and each one of us, to the new life of Resurrection.

I can give you a link to the Gospel of Nicodemus if you'd like to read it. I love to read it around Pascha/Easter, personally.

(I should probably point out that I don't really believe Adam's trangression was a "sin" per se, since he did not know the difference between good and evil until after he ate the forbidden fruit, but that's probably the topic for another thread.)

Well, God DID tell Adam that he'd die if he ate from the tree, so Adam knew what the consequences were. Satan tempted Adam by telling him that Adam would be like God if he ate the fruit. Adam's sin was pride by selfishly wanting to be more like God, and he was also guilty of being disobedient and turning away from God.

At any rate, if Christ atoned for Adam's "sin," then Adam was forgiven. If Adam was forgiven, why do so many Christians believe that God is still punishing his posterity? It makes no sense.

God isn't punishing us for Adam's sin. Such an idea has no place in Christian thought, and was only invented in the 1100's by Anselm of Canterbury.

 

[Katzpur]

Here's the thing: It did.

Well, God DID tell Adam that he'd die if he ate from the tree, so Adam knew what the consequences were. Satan tempted Adam by telling him that Adam would be like God if he ate the fruit. Adam's sin was pride by selfishly wanting to be more like God, and he was also guilty of being disobedient and turning away from God.

God isn't punishing us for Adam's sin. Such an idea has no place in Christian thought, and was only invented in the 1100's by Anselm of Canterbury.

Well then, it appears as if we essentially agree. I say "essentially" because I don't think there was anything wrong with Adam wanting to be more like God. After all, Jesus Christ commanded us to "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Clearly, he went about trying to meet this goal in an inappropriate way and was disobedient to God's commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And, as you said, he knew what the consequences would be, in advance of doing what he did. The point we definitely agree on, though, is that the idea that God is punishing us for Adam's sin has no place in Christian thought.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well then, it appears as if we essentially agree. I say "essentially" because I don't think there was anything wrong with Adam wanting to be more like God. After all, Jesus Christ commanded us to "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Clearly, he went about trying to meet this goal in an inappropriate way and was disobedient to God's commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And, as you said, he knew what the consequences would be, in advance of doing what he did. The point we definitely agree on, though, is that the idea that God is punishing us for Adam's sin has no place in Christian thought.

Right. The fact that Adam tried to be like God in an inappropriate and possibly self-serving way is what made it sinful. Glad to see we agree

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Katzpur
If Christ's sacrifice atoned for my sins, why would that same sacrifice have not also atoned for Adam's sin?

Originally Posted by Shiranui117
Here's the thing: It did.

Well then, it appears as if we essentially agree. I say "essentially" because I don't think there was anything wrong with Adam wanting to be more like God. After all, Jesus Christ commanded us to "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Clearly, he went about trying to meet this goal in an inappropriate way and was disobedient to God's commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And, as you said, he knew what the consequences would be, in advance of doing what he did. The point we definitely agree on, though, is that the idea that God is punishing us for Adam's sin has no place in Christian thought.

Right. The fact that Adam tried to be like God in an inappropriate and possibly self-serving way is what made it sinful. Glad to see we agree

Yes, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was for Adam's and Eve's sins. That before their first child was born. Remember--Gen.3:21, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." that animal was the first of many that would be sacrificed for the Sins of mankind. That is why Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted.
1Pet.1:18-20,"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you",(Rev.13:8; Heb.Chap.9-10)

It was Eve who was deceived by the Serpent---not Adam. Death(first and second) is the penalty which was passed on to Adam's off-spring.
Suffering, sickness, death, and the earth's curses are for mankinds benefit--they are reminders of Who GOD IS and the consequences of disobedience.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was for Adam's and Eve's sins. That before their first child was born. Remember--Gen.3:21, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." that animal was the first of many that would be sacrificed for the Sins of mankind. That is why Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted.
1Pet.1:18-20,"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you",(Rev.13:8; Heb.Chap.9-10)

It was Eve who was deceived by the Serpent---not Adam. Death(first and second) is the penalty which was passed on to Adam's off-spring.
Suffering, sickness, death, and the earth's curses are for mankinds benefit--they are reminders of Who GOD IS and the consequences of disobedience.

Additionally, I've heard this: Death was not just a consequence of sin, but God allows us to die so that there is a limit to how much sin we can commit, and how far we can drift away from God. So even in something as abhorrent as death, we can still find God's love and mercy.

 

[Katzpur]

Suffering, sickness, death, and the earth's curses are for mankinds benefit--they are reminders of Who GOD IS and the consequences of disobedience.

I believe they are actually also necessary for us to experience if we are to grow. Imagine a life without sickness, lonliness, failure, etc. Sounds pretty nice, huh? But if you were never sick, you would have no concept of what good health was. If you'd never been lonely, you wouldn't value your friends and loved ones nearly as much as you do. If you'd never failed at anything you tried, you'd never know how good it felt to overcome the obstacles you'd faced and ultimately succeed. It's important to our progress as children of God that we know both good and evil and learn to distinguish between them. Therefore, the Fall of Adam introduced mankind to an imperfect world where they would be tried and tested.

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus Christ was the "back-up" plan for the redemption of mankind should they disobey.

But don't you think the idea of "Plan B" implies that God wasn't really sure whether "Plan A" was going to work? God put Adam and Eve in this beautiful garden where they had everything they could possibly need to make them happy. He placed two trees there and told them that they were not to eat from one of them. Now by doing that, He gave them the freedom to choose, and this freedom was a great gift. But for some reason, He must have known that in their innocence, they would have no real reason to consider disobeying Him, and so He allowed Lucifer to tempt them with, of all things, the prospect of godhood. Surely He must have known what the outcome would be. Had He really wanted Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden forever, and to never experience mortality, He could have made sure that that's what happened. All He'd have needed to do was forbid Lucifer from tempting them, and He certainly had the power to do that. I believe that He knew that they'd succumb to temptation, and that even though He didn't want them to disobey Him, He also knew it was important that they learn for themselves what disobedience would lead to. I don't see a "Plan B" in the picture at all -- only a "Plan A" that went exactly as intended.

 

[sincerly]

Additionally, I've heard this: Death was not just a consequence of sin, but God allows us to die so that there is a limit to how much sin we can commit, and how far we can drift away from God. So even in something as abhorrent as death, we can still find God's love and mercy.

Hi Shiranui, I have not heard that reasoning, but I don't find it to be scripturally sound.
GOD gave mankind the freedom of Choice---not a limited choice. God's LOVE is not limited to just the "best of sinners". Even the vilest of the vile who Repents to following GOD/The Father's WILL is Graciously pardoned and lovingly accepted into HIS KINGDOM.(2Pet3:9)

Paul considered himself to be the chiefest of sinners and not worthy to be used by GOD.

 

[sincerly]

I believe they are actually also necessary for us to experience if we are to grow. Imagine a life without sickness, lonliness, failure, etc. Sounds pretty nice, huh? But if you were never sick, you would have no concept of what good health was. If you'd never been lonely, you wouldn't value your friends and loved ones nearly as much as you do. If you'd never failed at anything you tried, you'd never know how good it felt to overcome the obstacles you'd faced and ultimately succeed. It's important to our progress as children of God that we know both good and evil and learn to distinguish between them. Therefore, the Fall of Adam introduced mankind to an imperfect world where they would be tried and tested.

Hi Katzpur, Yes, it does sound "pretty nice". Therefore, I believe that GOD had no intentions of ever causing HIS Creation(total) to suffer in the least.
However, there is a factor that isn't considered by many in this "big picture".
Satan and those disobedient Angels, also, had a free will to choose. I am sure that GOD loved them just as HE does this rarthly Creation. We are told that they are here on earth awaiting their "fate". But at the same time that "fate"is tied to "mankind's ultimate end."
IS GOD Just? Was'nt it Lucifer's ambition to usurp GOD and himself be "like GOD" with a throne "above GOD'S?" Doesn't that sound like the "lies told in the Garden"?
Isn't it the bequiler's intention to cause everone to fail the "test"/Disobey?
(Enoch, Job, Moses, Elijah, Abraham,etc. all passed the test and Jesus defeated Satan on the Cross.)
Isa.11+ 65+ 66 all tell of that "new earth" which will have the same "conditions" as this planet did when first Created. "neither hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain".

Yes, all are tried and tested, but initially, none needed to have experienced the conditions which Sin brought upon mankind for mankind to have "progressed" in the Love for GOD.

 

[sincerly]

But don't you think the idea of "Plan B" implies that God wasn't really sure whether "Plan A" was going to work? God put Adam and Eve in this beautiful garden where they had everything they could possibly need to make them happy. He placed two trees there and told them that they were not to eat from one of them. Now by doing that, He gave them the freedom to choose, and this freedom was a great gift. But for some reason, He must have known that in their innocence, they would have no real reason to consider disobeying Him, and so He allowed Lucifer to tempt them with, of all things, the prospect of godhood. Surely He must have known what the outcome would be. Had He really wanted Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden forever, and to never experience mortality, He could have made sure that that's what happened. All He'd have needed to do was forbid Lucifer from tempting them, and He certainly had the power to do that. I believe that He knew that they'd succumb to temptation, and that even though He didn't want them to disobey Him, He also knew it was important that they learn for themselves what disobedience would lead to. I don't see a "Plan B" in the picture at all -- only a "Plan A" that went exactly as intended.

Hi Katzpur, Was there anything that says one had to be disobedient? Rom.1:16-20; 2:12-16; James 1:13-15 says the answer is NO!
That power to choose to be obedient or disobedient wasn't coerced, but freely chosen. As far as "mortality", GOD said, "In the day that you eat of it, Ye shall surely die". The immortality that was available to A&E was the "other tree"(The tree of Life"{and it was forbidden to them after being disobedient})--they were mortal.

Your "HE Knew it was important that they learn for themselves what disobedience would lead to" would not have had to include the death penalty.

"The Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world"(the Promised---Jesus), was not an after-thought, but the plan for redemption and reconciliation.

As far as learning from experiencing, the Eight on the Ark experienced(observed) the wrath of GOD upon the Wicked, but in 100 years their off-spring had not learned and was sent packing into all the world. Also, those whose Children professed to be followers of GOD were off-and-on following the "gods' of the Neighboring "kingdoms".
So much for "learning from experiencing" from the "evil". No! I can't say that was GOD'S Plan. How could a Good GOD compromise with evil intents.?
Again, Evil is "conceived" by the person and the "finished product" is death. GOD has warned "the wages of sin is death".

 

[e.r.m.]

I've assumed so much. Doctrine after Christian doctrine seems to have very troubling origins. I read an article I found at Outreach Judaism by Rabbi Tovia Singer. It said, "The term "original sin" is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church's teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets." What? Then where did it come from? In the article the rabbi goes on to say the funniest thing I've ever heard about how NT writers misquote the Hebrew Scriptures. This is regarding Paul misquoting Moses. "Employing unparalleled literary manipulation, however, Paul manages to conceal this vexing theological problem with a swipe of his well-worn eraser. In fact, Paul's innovative approach to biblical tampering was so stunning that it would set the standard of scriptural revisionism for future New Testament authors." Awesome!
The inerrant, infallible wikipedia said this, "The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus... Its scriptural foundation is based on the... teaching of Paul... (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22)." Later, it said, "The doctrine is not found in Judaism."
Hello? Who can I trust then? If I don't have a sin nature, why do I need Jesus to save me? If I don't have a sin nature, why does God need to send me to hell? If I don't have a sin nature, why did Christians tell me that I did? If for 4000 years of Biblical time, nobody knew this doctrine, why all of a sudden with the coming of Jesus, does it suddenly appear? If Christians made it up, then what else did they make up?

Maybe it started with
Exodus 34:7
maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

and then maybe people said the actual sin got passed down, not just the punishment.

Romans 5:12 Said that sin came into the world through one man, it didn't say sin came into his children. It said death came to all men because all men sinned, not because they inherited 'sin'.

Neither Paul nor any Biblical author taught that actual 'sin' got passed down.

The NT doesn't teach that we get punished for sinful nature, the greek is 'flesh'. We get punished for committing sin. So you're not off the hook, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." - Romans 3:23-24. You need Jesus to save you, we all do.

I suspect it was catholicism who later came up with the idea of original sin.

 

[Nadia Faiazova]

Although many reject the idea that transgression on the part of our first parents alienated us from God and caused us to lose original perfection, this is, indeed, what the Bible teaches. Jesus, by quoting from the first chapters of Genesis as authority, showed that he believed in the account of Adam and Eve. The Bible states that a moral failing—the original sin—on the part of our first parents was passed on to all humanity.

 

[e.r.m.]

Although many reject the idea that transgression on the part of our first parents alienated us from God and caused us to lose original perfection, this is, indeed, what the Bible teaches. Jesus, by quoting from the first chapters of Genesis as authority, showed that he believed in the account of Adam and Eve. The Bible states that a moral failing—the original sin—on the part of our first parents was passed on to all humanity.

Jesus referenced the first chapter of Genesis, but neither Jesus, nor Genesis says that sin is passed down. The Bible supports the consequences of sin being passed down, but not sin.

 

[Pegg]

Jesus referenced the first chapter of Genesis, but neither Jesus, nor Genesis says that sin is passed down. The Bible supports the consequences of sin being passed down, but not sin.

there are a few scripture which support the idea that sin (imperfection) is a trait passed down. By sin, i do not mean an 'action' taken which is morally wrong. We can't pass on wrong 'acts'....but we can pass on an the inheritable weakness to sin.

Romans 5:12: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

Psalm 51:5 Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

 

[e.r.m.]

Pegg,
Good to hear from you, it's been a long time.

Romans 5:12: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

Psalm 51:5 Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains, And in sin my mother conceived me.

I responded to these a while ago, but my memory has faded. I'll have to consider these again.

Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

This one makes no allusion to anything being passed down. It talks about belonging: As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong

 

[e.r.m.]

Pegg,

I have a side question. I ask for just an answer and then I'll leave it alone. I don't want to sidetrack this thread.
I have spoken with Jehovah Witnesses, in depth, off and on since 1985. Back then JWs told me that they believed in water baptism for forgiveness of sins/salvation. Recently, I was surprised to hear from JWs that they now believe in baptism as baptists do. That one is baptized to symbolize/as a sign of (various things), as a public proclamation of faith, and as an act of obedience. My question to you is: Since you have been a Bible teacher for almost 20 years, have you also seen this shift or have you always seen water baptism as baptists do?

Thank you,
e.r.m.

 

[Falvlun]

Additionally, I've heard this: Death was not just a consequence of sin, but God allows us to die so that there is a limit to how much sin we can commit, and how far we can drift away from God. So even in something as abhorrent as death, we can still find God's love and mercy.

By the same token, wouldn't a longer time give us a greater chance of finding God and more time to become a better person?

 

[Falvlun]

Jesus referenced the first chapter of Genesis, but neither Jesus, nor Genesis says that sin is passed down. The Bible supports the consequences of sin being passed down, but not sin.

there are a few scripture which support the idea that sin (imperfection) is a trait passed down. By sin, i do not mean an 'action' taken which is morally wrong. We can't pass on wrong 'acts'....but we can pass on an the inheritable weakness to sin.

While this is a slightly more reasonable interpretation that the concept of "genetic sin"-- the traditional understanding of original sin in which we are born with sin-- it's still a pretty strange and unfair system.

Why would God make the sin nature genetic? Why don't we all start out with the same chances that Adam had?

And is there any moral code which finds punishing the children of those who have committed a crime to be ethical, reasonable, and fair?