• 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?

Debater Slayer

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

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

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

To add to the above questions, why would God offer his only son to save humans from the sin that he supposedly made them disposed to committing in the first place? If he really wanted to save them, why didn't he just create them so that they inherently hated sinning and avoided it?
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
To add to the above questions, why would God offer his only son to save humans from the sin that he supposedly made them disposed to committing in the first place? If he really wanted to save them, why didn't he just create them so that they inherently hated sinning and avoided it?


if God 'disposed' man to commit sin, then he must have also disposed us to do what is right too.

So logically, the decision to do right or wrong can only rest on us.... and in that case, God doest make us do either. Thats 'freewill'
 

sincerly

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is passed to us is Death and the freedom to Choose.
As it stands, all are born to die the first death---Jesus said that all have to be born-again---that event voids the second death---and that fact is "into Christ Jesus".
 

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
What is passed to us is Death and the freedom to Choose.
As it stands, all are born to die the first death---Jesus said that all have to be born-again---that event voids the second death---and that fact is "into Christ Jesus".

Agreed.
 

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
if God 'disposed' man to commit sin, then he must have also disposed us to do what is right too.

So logically, the decision to do right or wrong can only rest on us.... and in that case, God doest make us do either. Thats 'freewill'
Good answer.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
if God 'disposed' man to commit sin, then he must have also disposed us to do what is right too.

So logically, the decision to do right or wrong can only rest on us.... and in that case, God doest make us do either. Thats 'freewill'

I'd be interested in your answer to this post from the "Is God Responsible for Suffering" Thread, in relation to your answer here.

I would argue that, yes, Adam and Eve perhaps had perfect free-will, but since God decided to make a "sin nature" genetic, and to curse the Earth due to their mistakes, we do not have the same luxury.

Free-will does not exist in a vacuum. The sort of world God chose to place us in, and the way he chose to design our nature, all effects what sort of decisions we make. The odds are stacked against us.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I'd be interested in your answer to this post from the "Is God Responsible for Suffering" Thread, in relation to your answer here.

Yup. And God set it up so that making bad choices come easier than good ones. For example, if God had created things so that everyone had everything they needed to survive, do you think that there would be wars over resources and territory? Do you think that people would steal for food or money?

And depending on your brand of theology, God made it so that we are all born with a sinful nature! We don't even have the benefit of a blank slate. Our free-will choices are slanted towards sin.


I would argue that, yes, Adam and Eve perhaps had perfect free-will, but since God decided to make a "sin nature" genetic, and to curse the Earth due to their mistakes, we do not have the same luxury.

Free-will does not exist in a vacuum. The sort of world God chose to place us in, and the way he chose to design our nature, all effects what sort of decisions we make. The odds are stacked against us.


You are absolutely right, we do not have the same luxury as Adam and Eve had...they were not 'prone' to sin the way we are. And yes, God did allow their children (us) to be born with the genetic defect.

But that does not excuse us for our sin...we are still held accountable for it, however, God does forgive us in a way that he would not forgive Adam and Eve. So he isnt oblivious to the fact that we are born with a 'sin nature'....he knows it and he makes an allowance for us.

Its absolutely true that the world we live in is designed to make sin very easy. But it was not God who designed it that way. He gave mankind the perfect start, in a world governed by him and in a place that life was enjoyable and all needs were supplied in abundance...thats the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve did not 'want' for anything. They had enjoyable work, they had food in abundance and they had God with them. So we cannot say that God didnt create the world iin a way that would cause them to sin. In fact, we can say that the way the world has become is the direct result of turning away from God...the result of mankinds 'self-rule' has been devastating in more ways then one.
The way it is today is in complete opposition to the way God had it planned out and the way that he designed us to live. that opposition has come from the Adversary, Satan.


What would you think if God promised to return the earth and mankind back to the original sinless condition in which
he created them?
 
Last edited:

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
Hi Everyone, sometimes things are not as evident as they seem. Concerning "free will," and "original sin," I think that maybe some thought should go into just exactly what G-d is up to with mankind. Does He want a bunch of robots that are programmed to do His bidding, or does He want Children who love HIs ways and choose to do them? I would contend it is the latter.

How does a wise teacher teach their students? The teacher gives them problems to solve. How does our immune system work? We are exposed to a disease and then our bodies build up defenses against that disease. How do inoculations work? You inject the body with a less deadly or "dead" form of the disease, and it tricks the body into building up defenses against the actual deadly disease. Now why am I saying all of this?

G-d is a wise teacher. He KNOWS that to train and teach us to love and do His ways, He first had to create us to experience what He dislikes, but in a form that is only deadly in this age, and not in the ages to come. You see, G-d created FLESHLY man to be against Him, so that He could train and teach us not to sin against the SPIRITUAL Man. G-d has BOUND ALL to disobedience, so that He can have mercy on all, and in the process we can learn what pleases Him. Just think, how can you teach someone about good and evil without exposing them to each form. If someone has never experienced evil, and has no knowledge of it, how can they have a free will to not choose it? The same goes with good, you have to experience the difference BETWEEN good and evil before a choice can be made. G-d SAW the Light was GOOD, and He chose IT, but there was darkness first, and without the darkness, you have no gauge or barometer to know how good the light is. Consider this, especially for those within Judaism who think man has no propensity to evil:

Isa 45:7
(7) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

G-d allowed man to live in darkness (evil), so that we could become like Him and divide Light from the darkness, and choose Good. And He helps us do that by letting us "see" what our evil/sin did to His Son. KB
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
You are absolutely right, we do not have the same luxury as Adam and Eve had...they were not 'prone' to sin the way we are. And yes, God did allow their children (us) to be born with the genetic defect.
Its absolutely true that the world we live in is designed to make sin very easy. But it was not God who designed it that way. He gave mankind the perfect start, in a world governed by him and in a place that life was enjoyable and all needs were supplied in abundance...thats the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve did not 'want' for anything. They had enjoyable work, they had food in abundance and they had God with them. So we cannot say that God didnt create the world iin a way that would cause them to sin. In fact, we can say that the way the world has become is the direct result of turning away from God...the result of mankinds 'self-rule' has been devastating in more ways then one.
The way it is today is in complete opposition to the way God had it planned out and the way that he designed us to live. that opposition has come from the Adversary, Satan.
The concepts of original sin and even the Christian concept of the devil, I feel, were developed over time. If they weren't there in ancient Judaism then who developed them? Judaism doesn't need them, only Christianity. But different Christians have a different take on what they are and what they mean. That creates the problem with the Christian believing they have the truth and trying to relate that truth to the rest of us. Because there are so many variations to the "one" truth, it makes it seem that Christianity is a "truth" that is relative to the particular Christian group you're talking to. It sounds like that is what Constantine tried to avoid by having the leaders of the different churches come to together and decide, once and for all, what the one truth is. It is still being debated.
Some of us look at the stories as myth anyway. There's good messages in them, maybe they are even true, but it seems unlikely. But even if the stories are man made, we humans need rules that take us beyond our selfish ways. The Jesus story is as good as any; I suppose. We can't do it on our own. We need him and we do good works because he is in us, beautiful. But, sometimes Christians are there own worst enemies by complicating the story, arguing over parts of the story, fighting over who has the final authority on defining and interpreting the story, and, the biggest problem, no one can live up to Jesus' commands anyway. It's good in theory, but it's based on superstitious, supernatural things that can't be proven. And, thus, unfortunately, some of us chuck the whole thing as nothing more than another man made myth-based religion. Starting with why would God stick the stupid trees in the middle of the garden and leave a snake there to tempt Eve? When you were a kid, when your mother told you the stove is hot, did you believe her or did you touch it? When I touched the stove, I got burned, but my mother didn't curse me. And, from that I learned to trust her judgement. At least until my teen years, and then her wisdom and knowledge was too archaic for the modern world of the 60's and 70's. "Mom, a few drinks, a little bit of hallucinogens never killed anyone." Oops, maybe a bad example. Maybe some of the old ways do have some merit, but which ones? Have a great Christmas.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The way I see it with Genesis 2 & 3, Adam & Eve had to leave the Garden of Eden, if they were to fulfil god's very 1st covenant in Genesis 1, which was to rule the Earth and animals from land and see, with the commandment "be fruitful and multiply".

And you can't rule the Earth from the confine of Eden.

For Adam and his descendants to live out in the world, Adam and his descendants must be able to learn to find, rear or grow their own food in order to survive in the world outside of Eden.

To do this, god tricked Adam & Eve into eating the fruit that he had forbidden. If god was dead serious about forbidding them from eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, then why why did god whack-smack-bang the Tree in the middle of Eden?

If god is all-knowing as Christians believe their god to be, he wouldn't make the mistake of planting the Tree there in the 1st place. If god is omniscient then he would know that Adam & Eve would disobey him then why dangle the fruit in front of them and forbid them when knowing human curiosity - like Pandora and her boxful of surprises - will eventually lead them to eat the fruit?

This god is the real Tempter, not this Satan or the Devil - the only and original trickster of the bible.

Adam & Eve is simply an allegory or parable to explain
  • why humans hunt, raise or farm their food?
  • why they toil and suffer?
  • why death occurs?
  • why humans disobey?
  • why human curiosity is their greatest strength and weakness?

That is the nature of the myth - an allegory or parable to explain what they don't understand.

This Original Sin is nothing but Paul using fear of death and fear of hell, to gain converts - a shameless tactic, which some Christian missionaries still used today.

It is not the love for god that bring in the most conversions, but the fear of god and the fear of hellish fire and brimstone that bring new people into the fold of the church.
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
If god was dead serious about forbidding them from eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, then why why did god whack-smack-bang the Tree in the middle of Eden?
This god is the real Tempter, not this Satan or the Devil - the only and original trickster of the bible.
It is not the love for god that bring in the most conversions, but the fear of god and the fear of hellish fire and brimstone that bring new people into the fold of the church.
That's what I thought. Why didn't he at least put a fence around it. Or, better, yet a couple of Cherubim with swords. But, what about birds and squirrels? Is there some animals that ate some of the fruit? Did some of the fruit fall to the ground and get eaten be worms? Did some of the seeds get carried off? Did the two trees die in the flood? Or, was it all metaphor? I'm with you, a darn good myth to explain why we do what we do.
And God not the Adversary, as the brains behind it all sounds much more consistent with Judaism. In the things I've read, the "evil god" came late into Judaism from other religions.
And talk about fear, I agree. How many preachers depended on fear in their sermons? But why wait for hell? If God is real and "smote" people in the past, why doesn't he strike evil doers down now? It makes it seem like he's not real or doesn't care. It's a big puzzle and it's kind of fun to try and figure out what's really going on. Peace brother. You are appreciated.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by gnostic
If god was dead serious about forbidding them from eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, then why why did god whack-smack-bang the Tree in the middle of Eden?
This god is the real Tempter, not this Satan or the Devil - the only and original trickster of the bible.
It is not the love for god that bring in the most conversions, but the fear of god and the fear of hellish fire and brimstone that bring new people into the fold of the church.



That's what I thought. Why didn't he at least put a fence around it. Or, better, yet a couple of Cherubim with swords. But, what about birds and squirrels? Is there some animals that ate some of the fruit? Did some of the fruit fall to the ground and get eaten be worms? Did some of the seeds get carried off? Did the two trees die in the flood? Or, was it all metaphor? I'm with you, a darn good myth to explain why we do what we do.
And God not the Adversary, as the brains behind it all sounds much more consistent with Judaism. In the things I've read, the "evil god" came late into Judaism from other religions.
And talk about fear, I agree. How many preachers depended on fear in their sermons? But why wait for hell? If God is real and "smote" people in the past, why doesn't he strike evil doers down now? It makes it seem like he's not real or doesn't care. It's a big puzzle and it's kind of fun to try and figure out what's really going on. Peace brother. You are appreciated.

First to Answer Gnostic(and most of your agreement)
Again, one has to look at the whole picture which has been given to mankind to read/hear and consider the "Why reasons".
Adam and Eve were given the same freedom of choice as is give to mankind today. NO Difference. There was a reason given for the Tree of knowledge that of a test of loyalty and Obedience as was seem. "Eat not, or die". That test had failed in the heavenly realm. Now in the earthly Beings.
A """ whack-smack-bang the Tree""" wouldn't disclose loyalty or Disobedience. Nor would fencing it or any means of preventing access to the Tree show the intent of the heart. They lied about their attitudes. and we know of no known prohibition from the report given.---Only from the questioning after the fact.
Eve only proved the truth of what James(1:13-15) declared."Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

"Fear" is NOT the motivator of the Kingdom of Heaven----BUT LOVE IS.
No ONE who has joined with "Believers" because of Fear will be Redeemed, because they do not know the LOVE OF GOD.

2Peter3:9 tells why GOD just doesn't destroy evil-doers. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
GOD cares enough to allow everyone the opportunity to obtain or reject the amount of information needed for Salvation. Be Thankful.

BTW, I don't find that any animals other than Mankind will be resurrected. But Yes, Animals will be in the New Earth.
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
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?

Where does Paul misquote Moses?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Where does Paul misquote Moses?
Click on the link and read the whole article, Jonathan. Here is the part about Paul from the Rabbi:
In fact, in an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses in the last days of his life, the prophet stands before the entire nation and condemns the notion that man's condition is utterly hopeless. Throughout this uplifting exhortation, Moses declared that it is man alone who can and must merit his own salvation. Moreover, as he unhesitatingly speaks in the name of God, the lawgiver excoriates the notion that obedience to the Almighty is "too difficult or far off." According, he declared to the children of Israel that righteousness has been placed within their reach. The thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy discusses this matter extensively, and its verses read as though the Torah is bracing the Jewish people for the Christian doctrines that would confront them in the centuries to come. As the last Book of the Pentateuch draws to a close, Moses admonishes his young nation not to question their capacity to remain faithful to the mitzvoth of the Torah:
...if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?" Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: "Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?" The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
(Deuteronomy 30:10-14)​
The Jewish people have drawn great comfort and encouragement from this uplifting promise. For the Church, however, Moses' unwavering message creates a theological disaster. How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man's dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God? How could the Church fathers possibly contend that the mitzvoth in the Torah couldn't save the Jewish people when the Creator proclaimed otherwise? How could missionaries conceivably maintain that the commandments of the Torah are too difficult when the Torah declares that they are "not far off," "not too hard," and "you may do it"?
This staggering problem did not escape the attention of Paul. Bear in mind, the author of Romans and Galatians constructed his most consequential doctrines on the premise that man is utterly depraved, and therefore incapable of saving himself through his own obedience to God. In chapter after chapter, he directs his largely gentile audiences toward the cross and away from Sinai, as he repeatedly insists that man is utterly lost without Jesus.
Yet, how could Paul harmonize this wayward theology with the Jewish Scriptures in which his teachings were not only unknown, but thoroughly condemned? Even with the nimble skills that Paul possessed, welding together the Church's young doctrine of original sin with diametrically opposed teachings of the Jewish Scriptures would not be a simple task.
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.
A classic example of this biblical revisionism can be found in Romans 10:8 where Paul proclaims that he is quoting directly from Scripture as he records the words of Deuteronomy 30:14. Yet as he approaches the last portion of this verse, he carefully stops short of the Torah's vital conclusion and expunges the remaining segment of this crucial verse. In Romans Paul writes,
But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach).
(Romans 10:8)​
Predictably, the last words of Deuteronomy 30:14, "that you may do it," were meticulously deleted by Paul. Bear in mind that he had good reason for removing this clause – the powerful message conveyed in these closing words rendered all that Paul was preaching as heresy.
This startling misquote in the Book of Romans stands out as a remarkable illustration of Paul's ability to shape Scriptures in order to create the illusion that his theological message conformed to the principles of the Torah. By removing the final segment of this verse, Paul succeeded in convincing his unlettered gentile readers that his Christian teachings were supported by the principles of the Hebrew Bible.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Click on the link and read the whole article, Jonathan. Here is the part about Paul from the Rabbi:

That Article.
In fact, in an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses in the last days of his life, the prophet stands before the entire nation and condemns the notion that man's condition is utterly hopeless. Throughout this uplifting exhortation, Moses declared that it is man alone who can and must merit his own salvation. Moreover, as he unhesitatingly speaks in the name of God, the lawgiver excoriates the notion that obedience to the Almighty is "too difficult or far off." According, he declared to the children of Israel that righteousness has been placed within their reach. The thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy discusses this matter extensively, and its verses read as though the Torah is bracing the Jewish people for the Christian doctrines that would confront them in the centuries to come. As the last Book of the Pentateuch draws to a close, Moses admonishes his young nation not to question their capacity to remain faithful to the mitzvoth of the Torah:
...if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?" Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: "Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?" The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

(Deuteronomy 30:10-14)​
The Jewish people have drawn great comfort and encouragement from this uplifting promise. For the Church, however, Moses' unwavering message creates a theological disaster. How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man's dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God? How could the Church fathers possibly contend that the mitzvoth in the Torah couldn't save the Jewish people when the Creator proclaimed otherwise? How could missionaries conceivably maintain that the commandments of the Torah are too difficult when the Torah declares that they are "not far off," "not too hard," and "you may do it"?
This staggering problem did not escape the attention of Paul. Bear in mind, the author of Romans and Galatians constructed his most consequential doctrines on the premise that man is utterly depraved, and therefore incapable of saving himself through his own obedience to God. In chapter after chapter, he directs his largely gentile audiences toward the cross and away from Sinai, as he repeatedly insists that man is utterly lost without Jesus.
Yet, how could Paul harmonize this wayward theology with the Jewish Scriptures in which his teachings were not only unknown, but thoroughly condemned? Even with the nimble skills that Paul possessed, welding together the Church's young doctrine of original sin with diametrically opposed teachings of the Jewish Scriptures would not be a simple task.
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.
A classic example of this biblical revisionism can be found in Romans 10:8 where Paul proclaims that he is quoting directly from Scripture as he records the words of Deuteronomy 30:14. Yet as he approaches the last portion of this verse, he carefully stops short of the Torah's vital conclusion and expunges the remaining segment of this crucial verse. In Romans Paul writes,
But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach).

(Romans 10:8)​
Predictably, the last words of Deuteronomy 30:14, "that you may do it," were meticulously deleted by Paul. Bear in mind that he had good reason for removing this clause – the powerful message conveyed in these closing words rendered all that Paul was preaching as heresy.
This startling misquote in the Book of Romans stands out as a remarkable illustration of Paul's ability to shape Scriptures in order to create the illusion that his theological message conformed to the principles of the Torah. By removing the final segment of this verse, Paul succeeded in convincing his unlettered gentile readers that his Christian teachings were supported by the principles of the Hebrew Bible.

Hi CG D, Let's look at the article and the text/scripture.
At Sinai, Exodus 19, for two days the people sanctified themselves. On the third day, GOD Spoke to the entire congregation/assembly of persons(Jacobs descendants and the "Mixed multitude"). The people agreed to DO ALL THE LORD GOD SAID.
During the 40 days Moses was with GOD, and after GOD had Spoken the Ten Commandments and written them on Stone, there was a group who insisted on returning to Egypt and having a "golden calf" to worship as their god.
The Prophets were constantly sent to warn the people and "consequences" were given to remind them of their disobedience.
The "Covenant" was made with the people and the "blood of the Covenant" was sprinkled upon them. The Sacrificial laws were symbolic of the redemptive process seen in the "Sanctuary Moses patterned the earthly sanctuary after."
Adam and Eve were recipients of that first sacrifice---to clothe their "nakedness"/unrighteousness before GOD. Also, as the means by which GOD had designated to Redeem mankind and restore mankind to righteousness before HIMSELF.
That fact is well known/seen in the "Passover", "the waving of the sheaves", and the "day of Atonement". (No animal has ever been satisfactory to replace mankind's death penalty for Disobedience to GOD. Ezek.18:4 ( "the soul that sinneth, it shall die") ALL of the Commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances, laws, etc. were given at Sinai for mankind to observe and obey.

Look at Deut.13! Gentiles didn't have to entice the Israelites from GOD---they choose to follow their own lustful inclinations.

Paul was preaching the Truths presented by GOD. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. This fact is seen in Lev.17:11, "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."

The Keeping of the Ten Commandments, saves no one since there is none righteous. (Ps.14). However, One will keep/be Obedient to "DOING" the Commandments as Is stressed because of LOVING GOD WITH ALL OF ONE'S HEART.
The keeping of the Commandments doesn't place one outside of the Will of GOD. It is the breaking of the LAW which condemns a person.

Therefore, contrary to the Rabbi's article, Paul was correct and the Rabbi was wrong in his interpretation/conclusion.

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.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Hey Sincerly, where have you been? I missed you. You quoted Ezek.18:4
"the soul that sinneth, it shall die"
[FONT=&quot]Here's some verses from Ezekiel 18:20-30 20 NASB: [/FONT]

[FONT="]"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity ; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 21 "But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live ; he shall not die. 22 "All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live ? 24 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live ? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed ; for them he will die. 25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel ! Is My way not right ? Is it not your ways that are not right ? 26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. 27 "Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. 28 "Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live ; he shall not die. 29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel ? Is it not your ways that are not right ? 30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD. "Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. [/FONT]
This wicked man repented and kept the law. No animal sacrifice was mentioned as being necessary.

You said:
Paul was preaching the Truths presented by GOD. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. This fact is seen in Lev.17:11, "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."
Here's a link and a response from Jews for Jews
IN SHORT... If a person believes that a blood sacrifice were necessary in order for Gd to forgive human sin, then that person forgot to study the Five Books of Moses. Even a single example where Gd forgave without a blood sacrifice would prove that this idea is unbiblical. There are many such examples, but the most interesting is found in the Book of Leviticus. The reason this is so interesting is that it appears right in the middle of the discussion of sin sacrifices. In Leviticus 5:11-13, it states, 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering.' In Jonah 3:10, we also see that one does not need a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. There, the Bible simply states that Gd saw the works of the people of Niniveh. Specifically it says that these works consisted of abandoning their evil ways, and because they did, Gd forgave them. There are many other examples. Therefore, as was stated earlier, the idea that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is unbiblical.
You said:
The Keeping of the Ten Commandments, saves no one since there is none righteous. (Ps.14). However, One will keep/be Obedient to "DOING" the Commandments as Is stressed because of LOVING GOD WITH ALL OF ONE'S HEART.
The Rabbi pointed out that John the Baptist's parent were said to be righteous and blameless. I'm sure Mary was too. And what about Enoch, Noah, and Melchizedek?

I know too many good people from every religion and from no religion that I admire too much to believe that the Christian God would cast them into hell. Because of that, I'm going out of my way to question you on every one of the Christian doctrines. If they are the truth, then fine. If it's only something that Paul and the gospel writers thought was true, then I want to know. This question of where the concept of original sin came from is too important to let slide. Because without it, who needs Jesus to be our sacrifice.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
A sexy sexy fruit.

My thought is that the first fruit was probably a banana. Maybe a cucumber! (hey! maybe it WAS a fruit back then!)

The next fruit was probably peaches. Ripe unholy peaches, but oh so sweet.
 
Top