Originally, where did original sin come from?

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?

that's why the doctrine doesn't work. Augustine was instrumental in the development of the doctrine, as well.

I have come to believe that we are, by nature, the image of God, and are created good. We are not "sinful by nature," but we have a propensity to forget that God is at the heart of us. What Jesus saves us from is forgetting our wholeness in God. Jesus comes to remind us of who we are at heart.

Good answer. No wonder you get all those frubal things. But, what was Augustine thinking? I know as a kid growing up Catholic my relatives had to deal with a lot of guilt. They all acted like hopeless sinners, and some of that came from the belief in original sin. A lot of it came from them being bad Catholics too, but the idea of being born with an evil tendency didn't help.

CG Didymus said:

Originally, where did original sin come from?

Click to expand...

From the mouths of men as a new means for manipulating the masses.

CG Didymus said:

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?

Click to expand...

The rabbi is wrong, of course. A thief who claims not to believe the laws against stealing is not thereby proven innocent of theft.
Clearly, the Bible does teach that the first man Adam sinned, the original sin, by deliberately disobeying God's prohibition in Eden. The Christian Greek Scriptures clearly teach that "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men." (Romans 5:12) (BTW, note that the penalty for sin is death, not torment in a mythical hellfire.)
I believe pre-Christian worshippers of God did understand that they were sinful. Abel felt the need to sacrifice for his sin. (Genesis 4:4) David admitted: "Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains, and in sin my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5) The sacrifices offered for sin under the Mosaic Law were convincing proof of sin's reality.
Because sin leads to death, we need deliverance from this terrible plight, according to the Bible. Thus, I believe, the need for "Jesus Christ, a righteous one. And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world's." (1 John 2:1,2) This part of the Bible also makes this point: "If we make the statement "We have no sin," we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)

​

​

Rabbi Singer does a good job of pointing out differences between the two religions, and I know many people who credit him with planting the seed that eventually led them to examination and study. And that's pretty much always a good thing.

There are a lot of differences between the two, and original sin is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's funny when I think back. I was raised Christian, Baptist to be specific, and didn't have any real exposure to other religions when I was growing up. I figured that I knew everything about Judaism; after all, we studied the Old Testament and we all knew that Christianity was the continuation of Judaism. Even when I started to question Christian doctrine as an adult, I assumed that most of what I had been taught, sans Jesus, held for Judaism as well.

But it doesn't.

There are great many differences, and at times it can be hard to image the one came from the other. And it goes much deeper that whether or not Jesus was the messiah: origional sin, vicarious salvation, the nature of prophesy, sin, the afterlife, the role of prayer, the role of the Talmud and rabbinic commentary.

I believe pre-Christian worshippers of God did understand that they were sinful. Abel felt the need to sacrifice for his sin.

Click to expand...

But this isn't the same thing as the doctrine of "original Sin." the Jews don't believe that they are born sinful by nature, even though they acknowledge that they do sin.

CG Didymus said:

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!

Click to expand...

Hi CG D, Did you notice the quote marks about The term "original sin" in that article?? Did what GOD describe(say was unacceptable behavior/actions) as SIN occur? Yes. Also, what the penalty would be?? yes.
What was the method used to bring about that first human disobedience?? Wasn't it to beguile/deceive?

Therefore, as far as Human Beings are concerned, the "original Sin" was described/written concerning during the first few chapters/pages of Genesis.
Mankind had a "tendency"/"propensity" to be swayed to disobey because that "freedom to choice" was given him from the beginning---and it was reported to be acted upon. That is no secret. Nor can it be dismissed as inconsequential/or over-looked by GOD that the "penalty of death" wasn't imposed--immediately. ALL Things had been planned and accounted for BEFORE any Creating was done.
Adam and Eve were Created to live forever. That "tree of life" was there for their perpetuation. In dying, they would DIE starting that day of eating the forbidden fruit.
Remember, There was no offspring/children born at that time. Second, GOD had made a propitiating sacrifice in "clothing the couple" in the skin of an animal. that Lev.17:11 was told to and written by Moses to bring into focus that initial act. "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
GOD Allowed Adam and Eve to continue in life and, through them, populate the world. Since Adam and Eve now had a marred "image of GOD", that is what was passed in the image of Adam to his linage.(Gen.5:3)
Third, since mankind's death was/is the Penalty of his disobedience, Those animal sacrifices could never satisfy that requirement.
Fourth, From the eating of that fruit, GOD announced to Adam and Eve that a means of restoration/redemption/reconciliation had been put in place--and in the "fullness of time" would be "manifested"-- "In the SEED of the woman". Therefore, NOT IN ANIMAL SACRIFICES.

Notice more of the OT Scriptures which show that just a human Being could not pay the Redeeming price . Ps.14:1-3(53:1-3), "[[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God. They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one. "

CG Didymus said:

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?

Click to expand...

I hope you had your "tongue in cheek" when you wrote this, "The inerrant, infallible wikipedia said this". Had you read the "editor's comments under the heading "TALK", of the "Wikipedia", you would have seen that they are still (of two months ago) NOT agreed upon a "TRUTH".

4000 years ago, of those who were actually looking for the Messiah, only a few actually accepted HIM (and those were "OF HIS OWN"--those who claimed to be HIS--Rejected HIM---Isa.53:3,(prophesied and fulfilled), but that wasn't the first time for HIS Chosen people---see 1Sam.16:1).
Compare the principles/prophetic facts of Ezek.18:4 and Isa.53:11 with the fulfillment as shown by Rom.5:12-21; Also, 1Cor.15:22 with the promised fact relating to Gen.2:17 and Ps.14:1-3.

With that "Promised Shedding of Blood for the Remission/Atoning of Sins", one who accepts the gift of Life embodied in it has progressed from a "walking dead person" to a Being freed from the Penalty of "Death" and being "Spiritually alive.

What is "Awesome"/Amazing/unbelievable/wonderful is that GOD loved that which HE CREATED enough to have HIS SON'S Blood make that Propitiation necessary to Restore the "Original Plan".

Dear rusra2, What you said is what I assumed to be true. You and Sincerly always come in with good, strong Biblically Christian points of view. However, if original sin is a doctrine of the early Church and not something that was part of Judaism, then for several 1000 of years, no one knew they were born guilty.
I even wonder how rock solid a doctrine it is? Do Protestants follow it exactly as taught by Catholics? If not, then it's an evolving concept that different Protestant Christians are working on.
I agree with everything you said. It makes perfect sense in a traditional Christian world. However, because this doctrine was developed, at best it was only implied in Hebrew Scriptures but it was never explicit. Why didn't God tell the prophets of Israel to make this more plain? Why so vague that the poor supposedly deluded and confused rabbi's couldn't at least come close to knowing the real truth about original sin?
I, like so many raised in the Catholic or Protestant tradition, was never taught to consider the Talmud, with all their Gemara's and Mishnah's. In fact, I was taught that everything Jewish, other than the "Old Testament," was wrong. Hmmm? That just didn't sound right to me. I know the Christian part of the puzzle. I'm just double checking to make sure all the pieces fit. So far, they don't.

CG Didymus said:

Dear rusra2, What you said is what I assumed to be true. You and Sincerly always come in with good, strong Biblically Christian points of view. However, if original sin is a doctrine of the early Church and not something that was part of Judaism, then for several 1000 of years, no one knew they were born guilty.
I even wonder how rock solid a doctrine it is? Do Protestants follow it exactly as taught by Catholics? If not, then it's an evolving concept that different Protestant Christians are working on.
I agree with everything you said. It makes perfect sense in a traditional Christian world. However, because this doctrine was developed, at best it was only implied in Hebrew Scriptures but it was never explicit. Why didn't God tell the prophets of Israel to make this more plain? Why so vague that the poor supposedly deluded and confused rabbi's couldn't at least come close to knowing the real truth about original sin?
I, like so many raised in the Catholic or Protestant tradition, was never taught to consider the Talmud, with all their Gemara's and Mishnah's. In fact, I was taught that everything Jewish, other than the "Old Testament," was wrong. Hmmm? That just didn't sound right to me. I know the Christian part of the puzzle. I'm just double checking to make sure all the pieces fit. So far, they don't.

Click to expand...

Hi CG D, You are still assuming. "However, If," is "still doubting".
The OT left no doubts in the minds of the prople of GOD. The Jewish leaders(and people) knew they were not as they should be. The prophets(scriptures) attested to the fact as was shown in the last post. Re-read Ps.14:1; 53:1 .
Add to that the fact that the fact of "sanctification" was a part of their lives. Starting with before SIN entered into the lives of the people(Adam and Eve). They were given the Sabbath(Gen.2:1-3)--a day Blessed and "Sanctified" by GOD. At Sinai, these "called out peoples" who were chosen to represent HIM were told to "Remember the Sabbath"(Ex.20:8).(not just any day--but the seventh day of the week)
That Hebrew word--"quadash"--Meaning=to sanctify; to be hallowed; to dedicate; to be holy; to consecrate, was so used 172 times in the OT.
At Sinai, Ex.19:10, 14, the people were told to "sanctify" themselves for two days in preparation for their meeting with GOD. Again, how could they NOT KNOW that they were not "fit" to be in the presence of the HOLY GOD of all things??
All the prophets attested to the Fact that the Creator GOD was the only GOD worthy of Honor and praise. Paul wasn't initiating something new, but continuing the same TRUTH.
What you are hearing/reading from the Jewish population is a veiled attempt at trying to justify their Rejecting and continuing to reject that 2000 year rejection. Just as many did question upon learning-- "Men, what shall we do"? The same is still asked. The scriptural answer is still valid for all who acknowledge the answer as truth and not just myth. ALL continue to have and be able to exercise their "freedom of Choice."

The reason there are so many OT Prophets is because of the "back-slidings"/There wasn't any new teachings from GOD, only a call to repentance and following the "Law and testimony" already given.

The reason for there being so many "protestant churches" is basically the same. There was a "falling away" from the Truths of GOD(2Thess.2:3-4) to false teachings and when these were confronted in the Reformation---the many factions were separated(and still there are those who make congregations for the same reason Peter rebuked "Simon, the former user of sorcery"Acts8:9-24)

CG D, GOD was never vague with the condition of HIS People nor with the desire that HIS people instruct the rest of mankind. Heb.8:9 has this to say concerning who departed from the "Covenant" as Jer.31:31 prophesied. "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord".

CG Didymus said:

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?

Click to expand...

the evididence that we have 'sin' in us is the fact that we die. Maybe some jewish teachers didnt quite explain it the way the christian jews did, but if you think about it, Adam was told that if he disobeyed, he would die.

did he die? and did he disobey? Yes to both.

I guess the difference of opinion is not whether the man disobeyed, because both groups agree he did, but whether death was the consequences of his disobedience. Some dont agree with that, they say death is natural for mankind.

But if you read the account, you might see why the christians do not believe death was meant to be a natural part of life:

Gen 2:15 And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of E′den to cultivate it and to take care of it. 16 And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”


So if death was the result of him eating from the tree, what would have happened if he never ate from the tree?

Pegg said:

the evididence that we have 'sin' in us is the fact that we die. ?

Click to expand...

I would say, sin causes spiritual death. Sin weakens and kills our spirit. The Body Dies for biological reasons. It is created to have an age. Only Spirit Can have an eternal life, as Bible said.
Jesus also died. But He was not a Sinner.

So if death was the result of him eating from the tree, what would have happened if he never ate from the tree?

Click to expand...

I agree with InvestigateTruth. The death resulting from disobedience was spiritual. Adam would have died either way but if he had not eaten from the tree he would have left his offspring with a legacy of obedience. Obedience will take Man to fountains of waters of life, but disobedience will not.

Sincerely said:

4000 years ago, of those who were actually looking for the Messiah, only a few actually accepted HIM (and those were "OF HIS OWN"--those who claimed to be HIS--Rejected HIM---Isa.53:3,(prophesied and fulfilled), but that wasn't the first time for HIS Chosen people

Click to expand...

4000 years ago? Really! How could someone accept a Messiah 4000 years ago that wouldn't be in existence until a little over 2000 years ago?

sojourner said:

Sincerely said: ""4000 years ago, of those who were actually looking for the Messiah, only a few actually accepted HIM (and those were "OF HIS OWN"--those who claimed to be HIS--Rejected HIM---Isa.53:3,(prophesied and fulfilled), but that wasn't the first time for HIS Chosen people""

4000 years ago? Really! How could someone accept a Messiah 4000 years ago that wouldn't be in existence until a little over 2000 years ago?

Click to expand...

Hi Sojourner, thanks for the correction! I didn't clarify that well at all. Those who rejected the Messiah when HE originally came was 4000 years after the prophecy was given.

CG Didymus said:

Dear rusra2, What you said is what I assumed to be true. You and Sincerly always come in with good, strong Biblically Christian points of view. However, if original sin is a doctrine of the early Church and not something that was part of Judaism, then for several 1000 of years, no one knew they were born guilty.
I even wonder how rock solid a doctrine it is? Do Protestants follow it exactly as taught by Catholics? If not, then it's an evolving concept that different Protestant Christians are working on.
I agree with everything you said. It makes perfect sense in a traditional Christian world. However, because this doctrine was developed, at best it was only implied in Hebrew Scriptures but it was never explicit. Why didn't God tell the prophets of Israel to make this more plain? Why so vague that the poor supposedly deluded and confused rabbi's couldn't at least come close to knowing the real truth about original sin?
I, like so many raised in the Catholic or Protestant tradition, was never taught to consider the Talmud, with all their Gemara's and Mishnah's. In fact, I was taught that everything Jewish, other than the "Old Testament," was wrong. Hmmm? That just didn't sound right to me. I know the Christian part of the puzzle. I'm just double checking to make sure all the pieces fit. So far, they don't.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it helps to understand that Jehovah is a God of progressive revelation. He did not reveal all things at once, but gradually made his purpose known. The Bible speaks of "the sacred secret that was hidden from the past systems of things and from the past generations. But now it has been made manifest to his holy ones, to whom God has been pleased to make known what are the glorious riches of this sacred secret among the nations."
I believe the Jews did know they were born sinful, since the Law of Moses made clear their sinful state. (Galations 3:19) They did not fully understand all of God's purpose, but progressively through the Law and the Prophets, God revealed more details concerning the Christ and his role in undoing the terrible consequences of man's first sin.

Investigate Truth will like that line from Rusra2 "progressive revelation." That's the whole point of the Baha'i Faith, we get a little "truth" at a time. Hopefully, Investigate Truth will expand on that.
However, for me, I see it more like progressive re-thinking it. Old religions worked for the time and for a people and for a culture. We don't follow any religion literally. We make well-reasoned updates to the teachings. The Baha'i's have a lot of updated religious teachings, but most of us won't check it out because we're scared "Ooh, it's from the dark side." "It's from a false religion. My pastor and Walter Martin told me so."
In version 2.0, Christianity evolved out of Judaism, but has Judaism been stagnant? No, it has evolved within itself. Islam and Protestantism evolved out of bad Christianity. You could say that some in Islam are reacting against the evils of modernism and Western culture. Is that bad? Maybe their methods are bad, but it's not that much different than what the Moral Majority Christians are doing here in the U.S. Okay, maybe it's a lot different. But, still Fundamental Christians are fighting for a more Christian-type of society.
So where does that leave me? Am I born guilty as sin? Or, was I born a selfish little brat that had to be taught right from wrong? Original sin doesn't work for me, because if a good Jew repents, he is forgiven. If the "blameless" Jew still had an inherited sin on his soul, how was he supposed to repent of that? "Sorry, God. My stupid ancestor Adam messed up. Is there anything I can do to fix that? Sackcloth and ashes? Fasting? Anything?" Of course, several hundreds of years to late for a lot of people, Jesus came.
But, tell me, how did the doctrine of original sin develop? Or, should I use that other word, evolve?

CG Didymus said:

Investigate Truth will like that line from Rusra2 "progressive revelation." That's the whole point of the Baha'i Faith, we get a little "truth" at a time. Hopefully, Investigate Truth will expand on that.
However, for me, I see it more like progressive re-thinking it. Old religions worked for the time and for a people and for a culture. We don't follow any religion literally. We make well-reasoned updates to the teachings. The Baha'i's have a lot of updated religious teachings, but most of us won't check it out because we're scared "Ooh, it's from the dark side." "It's from a false religion. My pastor and Walter Martin told me so."

Click to expand...

Hi CG D, "Progressive revelation"?--Yes and no! Daniel was given some details of the events which would carry foeward from his day to the very end of time. However, a detailed unfolding of every event in the nations of the earth and individuals upon the earth has never been the goal in this controversy between good and evil.
God has given, one might say, what is needed to know, as the time arrived for such information arose. (Examp.) God telling Abraham of the impending destruction of Sodom. Amos 3:7 is GOD'S desire to inform those HE LOVES. "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."
Paul would agree that it is more like "rethinking".
Notice Romans 1:16-22,"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,..."

Now look at the next Chapter(2:11-15), "For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another "
CG D, The principle elucidated in those verses is simple. Everything one sees about them attests to a power(outside themselves) being the source. The Bible(Scriptures) gives those answers.
The Scriptures, also, brings to light that Evil actions did arise in those early Creative "times". They were recorded for our edification. Mankind was fully aware of the Plan of Salvation in the Sacrifice of the Animal to "clothe their nakedness".
That knowledge wasn't lost; but it was made known from generation to generation orally and now even by being written down for one to read.
Even one who has no knowledge of the Creative GOD(by one born in/away from other peoples--except, like unto themselves), The principle of "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" is universal. That principle embraces the core principles of the Decalogue.

It is the "lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life" which turns peaceful neighboring "tribes"/"peoples" into hostile ones. And one should be on the look-out for all things(dark side or "professed ministers) giving evidence of being contrary to The "Thus saith the Lord" or the "It is written".

CG Didymus said:

In version 2.0, Christianity evolved out of Judaism, but has Judaism been stagnant? No, it has evolved within itself. Islam and Protestantism evolved out of bad Christianity. You could say that some in Islam are reacting against the evils of modernism and Western culture. Is that bad? Maybe their methods are bad, but it's not that much different than what the Moral Majority Christians are doing here in the U.S. Okay, maybe it's a lot different. But, still Fundamental Christians are fighting for a more Christian-type of society.
So where does that leave me? Am I born guilty as sin? Or, was I born a selfish little brat that had to be taught right from wrong? Original sin doesn't work for me, because if a good Jew repents, he is forgiven. If the "blameless" Jew still had an inherited sin on his soul, how was he supposed to repent of that? "Sorry, God. My stupid ancestor Adam messed up. Is there anything I can do to fix that? Sackcloth and ashes? Fasting? Anything?" Of course, several hundreds of years to late for a lot of people, Jesus came.
But, tell me, how did the doctrine of original sin develop? Or, should I use that other word, evolve?

Click to expand...

CG D, What "evolved" from Eve's contact with the "serpent"? Or Cain's disobedience in correct sacrificing? How about The Israelites insistence that GOD not be their leader, but "a king" as the surrounding nations? Where in the Scriptures is there any example of mankind being a better CEO than the Creator GOD of all things?

Jesus came right on schedule. No one has been lost because HE didn't come a day/ week/year/etc. earlier.
Yes, Adam did "mess up", but the plan of salvation was and has been in place even before that "mess-up". Therefore, one can not blame Adam for one's refusal to take advantage of the FACT.
It wasn't the "first death" that Jesus died for mankind, but the "second death". That is the "must be born again" which Jesus stated and John recorded.

Hey Pegg, it's so good to get a female's opinion. Too bad you live so far, I'd love to have you come knock on my door. Which is weird, because all the local Evangelicals are invisible. We don't have Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron bugging us, oh excuse me, I mean, "asking" us questions about Jesus. JW's at least try and make an effort to save my poor pitiful soul. Unfortunately, when I go to the Evangelicals, they tell me you are full of baloney. That you changed a few words around to make the Bible say what you want it to. I say good for you and join the club. Who doesn't make the Bible say what they want it to?
And, that is the question I'm dealing with. Who were these Early Church fathers that developed this doctrine of original sin. We don't trust the Jews and their rabbis, but why should we trust these guys either? How inspired could they be when the Christian Church they helped found ended up worshiping Mary? Sorry Catholics, but really at some point the doctrines of the Church did get a little off base. And you Protestants with things like the Rapture and dispensationalism? These aren't clear cut ideas, but worked out and sorted out concepts. They are developed doctrines. And nobody developed an uglier doctrine than Original Sin.
How much guilt and hopelessness can a religion dump on people? Sure, we do bad things, and we need to explain why they happen. So explain it to me. Why, if a Jew 1000 years before Jesus committed an infraction of the Law, sacrificed a pigeon or something and, the important thing, he repented. Why wouldn't his soul be perfectly clean? You might say, "He has a sin nature. His heart is full of deceit and wickedness." What? How about John the Baptist's parents, Enoch, Elijah, Joshua, Mary? The Bible does say that at least some of them were blameless in the sight of the Lord doesn't it?
Now let's move ahead to modern times and check out Average Joe Christian. The day he got saved, his sins were forgiven including any passed down sin from Adam. Yet, Joe still sins. So what does he do? He repents. Then, he sins again, and repents again and so on. Until one day he sins and doesn't repent. In fact, he continues in that sin. Let's say this sin is one of my all time favorites to commit and that is looking with lust at pretty girls. Why is he still sinning? Apparently, Jesus can't remove his sin nature. Apparently, he should of kept repenting.Apparently, the devil succeeded in drawing him away from God. He was like the tiny little plant that grew on rocky ground and withered away.
So in my fable, which is inspired from spiritual truths, yet it is totally made up by me and not God, we have a Jew from 3000 years ago that repented and stayed repentant until he died. And, contrary to popular belief, God did say to the Jews that he would forgive them if they repented. So our guy here should be in the Jewish place where good dead people go and should be undefiled by Adam's sin.
Then, we have poor Joe. He said he believed. Did he show he believed by his actions? No. He did for a while, but then stopped. His Christian nature lost out to his lusts and desires. So what does God do with him? Some say once saved always saved. What a convenient provision for Christians, eternal security. Yeah sure.
But now, let's bring it to the real world and real people. What does God do with poor Pegg? Probably a better person than most Evangelical Christians, but she has a slight doctrinal issue that might disqualify her. Seriously? God isn't going to look at her heart and see what her intent was? You go girl. I'm with you no matter how weird your doctrines are.
Oh yes, what about original sin and children? Pegg do you have kids? You Evangelicals, I know you have kids and lots of them. You don't believe that atheistic crap about over-population. Anyway, back to my point, Catholics baptize the little kids to erase the original sin. What do the rest of you Christians do? In the Left Behind to suffer movie, I think it had kids as old as 10 getting a free pass and getting raptured. How convenient. If there is an age of accountability then what does God do with the tainted souls of children? Does he really excuse them? That is almost like forgiving them for not knowing better. Like most of us, don't know better. We're trying the best we can.
Let's go back to that stupid movie and suppose there was an 11 year old. And, let's say she was going to give her life to Jesus the very next day, but the rapture happened. Her butt-head of a brother, on the other hand, went up in the air to meet Jesus, because he was still 10 years old and below the cut-off point. That's not right. I know it's totally hypothetical and not even real, but what does reality have to do with religious arguments anyway?
I just don't know what's going on Christians. It's so easy for you to say, "Believe on Jesus and be saved." But, what are we supposed to believe? Should I believe Pegg? Or Sincerly? Or maybe Rusra2? For myself, I'm kind of leaning toward Sojourner... and also Shermana... Oh yes, and I can't forget Gnostic. If you're all making it up as you go, then just say so. There's nothing wrong with that. We're all learning and changing are views of reality everyday.

Romans 5:12-22 takes as a given that Gen. 2-3 contains a real and factual account of ancient events. And, the notion of humankind as sinners is a leading idea in the theology of Paul.

I'm not very familiar with the teachings of Islam but, in Judaism, 2 Baruch 23:4 reads: "when Adam sinned a death was decreed against those who were to be born". But, 2 Baruch also states: "Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us had become our own Adam" (54:19). The latter clearly indicates there is no doctrine similar to Original Sin in Judaism or (I think I can safely say) Islam.

From where and by whom did this apparently Judeo-Christian doctrine originate? Consider the source. For which emerging Christian institution did the "church fathers" who developed and propagated this doctrine work? Which evolving Christian church fed, clothed, and housed them?
_________________________
See, e.g.:

* Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (Grand rapids, MI: Regency Ref. Library, 1982), pp. 22, 388-390.

* New Living testament (NLT) Study Bible (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), p. 1901.

* Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), pp. 27-28.

* Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament—Its Background, Growth, & Content, 3rd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2003), pp. 276-277.