• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Originally, where did original sin come from?

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Hey Pegg, it's so good to get a female's opinion....

Agreed, Gal.3:27-29 declares the fact that GOD is interested in human race, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. "

Hi CG D, GOD, also, knows the influences that will be a factor in ones decisions(Just as it is written of Jesus---"HE knew their thoughts", Matt.12:25; Luke 6:8); therefore, whether(unborn), 10,11, or 100+, GOD is JUST and will deal with each person in Mercy and JUSTLY.
CG D, GOD had a similar Discussion with the Jews in Ezek.18:4,32, "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die....."
"...Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn [yourselves] from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (read all of chapter 18)

The scriptures are clear that parental influrnce does take a toll(Or can) upon the off-spring. Repentance does make a/the difference.

They are developed doctrines. And nobody developed an uglier doctrine than Original Sin.

What's "ugly" about seeing one's self in the mirror and seeing/acknowledging that one needs to have that "dirty spot" which one cannot adequately reach "cleaned/removed" by a "friend".

...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.

True, we are all learning and hopefully changing our views as one observes they deviate from the teachings of the Scriptures. However, to deviate/"make it up" as one goes which is different from the "Thus saith the LORD" OR "It is written" as "inspired by the Holy Spirit", is to "walk" "the way to destruction." as is shown by the Scriptures.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
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?

'knock knock'

Who says i live far away? the internet brings your door to me :D

I agree that, to many, our doctrines are 'baloney'... but thats only because we refuse to teach the same doctrines they do. We reject the man-made doctrines such as hellfire, rapture, transubstanitation, reincarnation, purgatory etc etc etc Their doctrines are not found in the bible so we dont teach them. And because we reject those doctrines as false, we are labeled as 'false teachers' etc.

Its not that we have changed anything in the bible...we simply dont add doctrines that are not found in it.

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? Ho inspirewd could they be when the Christian Church they helped found ended up worshiping Mary?

There is a reason why the inspired books were canonized by the early church...there were many christians writing different ideas and gospel accounts after the death of the apostles. The idea behind the canonizing of the scriptures was to separate those writings from those authorized by the apostles. So they are the only writings we need to understand christianity...the writings of the 'church fathers' are interesting if you want to know about church history, but we cannot take our doctrines from them...the true doctrines of the church are only to be found in the canonized scriptures.

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?

God has always been willing to forgive mankind their sins. But he has never removed the penalty of sin from anyone...not even from his own holy prophets. This shows that repentence in itself cannot redeem our life...if it could, then surely those people whom God viewed as holy and righteous would still be alive.

But the fact is that the consequences of sin is death. It was for Adam and it is for us too. If we could stop sinning, then death would be no more.

the good news is that through Jesus, God will soon be removing the 'consequence' of sin from mankind. When he does that, we will all be given the opportunity to learn perfection by learning to do things Gods way and bring our thinking and conduct into harmony with his perfect standards. We live such short lives now that it is impossible for us to master the art of perfection... but God knows that given enough time (and the right conditions) mankind will be fully capable of bringing their lives into harmony with God and thus sin will be no more....and that means no more death either.

Now let's move ahead to modern times and check out Average Joe Christian. ... Until one day he sins and doesn't repent. In fact, he continues in that sin...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.

Sin is something we must continually try to master otherwise sin becomes our master. We can't give in to it just because we have it. Its like a disease, you dont stop taking your medicine just because you have a disease.

Lets put Joe into a different set of circumstances...lets take away the porn industry, lets take away all the enticing media portraying women in sexy poses, lets imagine for a moment that all the women surrounding Joe wear modest clothing not designed to entice.... perhaps under favorable conditions, poor old Joe will find it easier to view young women in a more chaste manner.

Its true, Jesus cannot remove a persons sinful desires... but he can give someone the reason, motivation & courage to try and remove it from themselves.

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.

the scriptures are clear that a person can loose out on salvation if they do not 'repent'...to repent means to 'turn around' from sin.
If anyone 'turned back' to sin, then they are no longer in line for salvation. In the case of such, Paul recommended prompt action on the part of the congregation to “remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Cor. 5:1-5, 12, 13)

But, that same man could also be welcomed back again if he made the resolve to abstain from sin once more:
2Cor 2:6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. 8 Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him

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.

yes i do have kids.
Our understanding is that young children come under their parents headship, so if the parent is saved, so are the kids. We dont baptize our children, not because we believe they are saved, but because baptism has to be a conscious decision...not one that children can consciously make.

But children do come to an age where they are accountable for their own actions...that age is based on their own mental awareness and consciousness and only God can rightly set that age... i dont know exactly where it begins...but most kids mature in their mid-late teens.


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.

there is another option...

there is always the bible. Read it yourself and see what it says.

;)
 
Last edited:

sincerly

Well-Known Member
'knock knock'

Who says i live far away? the internet brings your door to me :D

Agreed, and the Scriptures bring the true message of salvation to ALL.

I agree that, to many, our doctrines are 'baloney'... but thats only because we refuse to teach the same doctrines they do. We reject the man-made doctrines such as hellfire, rapture, transubstanitation, reincarnation, purgatory etc etc etc Their doctrines are not found in the bible so we dont teach them. And because we reject those doctrines as false, we are labeled as 'false teachers' etc.

You and I have many more "doctrines/teachings" upon which we agree than those we disagee---But this thead isn't for those.

Its not that we have changed anything in the bible...we simply dont add doctrines that are not found in it.

That statement is debateable.--but for/on its thread.

There is a reason why the inspired books were canonized by the early church...there were many christians writing different ideas and gospel accounts after the death of the apostles. The idea behind the canonizing of the scriptures was to separate those writings from those authorized by the apostles. So they are the only writings we need to understand christianity...the writings of the 'church fathers' are interesting if you want to know about church history, but we cannot take our doctrines from them...the true doctrines of the church are only to be found in the canonized scriptures.

Pegg, the Apostolic Church was the "early church" and Luke addresses (1:1-3) the reason for the writings of the Epistles of the Gosples and that was as a record of "those things which are most surely believed among us" of the "Word". They were followers "of the "WORD".
Yes, very soon following the death of the Apoatles, as Paul acknowledged in 2Thess,2:3-4 would accure as prophesied and Paul acknowledged to /prophesied to the Ephesian Leaders in Acts 20:28-30 that "falling away" would occur. This is seen in Rev.2:4 as well---spoken by Jesus Christ.

Yes, it was those writings which were false teachings/doctrines which were being propagated before/during the "falling away" that were "refuted" or "accepted by the claimed early church fathers" and which were erroneously taught to the masses of illiterate believers "orally". Those included those you mentioned and more.
The Scriptures which the HOLY SPIRIT approved to be in those "Canons" took years to achieve because of the "hard-hardeness" of men's "Beliefs" to the Scriptures. That is why even today, one is told the scriptures have to be understood by what "man claims is the interpretation".

God has always been willing to forgive mankind their sins. But he has never removed the penalty of sin from anyone...not even from his own holy prophets. This shows that repentence in itself cannot redeem our life...if it could, then surely those people whom God viewed as holy and righteous would still be alive.

Yes, we see GOD'S willingness to "forgive" sins in the act of "covering the nakedness resulting in the death penalty of Adam and Eve with that "Skin of the sacrificed animal"(the plan for which was made "before the foundation of the world".). That same "forgiveness" is seen throughout the scriptures when one is in compliance to the "Confession of ones guilt" and in the "Repenting" of such actions. (Since Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross, Baptism is the showing one is willing to die to self and be buried with Christ in death so that one can be resurrected with HIM in newness of LIFE--Spiritual Life.

But the fact is that the consequences of sin is death. It was for Adam and it is for us too. If we could stop sinning, then death would be no more.

That is the "second death"---ALL die the "first death". Jesus died so that "all who believe the Gospel messages/and the OT messages which were fulfilled, as seen by the NT Epistles, might be spared the "Second death".

Just because everyone stopped sinning wouldn't eliminate death. The victory over and destruction of Death is in the shed blood of Jesus Christ---NOT just the act of "stopping sinning". Mankind is already pronounced "guilty" and sentenced to "death". However, Yes, Heb.12:1, declares the one is capablle of "putting away the little sin which so easily besets" one.
There is none of the Decalogue which is impossible to keep--Or the scriptures are wrong. Jesus Christ "sinned not" and was tempted in every point like as we are.

the good news is that through Jesus, God will soon be removing the 'consequence' of sin from mankind. When he does that, we will all be given the opportunity to learn perfection by learning to do things Gods way and bring our thinking and conduct into harmony with his perfect standards. We live such short lives now that it is impossible for us to master the art of perfection... but God knows that given enough time (and the right conditions) mankind will be fully capable of bringing their lives into harmony with God and thus sin will be no more....and that means no more death either.

Sin doesn't come from without one, but from within. (James 1:13-15) During this short life-span which mankind possesses, one is exhorted /admonished to work out one's salvation/Repent and submit to GOD's the Father's Will---Nothing hard---only in the fact, one is battling against self. Oe as GOD stated--" BE YE PERFECT; BE YE HOLY"---and that is the option/choice one has in this "life-span".
The "conditions" GOD has recorded in the Scriptures and added "MY YOKE IS EASY AND BURDEN LIGHT."
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Oh my God! It's a Jehovah Witness at my computer door! Oh well, too late, you're in. You know we're all scared of you. There's so many nominal Christians out there and you aren't afraid to confront them. That's awesome. You and Sincerly are very knowledgeable, and, again, I thank you Sincerly for the depth of your responses.
I'm looking through a few Catholic books right now--Devin Rose's If Protestantism is True, Mike Aquilina's The Fathers of the Church, and Jimmy Akin's The Fathers Know Best. Like Protestant books by guys like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell, these books make perfect sense, almost. Too read them it seems that original sin, purgatory, Mary as a perpetual virgin etc. fit right into the true intent of God and Jesus. Everyone has great arguments.
I hope the Catholics were wrong. I don't like the idea of original sin. Especially if it was not part of Judaism. But neither was the Trinity, the Christian concept of the devil and hell and so on. But look at you two, both devoted, God-loving, truth-loving people, but your two Christianities are so different. Pegg and Sincerly, don't worry about going off topic on my account. I love it.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Oh my God! It's a Jehovah Witness at my computer door! Oh well, too late, you're in. You know we're all scared of you. There's so many nominal Christians out there and you aren't afraid to confront them. That's awesome. You and Sincerly are very knowledgeable, and, again, I thank you Sincerly for the depth of your responses.
I'm looking through a few Catholic books right now--Devin Rose's If Protestantism is True, Mike Aquilina's The Fathers of the Church, and Jimmy Akin's The Fathers Know Best. Like Protestant books by guys like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell, these books make perfect sense, almost. Too read them it seems that original sin, purgatory, Mary as a perpetual virgin etc. fit right into the true intent of God and Jesus. Everyone has great arguments.
I hope the Catholics were wrong. I don't like the idea of original sin. Especially if it was not part of Judaism. But neither was the Trinity, the Christian concept of the devil and hell and so on. But look at you two, both devoted, God-loving, truth-loving people, but your two Christianities are so different. Pegg and Sincerly, don't worry about going off topic on my account. I love it.

Hi CG D, The only book worth spending time with is the Bible(Some declare it to be mythical, but, I for one, have Faith in the "inspiration of it" completly). What other's are writing concerning the messages contained in it---you can glean for yourself---and be assured that with an open mind for the leading of the Hoy Spirit HE will Guide the true seeker into the correct path.

CG D, Cain and Abel came from the same parents and had heard the same events that had happened prior to their births. The "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doeth not well, sin lieth at the door."---tells me that Cain was well aware of his choice/decision/conclusion in an offering.
It, also, tells me that which is written is exactly the same conclusion Paul reached when he wrote 1Cor.10:6,11, that those writings were examples for us---today's readers and listeners---to their messages.
Pegg and I have some beliefs which are conflicting, therefore, it is your responsibllity to do as the Bereans(Acts17:11) and "search the scriptures" to determine the truth.
The "Falling away" from the Truth is a product of one's choice. Or that of believing one own exegesis/wrong interpretation(based upon a lie). Wasn't that Eve's reason for being deceived/beguiled?

As far as "loyalty" to a "Demonination", I was searching for TRUTH when I found this one. IF, one can show me a Belief system which is more Truth-filled---then I will seriously follow it. My Eternal salvation depends upon following Truth, NOT ERROR.
 
Last edited:

somethingNiftyhere

Squadoosh 1@ATime
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?


Original sin is also known as, "Ancestral Sin".
It's the curse or stain bestowed upon Adam for being led to disobey God in the Garden, when Eve tempted him to follow her disobedience in eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge contrary to God's admonition not to.
Consequently that stain was to be passed down to all heirs of their seed. All future human generations were to inherit the sins of their father(and mother), for disobeying God and committing to their own will as opposed to that of God's.

Of course it's short sighted because being absent of knowledge or Gnosis, Adam and Eve could in no way make an informed choice to exercise the free will to disobey God through understanding the variables involved.
Obey or disobey. And the subsequent consequence or reward.
The tree of knowledge bore the fruit that once consumed would afford the first humans the intellect like unto God. Who did possess knowledge of both good and evil because he was creator of both good and evil. (Isaiah45:7) Which, being like unto God if the fruit of that tree was eaten, was what God did not want and that's why he forbid it to be eaten.
Of course, if omniscience (all knowing) had wanted to insure Adam and Eve would never be able to eat that fruit and thus become like unto himself, he should have never planted the tree in paradise in the first place.
The Bible says thou shalt not tempt the lord thy God. However, humanity was damned by God because he did not have the same respect or consideration in not tempting the first humans he created. And being omniscient the prohibition and it's consequences were a matter of predestination.
Otherwise, how could Satan God's adversary have ever gained entry into Eden if Omnipresent God was about?

It's a myth of course. However, it's meant to explain why humans are carnal creatures and morality is not universal.

It also puts God in a poor light because of all the omni-characteristics he's supposed to possess he failed to exhibit omni-benevolence in the matter and forgive the first ignorant mistake the first couple made. Instead, he cursed them and all humans for eternity for that one mistake that they made because his will failed to create them with an intellect.
So humanity was basically cursed for failing to remain stupid by God's will.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
SomethingNiftyhere? No something nifty is here! I love it!

"It also puts God in a poor light because of all the omni-characteristics he's supposed to possess he failed to exhibit omni-benevolence in the matter and forgive the first ignorant mistake the first couple made. Instead, he cursed them and all humans for eternity for that one mistake that they made because his will failed to create them with an intellect. So humanity was basically cursed for failing to remain stupid by God's will." Classic!
Because religious concepts have evolved, I question the "God is the same yesterday, today and forever" idea. Since Christianity evolved out of Judaism, I have to look at their understanding of God and see if it progresses smoothly into Christianity. Original sin is a rough spot. Early Christianity developed the idea. Early Christianity developed a lot of ideas that Protestant Christians reject. I made-up the scenario with Average Joe Christian dying while in an unrepentant state of being. The Catholics came up with Purgatory so he could burn away his sin and get into heaven later. Good, great way to explain it. I'm sure they have Bible verses to back it up. Is it true? Who knows? Does it comfort Catholics? Hell yeah!

Pegg, you said, "We reject the man-made doctrines such as hellfire, rapture, transubstanitation, reincarnation, purgatory etc etc etc Their doctrines are not found in the bible so we dont teach them. And because we reject those doctrines as false, we are labeled as 'false teachers' etc." You are right on. I still have a fear of JW's, because I was taught to believe they were a cult. But wasn't the followers of Jesus considered a cult? So, again, who's telling me the truth? One point for Pegg, she doesn't believe in man-made doctrines.


Sincerly said, "I was searching for TRUTH when I found this one. IF, one can show me a Belief system which is more Truth-fille(d)---then I will seriously follow it." You obviously have studied well. But, look at the story of the Good Samaritan. He didn't have the right doctrinal beliefs, but he had the right heart beliefs. Which is more important? I'm letting God soften my stony heart. I'm becoming a better person, but I'm using concepts from different religions to do it. I can't hate Pegg and I'm learning to appreciate her. I'm learning to respect her and why she believes what she does. My question is never ending, however, because even if I was to say, "Now I believe!" There is always a more literal, a more radical way to believe the one truth. Should I speak in tongues and jump up and down clapping my hands? Should I handle snakes and drink deadly poison? Should I do like Origen and... No! Definitely not! But, literally, Jesus did say to pluck your eye out. No one takes it literally. So why should I follow man-made doctrines that are only implied in the Bible. And, how many concepts, like original sin, are contradicted within the Bible itself? I like you too Sincerly, but my new best friend is SomethingNifty. He cracks me up.
 

somethingNiftyhere

Squadoosh 1@ATime
...But, look at the story of the Good Samaritan. He didn't have the right doctrinal beliefs, but he had the right heart beliefs.
Exactly. If a person was to subscribe to the fundamental commands inherent in the new testament doctrine commanding Christians behaviors, they could not have acted as the good Samaritan did.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
With regard to the scripture about God being the same yesterday, today and forever, I think that could be taken to mean either the whole inherited sin/damnation paradigm reflects a higher power that after having created Satan so that he is appointed Lord of the earth after the fall, while God's will created humans to exist in the presence of that Godly adversary, that he is in essence playing chess with himself while using humans as the pawns.

Because if God does not change and is eternally the same while scriptures relate all that transpires is through his power, by his will, as part of his divine plan and is predestined, then the creation of humans after Satan was banished to earth, and our being condemned as sinners by God after the Garden, along with the coming of God in the form of Jesus so as to lift that curse if we simply believe Jesus was a sign God forgave us for what he made us to be and act as as fallen humans living in the midst of his fallen angel Satan, that it's all his doing.

From start to finish. And he, being the same God yesterday, today and forever didn't really decide to have mercy on us and thus sent Jesus to save us. But rather, Jesus was just part of the next step of his plan that saves some but not all. Because there's only an elect number who are to be saved by their belief in the Christ that was said to have taken the sin of the world upon himself on the cross.

But then reading further in scripture in Timothy we learn that Jesus saved all men from sin especially those that believe.

Reading further in scripture we read, or hear it argued by believers today, that all does not mean what we think it means. And that it instead means Jesus came only to save those who believed in him and repented of their sins in his name. While the rest of the world remains damned until they come to Jesus.

What's interesting though is that those who do not hear about sin, or Jesus, are not to suffer the penalties for their fallen status. It's only those who hear they are damned as sinners and then choose not to repent of that God given stain that are once again committing to rebellion and are consequently damned to God's created Hell for it. A Hell that should be noted was originally created to house Satan and his minions. But now somehow is the abode also for humans.

But, in Psalm 139:7-9 is also revealed to be the abode of God as well.
Which is actually in keeping with the aforementioned Isaiah 45:7. Which says God is the Devil. So where else would he dwell being omnipresent?



Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
Annie Dillard
 
Last edited:

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Original sin is also known as, "Ancestral Sin".
It's the curse or stain bestowed upon Adam for being led to disobey God in the Garden, when Eve tempted him to follow her disobedience in eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge contrary to God's admonition not to.
Consequently that stain was to be passed down to all heirs of their seed. All future human generations were to inherit the sins of their father(and mother), for disobeying God and committing to their own will as opposed to that of God's.

Hi STNH, Welcome to the forums. What was passed to the human family from Adam and Eve was the "death penalty"---that as the result of Disobedience. There were no "off-spring"/Children born at the time of that "Sin". Because the "penalty" wasn't administered at the moment of the "infraction", "death" passed to all generations.
ALL persons "die" the first death. That "second death" is "conditional" because Adam and Eve were clothed in the skin of an animal which was symbolic of the promised "seed of the woman"(Jesus Christ). In a plan which was devised "before the foundation of the world".

Of course it's short sighted because being absent of knowledge or Gnosis, Adam and Eve could in no way make an informed choice to exercise the free will to disobey God through understanding the variables involved.
Obey or disobey. And the subsequent consequence or reward.

To the contrary, Eve was knowledgeable of GOD"S warning and the consequences. She disputed with the serpent concerning what GOD had said. True, She had not experienced the "death" of anything at that point.
But, she certainly was capable to exercise her "freedom of Choice" in the simple "Obedience to GOD" or the "obedience to the Serpent's suggestions". The "Ye shall surely NOT die." and "Ye shall be like GOD". Both were "lies". However, the "lies" were the "seeds" for mistrust and the "lusts" which was her "downfall" and mankind's.

The tree of knowledge bore the fruit that once consumed would afford the first humans the intellect like unto God. Who did possess knowledge of both good and evil because he was creator of both good and evil. (Isaiah45:7) Which, being like unto God if the fruit of that tree was eaten, was what God did not want and that's why he forbid it to be eaten.

False, there was nothing in the fruit which would give them "the intellect like unto GOD". They had been "created in the image of GOD". Adam had named the animals and the couple were given "dominion" over all of GOD'S Creation.
Isa,45:7 is true, but your understanding is faulty, Cyrus was used of GOD in the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire and freeing of the Captivity of the Israelites at the end of their 70 years of punishment by the LORD GOD of the disobedient Israelites.
What GOD didn't want then and now is "disobedience." Then and NOW, it is GOD'S desire/WILL that one "perfect as HE is Perfect" and "holy as HE is HOLY".
One can readily see in the world today why HE did NOT want them to "eat of the tree"/be disobedient.

Of course, if omniscience (all knowing) had wanted to insure Adam and Eve would never be able to eat that fruit and thus become like unto himself, he should have never planted the tree in paradise in the first place.
The Bible says thou shalt not tempt the lord thy God. However, humanity was damned by God because he did not have the same respect or consideration in not tempting the first humans he created. And being omniscient the prohibition and it's consequences were a matter of predestination.
Otherwise, how could Satan God's adversary have ever gained entry into Eden if Omnipresent God was about?

Who is more deceived---Adam and Eve, or the one who has had all the examples of the past laid out before them and still refuses to see the truth of the Scriptures as the Scriptures are unfolded before them? See James1:13-15; Mal.3:17

It's a myth of course. However, it's meant to explain why humans are carnal creatures and morality is not universal.

It also puts God in a poor light because of all the omni-characteristics he's supposed to possess he failed to exhibit omni-benevolence in the matter and forgive the first ignorant mistake the first couple made. Instead, he cursed them and all humans for eternity for that one mistake that they made because his will failed to create them with an intellect.
So humanity was basically cursed for failing to remain stupid by God's will.

That's your take, but the Fact that GOD IS LOVE and is NOT Pleased by the Death of any ONE, but desires that ALL come to Repentance and be saved speaks volumes against your conclusion.[2Pet.3:9]
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
SomethingNiftyhere? No something nifty is here! I love it!

"It also puts God in a poor light because of all the omni-characteristics he's supposed to possess he failed to exhibit omni-benevolence in the matter and forgive the first ignorant mistake the first couple made. Instead, he cursed them and all humans for eternity for that one mistake that they made because his will failed to create them with an intellect. So humanity was basically cursed for failing to remain stupid by God's will." Classic!

Yes, Classic!, but not scriptural. And GOD is LOVE.

Because religious concepts have evolved, I question the "God is the same yesterday, today and forever" idea. Since Christianity evolved out of Judaism, I have to look at their understanding of God and see if it progresses smoothly into Christianity. Original sin is a rough spot. Early Christianity developed the idea. Early Christianity developed a lot of ideas that Protestant Christians reject. I made-up the scenario with Average Joe Christian dying while in an unrepentant state of being. The Catholics came up with Purgatory so he could burn away his sin and get into heaven later. Good, great way to explain it. I'm sure they have Bible verses to back it up. Is it true? Who knows? Does it comfort Catholics? Hell yeah!

CG D, that which GOD declared from Genesis and from Sinai hasn't changed, however, man'd misunderstanding of HIS teachings/doctrines have. That is what is erroneous and prevalent in the "falling away churches" since the "early church fathers" departed from the first one. Don't blame GOD for the erroneous beliefs of mankind. NO! the Scriptures cannot be twisted to validate a lie. see Prov.14:12

Pegg, you said, "We reject the man-made doctrines such as hellfire, rapture, transubstanitation, reincarnation, purgatory etc etc etc Their doctrines are not found in the bible so we dont teach them. And because we reject those doctrines as false, we are labeled as 'false teachers' etc." You are right on. I still have a fear of JW's, because I was taught to believe they were a cult. But wasn't the followers of Jesus considered a cult? So, again, who's telling me the truth? One point for Pegg, she doesn't believe in man-made doctrines.

NO! Jesus Christ rejected the "man-made traditions" of the Jews and their "commandments of men" (Mark 7:1-13) The same would/should be said of those "traditions of men " and the "decrees made in the councils of men" which have come to replace the "Thus saith the LORD" today.

Sincerly said, "I was searching for TRUTH when I found this one. IF, one can show me a Belief system which is more Truth-fille(d)---then I will seriously follow it." You obviously have studied well. But, look at the story of the Good Samaritan. He didn't have the right doctrinal beliefs, but he had the right heart beliefs. Which is more important? I'm letting God soften my stony heart. I'm becoming a better person, but I'm using concepts from different religions to do it. I can't hate Pegg and I'm learning to appreciate her. I'm learning to respect her and why she believes what she does. My question is never ending, however, !" There is always a more literalbecause even if I was to say, "Now I believe, a more radical way to believe the one truth. Should I speak in tongues and jump up and down clapping my hands? Should I handle snakes and drink deadly poison? Should I do like Origen and... No! Definitely not! But, literally, Jesus did say to pluck your eye out. No one takes it literally. So why should I follow man-made doctrines that are only implied in the Bible. And, how many concepts, like original sin, are contradicted within the Bible itself? I like you too Sincerly, but my new best friend is SomethingNifty. He cracks me up.

CG D, I'm in no popularity contest with anyone. Truth is what keeps me from falling apart/away from the Savior of mankind.
A correct understanding of the contextual message would keep one from jumping to the wrong conclusions of the scriptural messages.
SIN is serious and should not be dismissed lightly. I think Jseus was serious when he admonished that If the only way one could overcome the "visual temptation" was to "pluck out one's eyes". The result would be salvation rather than destruction. and the Salvation would insure "sight" in the "new earth".

In the story of the Good Samaritan, he had not only the "right doctrinal beliefs", but they were exercised by the Heart. Remember, the "woman at the well? She knew of the "Coming Messiah" because a Jewish priest was brought back into the land from which the Jews had been displaced by force and occupied by bringing in peoples of other nations.
It was The Jewish nation and their ideas concerning the Samaritans which were wrong.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Dear Sincerly, when you said the Jesus rejected the [FONT=&quot]"man-made traditions" that's all I'm questioning. Original sin is a fabrication to explain what condition our soul's condition is in. Like I always say, it's not bad, but is it man-made? Since it isn't a Jewish concept then it was early Christians leaders that made it up.
We are all trying to understand the truth. Some here believe they have the truth. Those people have the hardest time, because they are probably trying to "save" the rest of us from eternal damnation. But let's say I'm some form of liberal Christian, maybe even a member of an "emerging" church, then you'd be trying to save me from doctrinal error. My emerging church tells me to go do deeds and be a good Samaritan. In my heart I believe it. I believe that is what Jesus and God want me to be doing, and then, I run into you, the evangelistic born-again Christian. You tell me I'm a sinner. That all my good deeds won't get me to heaven, so I do the sinner's prayer.
Now when I go do my good deeds, I preach to those I'm helping. Let's say it's an Eskimo. I say, "Here is supplies for you and your family, and by the way--Do you know Jesus?" I believe I'm doing right. He probably wants nothing to do with me. But let's say he converts. The problem is, I'm a new believer myself, and I give him misinformation. Nothing too major, at least I didn't think so, but I told him Jesus is not God, but only a prophet.
That poor Eskimo prayed to be saved to the wrong definition of Jesus. That winter he died. Like my poor average Joe, the Church has to make man-made definitions to explain what happens to these people. To be true to a Fundamentalist explanation, the Eskimo lost out on a technicality. Joe might be in because of the "once saved, always saved" tradition. I like the idea of being saved and believing in an idealized Jesus, but the Jesus of Scriptures as interpreted by the more conservative side of Christianity is too extreme for me. I see contradictions right and left in their arguments. Like the plucking out of the eye and handling snakes, I see a limit to the extremes they take a "literal" reading.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]SomethingNiftyhere said, “in essence (God is) playing chess with himself while using humans as the pawns.” I'm very much in-line with SomethingNiftyhere. God is all and in all, if indeed he's omni-everything. [FONT=&quot]He knows all and created all. If that is correct then he created the game and put all the pieces in place. If the correct way to play the game is to come to a "saving" knowledge of Jesus Christ then fine. It's just that my rook just castled and left the game board. My knight hopped off right behind him. My pawns are waddling as fast as they can, but they're still on the table.
My elephant from earlier is now an invisible, undefinable God. I don't need to be blind physically not to see it, and I'm trying not to be spiritually blind.
Oh, and I keep bringing it up, but no one has said anything yet; Did Jesus speak in Aramaic? You know what, I'll start another thread and ask it there. Thanks Pegg, Sincerly and SomethingNiftyhere. Good questions and good answers. Love you guys and girls.
[/FONT]
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Dear Sincerly, when you said the Jesus rejected the [FONT=&quot]"man-made traditions" that's all I'm questioning. Original sin is a fabrication to explain what condition our soul's condition is in. Like I always say, it's not bad, but is it man-made? Since it isn't a Jewish concept then it was early Christians leaders that made it up.
We are all trying to understand the truth. Some here believe they have the truth. Those people have the hardest time, because they are probably trying to "save" the rest of us from eternal damnation. But let's say I'm some form of liberal Christian, maybe even a member of an "emerging" church, then you'd be trying to save me from doctrinal error. My emerging church tells me to go do deeds and be a good Samaritan. In my heart I believe it. I believe that is what Jesus and God want me to be doing, and then, I run into you, the evangelistic born-again Christian. You tell me I'm a sinner. That all my good deeds won't get me to heaven, so I do the sinner's prayer.
Now when I go do my good deeds, I preach to those I'm helping. Let's say it's an Eskimo. I say, "Here is supplies for you and your family, and by the way--Do you know Jesus?" I believe I'm doing right. He probably wants nothing to do with me. But let's say he converts. The problem is, I'm a new believer myself, and I give him misinformation. Nothing too major, at least I didn't think so, but I told him Jesus is not God, but only a prophet.
That poor Eskimo prayed to be saved to the wrong definition of Jesus. That winter he died. Like my poor average Joe, the Church has to make man-made definitions to explain what happens to these people. To be true to a Fundamentalist explanation, the Eskimo lost out on a technicality. Joe might be in because of the "once saved, always saved" tradition. I like the idea of being saved and believing in an idealized Jesus, but the Jesus of Scriptures as interpreted by the more conservative side of Christianity is too extreme for me. I see contradictions right and left in their arguments. Like the plucking out of the eye and handling snakes, I see a limit to the extremes they take a "literal" reading.
[/FONT]SomethingNiftyhere said, “in essence (God is) playing chess with himself while using humans as the pawns.” I'm very much in-line with SomethingNiftyhere. God is all and in all, if indeed he's omni-everything. [FONT=&quot]He knows all and created all. If that is correct then he created the game and put all the pieces in place. If the correct way to play the game is to come to a "saving" knowledge of Jesus Christ then fine. It's just that my rook just castled and left the game board. My knight hopped off right behind him. My pawns are waddling as fast as they can, but they're still on the table.
My elephant from earlier is now an invisible, undefinable God. I don't need to be blind physically not to see it, and I'm trying not to be spiritually blind.
Oh, and I keep bringing it up, but no one has said anything yet; Did Jesus speak in Aramaic? You know what, I'll start another thread and ask it there. Thanks Pegg, Sincerly and SomethingNiftyhere. Good questions and good answers. Love you guys and girls.
[/FONT]
I don't think God is playing a chess game, because chess implies a win-lose situation. I don't think God's in the win-lose business. If are sinful, God has saved us from that sin, because God is faithful in God's love relationships. Original sin is a Christian concept, propagated by Augustine (who I happen to disagree with on many points). He was not infallible in his interpretations.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
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.
To me, it's different. It's one thing to say that we are born with a predisposition to be sinful and to say that we are born in a state of guilt for what someone did thousands of years ago.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
To me, it's different. It's one thing to say that we are born with a predisposition to be sinful and to say that we are born in a state of guilt for what someone did thousands of years ago.
It is different.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
To me, it's different. It's one thing to say that we are born with a predisposition to be sinful and to say that we are born in a state of guilt for what someone did thousands of years ago.
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.
 

somethingNiftyhere

Squadoosh 1@ATime
Hi STNH, Welcome to the forums. What was passed to the human family from Adam and Eve was the "death penalty"---that as the result of Disobedience. There were no "off-spring"/Children born at the time of that "Sin". Because the "penalty" wasn't administered at the moment of the "infraction", "death" passed to all generations.
ALL persons "die" the first death. That "second death" is "conditional" because Adam and Eve were clothed in the skin of an animal which was symbolic of the promised "seed of the woman"(Jesus Christ). In a plan which was devised "before the foundation of the world".
I don't know what religious tradition you're referencing. However, Adam and Eve were naked initially. They were not clothed in any skin of an animal prior to the fall. Only after.

Furthermore, the Christian religion relates that the offspring of Adam and Eve were not only Cain and Able, two son's one of whom later murdered the other, but that all humanity is the offspring of the first couple. And after Eve tempted Adam to also eat of the fruit of the tree, sin came into the world. It was the stain applied to all humanity due to Adam having disobeyed God. But Eve transgressed first.


Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—



To the contrary, Eve was knowledgeable of GOD"S warning and the consequences. She disputed with the serpent concerning what GOD had said. True, She had not experienced the "death" of anything at that point.
She repeated what God had told her. She had no knowledge of the meaning behind it. Which is why the serpent/Satan/God could tempt her to eat despite what God had commanded of her obedience first.
The tree of knowledge/Gnosis. The fruit of which would make Eve and Adam like unto God in the understanding of Good and Evil.

Absent that knowledge as they were in the beginning by God's creation, they had no comprehension of either good or evil. Nor then would they understand the consequences of making a free choice because they were not cognizant of the import of obedience and disobedience. They could not make an informed choice having no knowledge of good or evil.
But, she certainly was capable to exercise her "freedom of Choice" in the simple "Obedience to GOD" or the "obedience to the Serpent's suggestions". The "Ye shall surely NOT die." and "Ye shall be like GOD". Both were "lies". However, the "lies" were the "seeds" for mistrust and the "lusts" which was her "downfall" and mankind's.



False, there was nothing in the fruit which would give them "the intellect like unto GOD". They had been "created in the image of GOD".
Not false at all. You are simply wrong.

As I said, I don't know what religious tradition if any that you are using to refute the Bible, but it isn't grounded in Christian tradition or Bible scripture.

Genesis 3:21-24
And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

As to the rest of your observations given the initial errors indicate you are not grounded in Biblical doctrine your admonitions are all over the place and not relevant to the OP question.

So, I'll leave it at that. Perhaps you should read the Bible prior to attempting to debate Biblical doctrine.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi STNH, Welcome to the forums. What was passed to the human family from Adam and Eve was the "death penalty"---that as the result of Disobedience. There were no "off-spring"/Children born at the time of that "Sin".
Because the "penalty" wasn't administered at the moment of the "infraction", "death" passed to all generations.
ALL persons "die" the first death. That "second death" is "conditional" because Adam and Eve were clothed in the skin of an animal which was symbolic of the promised "seed of the woman"(Jesus Christ). In a plan which was devised "before the foundation of the world".


I don't know what religious tradition you're referencing. However, Adam and Eve were naked initially. They were not clothed in any skin of an animal prior to the fall. Only after.

I'm referencing the Scriptures.
Yes, That is what the Scriptures say.
Again, correct.

I
Furthermore, the Christian religion relates that the offspring of Adam and Eve were not only Cain and Able, two son's one of whom later murdered the other, but that all humanity is the offspring of the first couple.

Yes, Cain and Abel were the first two sons of Adam and Eve. They were born AFTER the "Disobedience."/After the "First and second death penalties" were imposed upon the human race.
Gen.5:4 states, "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:"
All we know(named) is the Cain and his sister and Seth were born after the Disobedience. Then in Acts17:26, we have this added information. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; "

Therefore, from Adam and Eve, the world was populated just as GOD had said, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion...."

And after Eve tempted Adam to also eat of the fruit of the tree, sin came into the world. It was the stain applied to all humanity due to Adam having disobeyed God. But Eve transgressed first.


Eve was beguiled/deceived, but Adam knew what he was doing. (2Cor.11:3)1Tim.2:14; Rom.5:14, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Gen.3:15)

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"—

She repeated what God had told her. She had no knowledge of the meaning behind it. Which is why the serpent/Satan/God could tempt her to eat despite what God had commanded of her obedience first.

STNH, Eve, certainly was able to repeat what GOD had said concerning the "tree". Also, when confronted by GOD after the fact of Disobedience, it wasn't that she didn't KNOW, but that the fault was the serpents.
NO! GOD never intended the human family to "experience" the consequences of SIN.
The same principle is seen in the admonition----"Obedience is better than sacrifice."
All the "tempting was done by the "Serpent/Satan"--NOT GOD. And that tempting was focused upon one's "lusts".

The tree of knowledge/Gnosis. The fruit of which would make Eve and Adam like unto God in the understanding of Good and Evil.

Absent that knowledge as they were in the beginning by God's creation, they had no comprehension of either good or evil. Nor then would they understand the consequences of making a free choice because they were not cognizant of the import of obedience and disobedience. They could not make an informed choice having no knowledge of good or evil.
But, she certainly was capable to exercise her "freedom of Choice" in the simple "Obedience to GOD" or the "obedience to the Serpent's suggestions". The "Ye shall surely NOT die." and "Ye shall be like GOD". Both were "lies". However, the "lies" were the "seeds" for mistrust and the "lusts" which was her "downfall" and mankind's.

Yes, that disobedience in eating of the fruit did give them "give them a knowledge of good and evil". Something I wish they had never done---The human family had no need to "KNOW" EVIL.
The human family already was in the only "image" which was adequate for right living with GOD AND the rest of mankind.

sincerly said:
False, there was nothing in the fruit which would give them "the intellect like unto GOD". They had been "created in the image of GOD".

Not false at all. You are simply wrong.

Just what part of "EVIL" ,which GOD knows, is beneficial to the human race? Man's inhumanity to mankind has never been commendable.

As I said, I don't know what religious tradition if any that you are using to refute the Bible, but it isn't grounded in Christian tradition or Bible scripture.

Genesis 3:21-24
And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

As to the rest of your observations given the initial errors indicate you are not grounded in Biblical doctrine your admonitions are all over the place and not relevant to the OP question.
So, I'll leave it at that. Perhaps you should read the Bible prior to attempting to debate Biblical doctrine.

I haven't refuted the Bible, but some false ideas--supposedly based upon the Scriptural messages. Gen. 3:21-27 is the point I was making. Read again!
The penalty for the "Original sin" is what was passed to all mankind as per the scriptures posted above. That is why Jesus said, "Ye must be born again" and gave HIS LIFE as the propitiation for that infraction/SIN.---the death penalty which mankind was subject to receive.

The "gnosis" which should be aquired is that of the plan of Salvation which was made prior to "the foundation of the world."
 
Last edited:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
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."
There is a VERY important distinction that needs to be made here. "Original sin" typically refers to the Western, Augustinian concept that mankind is somehow guilty of Adam's sin, and it's this guilt that separates us from God.

Wikipedia is quite right in saying that the Augustinian idea of Original Sin came later. I'll explain more in a sec.

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?
We all have a sinful nature, inherited from Adam. When Adam sinned, it introduced a rift between God and man. Since man had separated himself by sin from God, Who is the source of eternal life, mankind became subject to death. Christ came to save us from sin and death. However, we do NOT inherit the GUILT of Adam's sin--only Adam is guilty for Adam's sin. Believing that we are guilty for Adam's sin is the innovation. The concept that man separated himself from God and life through sin, and that afterwards mankind fell under the dominion of sin and death, is completely Biblical.

Genesis 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”


In other words, since man has turned away from God, he is now subject to death and suffering.

Romans 5:12-15 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

We die because we sin, and we inherit that tendency to sin from Adam. But even if we don't sin, we still inherit a damaged human nature that is subject to death, thanks to Adam's sin. Human nature is damaged. It needs repaired. That is why Christ took on our human nature, to heal it and make it whole, by sharing with us in what it means to be human, and reconciling our humanity to God's Divinity, to bring us back to that source of Life.

Romans 6:17-23 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

To sum up, this speaks of how we are slaves to sin, but Christ came to free us from that slavery, and instead bring us to life with God.

Hebrews 2:14-15 14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
 
Last edited:

sincerly

Well-Known Member
There is a VERY important distinction that needs to be made here. "Original sin" typically refers to the Western, Augustinian concept that mankind is somehow guilty of Adam's sin, and it's this guilt that separates us from God.

Wikipedia is quite right in saying that the Augustinian idea of Original Sin came later. I'll explain more in a sec.

Hi Shiranui, Welcome to the forums.

We all have a sinful nature, inherited from Adam. When Adam sinned, it introduced a rift between God and man. Since man had separated himself by sin from God, Who is the source of eternal life, mankind became subject to death. Christ came to save us from sin and death. However, we do NOT inherit the GUILT of Adam's sin--only Adam is guilty for Adam's sin. Believing that we are guilty for Adam's sin is the innovation. The concept that man separated himself from God and life through sin, and that afterwards mankind fell under the dominion of sin and death, is completely Biblical.

Like Adam, all have the capacity to choose to obey or disobey. Yes, a "rift" was made because of disobedience between GOD and HIS Created human beings. That "rift" was, also, pronounced to have a penalty of "death".(Since "mankind" was created originally to live without dying, that "rift", we learn,(2Pet.1:20) had a back-up plan for the human Families Redemption.)

Genesis 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”


In other words, since man has turned away from God, he is now subject to death and suffering.

Romans 5:12-15 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

We die because we sin, and we inherit that tendency to sin from Adam. But even if we don't sin, we still inherit a damaged human nature that is subject to death, thanks to Adam's sin. Human nature is damaged. It needs repaired. That is why Christ took on our human nature, to heal it and make it whole, by sharing with us in what it means to be human, and reconciling our humanity to God's Divinity, to bring us back to that source of Life.


We die because the Penalty for sin is death. It is "death" that is "passed on the human Beings".(Rom.5:12)
That "damage" is beyond healing "naturally" or "by human means". It has to have a "divine transfusion". Not just that Jesus lived among us as a human Being(one of us).

Romans 6:17-23 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

To sum up, this speaks of how we are slaves to sin, but Christ came to free us from that slavery, and instead bring us to life with God.

The Scriptures are true, and "the setting free" is by, not just acknowledging Jesus, but in the confessing one's sins; believing in the Shed Blood of Jesus for the propitiation of those sin and repenting(dying to self(as you say--"sinful nature")--and surrendering to the Will of the Father.


Hebrews 2:14-15 14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Jesus has already defeated Satan and Death-----In Freedom, There is only the Blessed Hope of the soon coming Jesus and the Resurrection to look forward to without any fear.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Hi Shiranui, Welcome to the forums.

Like Adam, all have the capacity to choose to obey or disobey. Yes, a "rift" was made because of disobedience between GOD and HIS Created human beings. That "rift" was, also, pronounced to have a penalty of "death".(Since "mankind" was created originally to live without dying, that "rift", we learn,(2Pet.1:20) had a back-up plan for the human Families Redemption.)

We die because the Penalty for sin is death. It is "death" that is "passed on the human Beings".(Rom.5:12)
That "damage" is beyond healing "naturally" or "by human means". It has to have a "divine transfusion". Not just that Jesus lived among us as a human Being(one of us).

The Scriptures are true, and "the setting free" is by, not just acknowledging Jesus, but in the confessing one's sins; believing in the Shed Blood of Jesus for the propitiation of those sin and repenting(dying to self(as you say--"sinful nature")--and surrendering to the Will of the Father.

Jesus has already defeated Satan and Death-----In Freedom, There is only the Blessed Hope of the soon coming Jesus and the Resurrection to look forward to without any fear.
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,
 
Top