Originally, where did original sin come from?

[Jonathan Hoffman]

One hint: The trees in the Garden and throughout the bible are symbols of people, and fruit is symbolic of sex.

 

[Ken Brown]

Hi Everyone, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was only a tree of the knowledge of good and evil through the eating of it. Adam and Eve became aware of, or gained a knowledge of their evil, BY breaking a command of G-d. You can only become aware of good and evil through obedience and disobedience. So it really doesn't matter what fruit was on the tree, it was the fact that they TOOK of the fruit of the tree and did eat (breaking a command) that opened their eyes to reveal to themselves that they were naked sinners. The knowledge of good and evil was made known to them by breaking that command. Pretty simple if you see it correctly. KB

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi Everyone, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was only a tree of the knowledge of good and evil through the eating of it. Adam and Eve became aware of, or gained a knowledge of their evil, BY breaking a command of G-d. You can only become aware of good and evil through obedience and disobedience. So it really doesn't matter what fruit was on the tree, it was the fact that they TOOK of the fruit of the tree and did eat (breaking a command) that opened their eyes to reveal to themselves that they were naked sinners. The knowledge of good and evil was made known to them by breaking that command. Pretty simple if you see it correctly. KB

I agree with your assessment of where the idea of original sin came from, though I don't really believe in the concept myself.

 

[sincerly]

Hey Sincerly, where have you been? I missed you. You quoted Ezek.18:4 [FONT=&quot]Here's some verses from Ezekiel 18:20-30 20 NASB:

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Hi CG D, Really? Yes, those verses are true.

This wicked man repented and kept the law. No animal sacrifice was mentioned as being necessary.

Yes , In the scenario which GOD was giving to Ezekiel, one repented and another person went from being obedient to disobeying.
However, the sanctuary service with all its blood sacrifices was given at Sinai to Moses to be the Atonement for "SINS". GOD did make arrangements for even the most destitute of sinners to meet the obligation. The Sinner had to have faith that the "sacrifice" would suffice the obligation. ----AND GOD Does know the condition of the heart. If, one could not afford two doves/pigeons, then it would be a sacrifice even to give the "meal"/bread needed for living.(and a determent to sin in the first place.)

That Rabbi, is giving a variation of the lie Satan gave in Eden-----GOD doesn't mean that which HE has Given/spoken. Lev.17:11
The earthly sanctuary was patterned after the one Moses was shown which was in heaven. It was the Messiah who came from heaven to be the propitiation for the sins of mankind.(There is nothing upon this earth which can equate with the life of man to pay man's penalty for sin debt owed---except with man's own life. That is/was the mission of the Messiah as recorded in Genesis 3:15)

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", the Nivevites were not a part of peoples who had GOD as their GOD, but they fully realized that GOD could do that which HE Proclaimed and they repented of the evil ways which they were following.(God was protecting Judah).

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?

And????? The Decalogue convicts one who is disobedient of the sins one is committing, but cannot reverse those sins it has condemned one of committing. That pardon/remission was achieved by the "atoning blood sprinkled before the mercy seat."
The annual day of Atonement was rectifying the people to GOD.(Along with the personal{daily} sacrifices)

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.

CG D, There is no human who is qualified to cast anyone into death/grave/pit/hell or assign anyone to "eternal death"/the opposite of eternal life.
And as you pointed out, in Ezek.18, those "we think" are "good people" can decide/choose to do the opposite at the end of life.

GOD is Just and no-one will be destroyed in the "end" who doesn't belong in that condemnation.

Once again, before any children were born to Adam and Eve, they were given the death penalty. Right? Initial, they were designed along with the earth to remain alive without dying. Right? Upon disobeying/sinning, Adam and Eve in dying began to die. They were stripped of their righteousness and were clothed in the skin of a (sacrificed) animal. Right? They died the "first death"-(physical). It is the "Spiritual" life which Jesus says must be reborn by all who are to enter into the new Earth.
All human beings since are subject to the first death.
Job(19:25-27) looked forward to the redeemer's resurrection. The second life--and the Rebirth. It is what is done in this present life that determines one's status as a candidate for the first or second resurrection.

BTW, that which you claim as "Christian doctrines", I may not hold as truth---however, I'm available and willing to provide you with the Scriptural understanding or accept any understanding which will not wind-up with the Lord saying, "I never knew you".

 

[idea]

... "The doctrine is not found in Judaism."
Hello? Who can I trust then?

LDS do not believe in original sin... we call it a transgression.

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:2)

notice the word "transgression" instead of sin.

We still need the atonement, and sin still exists - to say it doesn't is to say that rape etc. etc. isn't a sin.... we are in the middle of the creation process, we are not yet fully formed or perfected yet, and we need our Savior to advance past our infancy.

 

[Ken Brown]

I agree with your assessment of where the idea of original sin came from, though I don't really believe in the concept myself.

Hi disciple, this might help. Did you know that the word used for "naked" in speaking of the man and woman is the same word used in the next verse (singular form) in describing the serpent...the serpent was the most "naked." Do you have any idea why the serpent would be the "most naked?" KB

 

[Plato]

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?

Well the Rabbi's right (although not really about Paul) The Doctrine of Original Sin is not Judaism, not in the Gospels, Jesus never said it. It only appears in 2 brief passages of Letters of Paul but 'not' in fully formed or I think intentional form.
Then as far as I know it was wholly made up by a couple of top Romans 100's of years after Jesus and the apostles (Irenaeus in 200AD, Augustine 400AD). They were recent converts to Chritianity when imperial Rome was converting. They had both prior been Manichaens and Neo Platonists. They didn't know much about Judeao-Chritianity's past, they knew best the letters of Paul.
They made up the doctrine to win arguments against the anti-Christians of the day...Pelagians, Gnostics, Platonists, these top Greek thinkers went about saying....Everyone doesn't need 'Jesus' because not everyone is a sinner so you don't need Jesus if you don't sin and can save youself for eternal life, that there are blameless and non sinning people on earth and they don't need Jesus for forgiveness of sin either...So 'you' can decide to just 'save' yourself you don't need this Christian 'God', so nobody should be Christian. Scrounging around in Pauls letters and knowing not much else, Irenaus, Augustine came up with 'Original Sin' to defeat the argument....everyone needs Jesus for forgiveness of sin and salvation because everyone inherits sin at birth from Adam. No exceptions then, everyone needs Jesus, baptisim, for salvation, Christianity wins. The 2nd Council of Orange 529AD then adopted it as dogma for Christianity and it was expanded on in the middle ages to infant baptism, priest baptism, all humans from 'original sin' are sinners, dirty, bad, evil, lust freaks, depraved and therefore need to be 'saved'.
Too bad, they could have won the argument in a lot of different ways.

 

[CG Didymus]

...there are blameless and non sinning people on earth and they don't need Jesus for forgiveness of sin either...So 'you' can decide to just 'save' yourself you don't need this Christian 'God'

Several people were called "blameless" in the Bible, so that messes things up in that some of them (maybe all of them) were in that state prior to Jesus. I was raised Catholic, so all I heard was "original sin", "born in sin", that I was a "hopeless" sinner. Fear and guilt tactics work on some but not on everyone. I know a lot of ex-Catholics than ran away from religion because of this.

Scrounging around in Pauls letters and knowing not much else, Irenaus, Augustine came up with 'Original Sin' to defeat the argument....everyone needs Jesus for forgiveness of sin and salvation because everyone inherits sin at birth from Adam. No exceptions then, everyone needs Jesus, baptisim, for salvation

You then say, "Christianity wins." It won and lost. Because it is not from Judaism and not explicit in the Bible, then for me I have to say people made it up. If people made this doctrine up, what else? Some people have rejected the good from Christianity and religion, because of things like the doctrine of original sin.

The 2nd Council of Orange 529AD then adopted it as dogma for Christianity and it was expanded on in the middle ages to infant baptism, priest baptism, all humans from 'original sin' are sinners, dirty, bad, evil, lust freaks, depraved and therefore need to be 'saved'.
Too bad, they could have won the argument in a lot of different ways.

I can see how Christians can still justify original sin, because all of us do "sin" according to Christianity, but so do all Christians. I've questioned several Christians as to the impossible standards of Christianity--can anybody not lust, not get angry etc.? What other ways do you think they could have won the argument, though?

 

[Brickjectivity]

'Original sin' is misleading, because it relies upon the misused word 'Sin'. 'Sin' is an overloaded word. It means too many things and does not do justice to the multiple original words with very different meanings. 'Original sin' is even more confusing and as a phrase is less than hopeless. A more useful expression for us today is 'Original problem'.

The original problem in mankind which Paul mentions is illustrated in the story of Noah where the LORD says "12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:17) Note the repetition of Flesh. Paul refers to this problem as 'Sin in the flesh', but calling it 'Original sin' is even more confusing.(Romans 8:3) No wonder the rabbi thinks its not from Judaism. In Judaism you constantly are cutting away the bad aspects of the person (symbolized by the flesh, the fat, the gross parts) as if you were sharpening a knife. The person is a perfectly good knife that needs an edge. This is very different from claiming a person is a total loss until you've converted them.

People preach 'Original sin' as if it implies that the person is worthless, but 'Sin in the flesh' implies that people merely need an edge, a little something extra. They need their rough edges taken off, that's all. The word 'Sin' is Strongs# 266, a word which is used for several things. Sometimes it refers to purposeful sins and sometimes to accidental ones or even to imperfections such as having a string in one's hair. Sin in the flesh is the tendency to do evil, and it is a tendency which has to be trained out of a person. That is why its symbolized with circumcision, separating fat from sacrifices etc. Sometimes it is called the pride of life.

And that is where the phrase 'Original sin' comes from.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well the Rabbi's right (although not really about Paul) The Doctrine of Original Sin is not Judaism, not in the Gospels, Jesus never said it. It only appears in 2 brief passages of Letters of Paul but 'not' in fully formed or I think intentional form.
Then as far as I know it was wholly made up by a couple of top Romans 100's of years after Jesus and the apostles (Irenaeus in 200AD, Augustine 400AD). They were recent converts to Chritianity when imperial Rome was converting. They had both prior been Manichaens and Neo Platonists. They didn't know much about Judeao-Chritianity's past, they knew best the letters of Paul.
They made up the doctrine to win arguments against the anti-Christians of the day...Pelagians, Gnostics, Platonists, these top Greek thinkers went about saying....Everyone doesn't need 'Jesus' because not everyone is a sinner so you don't need Jesus if you don't sin and can save youself for eternal life, that there are blameless and non sinning people on earth and they don't need Jesus for forgiveness of sin either...So 'you' can decide to just 'save' yourself you don't need this Christian 'God', so nobody should be Christian. Scrounging around in Pauls letters and knowing not much else, Irenaus, Augustine came up with 'Original Sin' to defeat the argument....everyone needs Jesus for forgiveness of sin and salvation because everyone inherits sin at birth from Adam. No exceptions then, everyone needs Jesus, baptisim, for salvation, Christianity wins.

I don't think original sin was the only thing that Christians had in their arsenal against heretics. The only thing that was needed was to defend the life of Jesus. That alone was the concern of the early heretics. The Gnostics said that Jesus was not God incarnate, and the Pelagians denied the salvation granted to us by His death and Resurrection.

And, can you describe what you understand the conflict between Platonists and Christians to be?

The 2nd Council of Orange 529AD then adopted it as dogma for Christianity and it was expanded on in the middle ages to infant baptism, priest baptism, all humans from 'original sin' are sinners, dirty, bad, evil, lust freaks, depraved and therefore need to be 'saved'.
Too bad, they could have won the argument in a lot of different ways.

I'd like to note that the Second Council of Orange was only a local council; its authority was only limited to its own area, and TBH, I've never even heard of it until now; we certainly don't pay it any heed in Eastern Christianity. So saying that the Second Council of Orange established the Augustinian idea "as dogma for Christianity" is off the mark. Its proceedings were only adopted in the Roman Church (and no, Rome was not the be-all, end-all of Christendom back then)

Also, infant baptism goes way back, way before even the Council of Orange, and even before Augustine. Plus, what does "priest baptism" even mean?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Plato
Well the Rabbi's right (although not really about Paul) The Doctrine of Original Sin is not Judaism, not in the Gospels, Jesus never said it. It only appears in 2 brief passages of Letters of Paul but 'not' in fully formed or I think intentional form.
Then as far as I know it was wholly made up by a couple of top Romans 100's of years after Jesus and the apostles (Irenaeus in 200AD, Augustine 400AD). They were recent converts to Chritianity when imperial Rome was converting. They had both prior been Manichaens and Neo Platonists. They didn't know much about Judeao-Chritianity's past, they knew best the letters of Paul.
They made up the doctrine to win arguments against the anti-Christians of the day...Pelagians, Gnostics, Platonists, these top Greek thinkers went about saying....Everyone doesn't need 'Jesus' because not everyone is a sinner so you don't need Jesus if you don't sin and can save youself for eternal life, that there are blameless and non sinning people on earth and they don't need Jesus for forgiveness of sin either...So 'you' can decide to just 'save' yourself you don't need this Christian 'God', so nobody should be Christian. Scrounging around in Pauls letters and knowing not much else, Irenaus, Augustine came up with 'Original Sin' to defeat the argument....everyone needs Jesus for forgiveness of sin and salvation because everyone inherits sin at birth from Adam. No exceptions then, everyone needs Jesus, baptisim, for salvation, Christianity wins.

I don't think original sin was the only thing that Christians had in their arsenal against heretics. The only thing that was needed was to defend the life of Jesus. That alone was the concern of the early heretics. The Gnostics said that Jesus was not God incarnate, and the Pelagians denied the salvation granted to us by His death and Resurrection.

Hi Sheranui, "original sin" is the reason for the death of Jesus. "The Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world". Rev. 13:8; 1Peter 1:20.
In Rom.5, Paul developes and explains why "All have sinned"and "death being passed to ALLthe human race.
Heretics were so-called believers who close to speak against what the rest of the general believers---BELIEVED. Therefore, who were the true Believers, and who were the heretics? Notice 2Thess.2:3-4, (Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."(and that prophetic "religious power"--Dan7:25--would continue to the end of time) and Acts 20:29-30, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. (Paul to the Ephesian leaders) Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."
Rev.2:4 shows the fulfillment, "(Jesus to the Ephesus church), Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love."

Those "early church fathers" changed some things and defended some truths.( As Dan.7:25 stated----"think to change(GOD'S) Times and Laws".

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi Sheranui, "original sin" is the reason for the death of Jesus. "The Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world". Rev. 13:8; 1Peter 1:20.

Before this goes further, I'm going to ask you: What is your definition of "original sin"? The Western perspective of original sin (the idea that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, plus the idea that our free will was destroyed and we are now completely unable to do anything good of our own free will) is very different from the Eastern perspective (that we inherit, NOT the guilt of Adam's sin, but a nature tarnished by the consequences of his sin, the effects of which are: subjugation to death and suffering, separation from God, and a free will that is limited, but not destroyed, by sin). Which do you hold to? The Western, Augustinian idea, or the Eastern, biblical idea?

In Rom.5, Paul developes and explains why "All have sinned"and "death being passed to ALLthe human race.

Yes, I'm aware of Romans 5, I use it quite often to prove the Eastern idea of original/ancestral sin and to disprove the Western idea of original sin.

Heretics were so-called believers who close to speak against what the rest of the general believers---BELIEVED. Therefore, who were the true Believers, and who were the heretics? Notice 2Thess.2:3-4, (Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."(and that prophetic "religious power"--Dan7:25--would continue to the end of time) and Acts 20:29-30, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. (Paul to the Ephesian leaders) Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."
Rev.2:4 shows the fulfillment, "(Jesus to the Ephesus church), Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love."

Those "early church fathers" changed some things and defended some truths.( As Dan.7:25 stated----"think to change(GOD'S) Times and Laws".

Based on previous discussions we've had, and your use of quotation marks around Early Church Fathers, I'm going to assume that you think they're heretics. My question to you is, what proof do you have that the Church Fathers were the heretics, rather than, say, the Judaizers, Sabellians, Arians, Pelagians, Monophysites, Monothelites, Nestorians or Gnostics?

 

[zengi]

Peace be to you all.

The law of God is what's at stake here.

by erasing the Laws and commandments and replaced by The Original Sin.

however it is stated in the bible and I quote: Ezekiel 18:20-22 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die. (doesn't stop there though)The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

now in the next verse is the salvation in the old testament.

vers 21: But if the wicked will TURN from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that wich is LAWFUL and right, he shall surely live, he shal not die.

that is the salvation...

fear God and keep the commandments

 

[zengi]

peace..

further more Jesus (pbh) said Matthew 5:17-20 ' Think not that I come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle (smallest letter of the hebrew alphabet) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20: For I say unto you. That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. ye shall iin no case enter into the kingdom of heaven


And my question the Christians How can you be better then the jew by not keeping the Laws and Commandments????

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

It comes from the last birth lived.

If a new birth comes into existence, this indicates that before the birth there was no life, but the potential for the birth layed dormant (so to speak).

Before there was the egg there was the latent potential of the egg.

Life comes from life.

Sin is a thing that is ascribed to the once living and to future life too.

 

[sincerly]

(1)It comes from the last birth lived.

(2)If a new birth comes into existence, this indicates that before the birth there was no life, but the potential for the birth layed dormant (so to speak).

(3)Before there was the egg there was the latent potential of the egg.

(4)Life comes from life.

(5)Sin is a thing that is ascribed to the once living and to future life too.

Hi mohinishaktidevi, Welcome to the forums.
I took the liberty to number your responses.
Your #1 can't be answered until you explain where/how #4 occurred.
And #2 is impossible because #4 is the source of life. there is no potential for "nothing" to produce "something"---life. the same with #3

Therefore, #5 relies on the Scriptural account/explanation for ALL one observes/acknowledges.----A Creator GOD.

 

[John Martin]

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

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

Dear Sojourner,
thank you for your answer. You have put it beautifully. We are all created in the image and likeness of God. This is our original blessing. This original blessing can be never be taken away from us.
We are also created with the possibility of not aware of this original blessing. This condition can be called original sin. It is not a sin that we have committed but it is state we are in. I would like to say that when a child is born it is in original blessing and at the same time it is not aware or conscious of this original blessing, this is original sin.
Then we have the desire to become conscious of our original blessing, to become like God( even though we are already like God). We project this ideal to outside of our self and want to achieve it. We can say this is the movement that comes from the original sin, the act of seeing outside what we are already. Jesus Christ frees us from this ignorance, showing that what we want to become we are already that. In that sense Jesus saves us from ignorance and everything that is connected to ignorance.
We begin our life with the original blessing, we fall into the movement of ignorance and sin and then we come back to our original blessing.

 

[John Martin]

I just thought of saying a parable on original sin:
once there was a donkey. This donkey did not know that it was a donkey but it had the desire 'to become a donkey'. On its search to become a donkey it met many many teachers who were trying help to become a donkey. They were giving many techniques how to become a donkey. There were many books written on 'How to become a donkey'. So the donkey brought as many books as possible and carrying on its back. But it always felt something was mission. She could never become a perfect donkey.It was very sad. Then it heard a great sage who taught how to become a perfect donkey. it searched for him and found him somewhere in the mountains living in a simple hermitage. So it payed respects to him and told him its difficulties in becoming a perfect donkey and asked his help.
The sage asked the donkey to go into his inner chamber where there was a big mirror, and stand in front of the mirror. The donkey went inside and stood in front of the mirror and saw a beautiful donkey. The donkey was filled with tremendous joy and threw all the books, which were on its back, on 'how to become a donkey'. It thanked the sage and went home joyfully.

 

[sincerly]

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

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

Dear Sojourner,
thank you for your answer. You have put it beautifully. We are all created in the image and likeness of God. This is our original blessing. This original blessing can be never be taken away from us.
We are also created with the possibility of not aware of this original blessing. This condition can be called original sin. It is not a sin that we have committed but it is state we are in. I would like to say that when a child is born it is in original blessing and at the same time it is not aware or conscious of this original blessing, this is original sin.
Then we have the desire to become conscious of our original blessing, to become like God( even though we are already like God). We project this ideal to outside of our self and want to achieve it. We can say this is the movement that comes from the original sin, the act of seeing outside what we are already. Jesus Christ frees us from this ignorance, showing that what we want to become we are already that. In that sense Jesus saves us from ignorance and everything that is connected to ignorance.
We begin our life with the original blessing, we fall into the movement of ignorance and sin and then we come back to our original blessing.

Romans 5 speaks of this situation as did Jesus in John 3:1-16+.
Yes, Mankind was created in the image of GOD. One of those ways of "likeness" was "live and not die". Disobedience marred that image---GOD had said, "In the day that ye eat of ye shall surely die". The tempter said the opposite, "Ye shall not surely die. The pair didn't die the first death, but they died to living eternally with/as GOD shall.
That "death" was passed on to all of mankind. That is Jesus' message of John 3:16. "Ye must be born again." And as Rom.3:9-12, 23. testifies---no one is born from a mother in this world who is free from that "second death"/produced by Adam's original Sin/Disobedience.(Yes, that fact is still as valid as it was "originally" and the words of Jesus are, scripturally, just as valid as when HE spoke to Nicodemas---"You must be born again"---"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
This is, scripturally, the only way one will return to "everlasting life" from that penalty of "death".

Jesus reminded the one that came to HIM---there is none "good".
Jesus "came to seek and save those who are lost"---in trespasses and sins, not who thinks "we are at heart". Because left to itself, the heart(lusts of) is desparetly wicked.
One whose mind is the "image of Jesus Christ"---will do the Will of the Father.

John, No-one can take anything from us--but anyone can relinguish anything to another of their own free will/choice.(Life is the only thing in this life that is worth keeping. one can kill the body, but GOD knows who are HIS and that Life is safe.)

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

Hi mohinishaktidevi, Welcome to the forums.
I took the liberty to number your responses.
Your #1 can't be answered until you explain where/how #4 occurred.
And #2 is impossible because #4 is the source of life. there is no potential for "nothing" to produce "something"---life. the same with #3

Therefore, #5 relies on the Scriptural account/explanation for ALL one observes/acknowledges.----A Creator GOD.

I don't understand what you haves eeming dissected. I am left not seeing the concluding point.

Since, I said 'Life comes from Life' it agrres with what you said, 'there is no potential for "nothing" to produce "something".

I am speaking very simplistic logic.

I said that in life there is "LIFE & DEATH".

This therefore represnts a Dual state of reality. It is commonly referred to as the "Laws of Duality".

With that simple statement, I explained that,

"What is alive Now, will later die ..."
so therefore by the same logic,
"What dies Now, will later live ..."

This is what my scriptures teach.