A theological-biological explanation of “the original sin’s transmission”

Faith & Science Conversation
, , ,
64

I can’t shake the feeling that you may be trying to ‘blend’ biological evolution with biblical narrative(s). The following quote may help this discussion:

“… because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction. Man, who was created in God’s image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption. It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits. As, then, the creatures whom He had created reasonable, like the Word, were in fact perishing, and such noble works were on the road to ruin, what then was God, being Good, to do? Was He to let corruption and death have their way with them? In that case, what was the use of having made them in the beginning?” from On the Incarnation of the Word, by St. Athanasius…

65

God cannot become “enmaterialed” that’s an oxymoron.

That cannot happen from any logical human sense. Unless you have some secret knowledge here that is impossible to comprehend with the mind that cannot happen. Like the Trinity

[content removed by moderator]

66

Yes, I am saying that death and concupiscence are biologically transmitted.

On the other hand, death and concupiscence emerge theologically as a (“retroactive”) result from the first sin.

Thus, their biological transmission becomes transmission of “the state of original sin”.

68

First of all the site is not only for orthodox Christians who follow the church baseless teachings. The church fathers although intelligent and smart people DO NOT DICTATE the theology someone follows. I’ll be damned if I don’t have my own interpretation and follow others.

And something to consider . For the last time just because I do not believe in the Trinity(which cannot be explained by the human mind so hense there’s no reason to believe it) doesn’t mean I’m not Christian. I just happen to be smarter than to follow the mainstream Christianity which has no rules ,has nonsensical doctrines and it’s majority of members are "hidden"atheists as I call it.
The church needs a reform to its theology and doctrine . The council’s of Nicae were filled with intelligent as I’ve said before but close minded people .

So until that happens I stick with the truth I have.
If you can open your eyes you can see the truth as well. But to do that you need to be in completely darkness in your life. At a point of no return . Free of anyone. Free of any though. Free of any doctrine or religion. Abandoned and forgotten in complete suffering. Then the truth will be revealed upon you. As God intended. Or not .

69

I fully agree with you in that sin consists in choosing to remain closed in oneself forever and rejecting to reach out to others, mainly God.

Now, the passage you refer to appears in the following context:

Romans 5:12-14:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

And to interpret it is useful to take account also of these three further passages:

Romans 3:22-24:

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 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.

2 Corinthians 5:21:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Romans 11:32:

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

With all these passages in view I think Romans 5:12 can fittingly be interpreted the following way:

just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, God bound all over to disobedience and made all to be sin, and in this way death came to all people, so that God may have mercy on them all.

70

If everything about God could be “explained by the human mind”, it would not be God being explained but a false one. That the nature of God should be incomprehensible is self-evident: no mind that is a part of the created order can be sufficient to comprehend the Creator of that order because the finite cannot encompass the infinite.

The Trinity becomes self-evident when you read the texts in the original and understand the culture they were written in. Just as it becomes so obvious that Jesus asserted that He was YHWH when reading in the original language and context, so it becomes obvious that there are three different entities all considered God, yet the assertion that there is just one God never wavers, the only conclusion is that these Three are but one God.
And that is not incomprehensible if you’ve studied much science when it comes to math: some situations call for one operation, others call for a different operation. So in the case of three entities being God yet there being just one God isn’t even college freshman math – the proper operation for “God” is multiplication, so that 1 * 1 * 1 = 1; the proper operation for what got called “prosopa” in Greek and arrived in English as “persons” is addition, so that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. Thus the concept of the Trinity is quite comprehensible and easily “explained by the human mind”. What your complaint addresses is not the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather your inability to explain how the Trinity works inside itself. But the doctrine does not endeavor to explain the how of it, it merely sets forth the result of the ‘data’ provided in the scriptures.

And all who ignore this plain result from the scriptures are not Christian because they have a different God and thus a different Christ and thus a different Gospel, and by apostolic admonition are to be ignored and even rebuked.

The church Fathers were and remain the fulfillment of the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit Whom He was sending would lead the church into all truth, and of the teaching of Paul that the Holy Spirit gives teachers to the church. To fail to heed them is to teeter on the edge of rejecting the Holy Spirit. And since the scriptures state plainly that no one gets to interpret the scriptures alone, you are taking to yourself an authority that is not yours – and indeed is excessively arrogant in thinking like some whom Paul condemned when he asked, “What, did the Holy Spirit speak only to you?”

Have you read the proceedings? Have you read the history and the debates which preceded it? That was my response when I first encountered the Creed, to see how they got to it, something that was one motivation for taking Greek [and indeed for starting with the much earlier Attic and pre-Koine Greek of Xenophon and Plato, of Aesop and Aristophanes, and of the intertestamental books written in Greek], including the exegesis and the systematics plus the politics both inside and outside the church.
The only thing “close-minded” about Nicea was that they tolerated the emperor endorsing their result, as though temporal power “of the sword” has any place in theology.

Been there, and I dove into the revealed text. If at that point you listen instead to your own inner voice, you have rejected the scriptures and the Spirit Who inspired them; by definition you become what the scriptures call a false prophet.
The thing about relying on your own inner revelation is that it ends up resulting in more “truths” than there are organizations professing them. That’s why there is written scripture in the first place, so that everything can be accessed from a source that no one can manipulate, a canon by which all things must be judged [something the early church made plain and which both West and East have set aside, especially the West], a “referee” that can call “Out of bounds!” when necessary. And putting one’s self above the inspired scriptures is a sure path to damnation since it is a repetition of the ultimate original sin, the assertion, “I will be like God”.

Just as a matter of interest, from the words spoken by Jesus when He promised the Holy Spirit, the promise of right judgment by the leadership, which in this context means the Councils, may only apply when the church is in unity – and if this is so, then Chalcedon was a broken Council when [thanks to imperial politics] it issued a rash judgement [because the emperor gave them a deadline with a threat] that resulted in splitting the church over what boils down to one single letter in Greek in one little word choice: “en” or “ek”, which was a foolish line of division because both sides used both words depending on what they were addressing. So while the Spirit didn’t stop speaking through the Fathers, the promise of complete truth was brought to naught because of ridiculously petty cause of division [notably, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have for some time now recognized that both sides at Chalcedon had the same theology, they just emphasized different words due to the different false teachings they were facing]; then the church divided again on or about 1054 when Rome repudiated the most ancient part of the church and went its own way. After that, the splintering due to the radical reformation – that taught that everyone could access, and by implication interpret, scripture for themselves, which is the very position you take, and a position that guarantees there can never be unity because anyone at all can determine their own “truth” and no matter how wild it is still claim the moniker “Christian”.

[content removed by moderator]

1 Like
71

That is key.

[Blessed is the one who]…speaks truth in his heart.
Psalm 15:2

73

I agree with @NickolaosPappas there. There can certainly be union among those who agree that Jesus is Lord.

74

I don’t think you actually do though🤣. You wouldn’t happen to accept a “gnostic Christian” as a brother or some other denominations.(non trinitarian to be specific)

75

Don’t I mean it in the same sense as Paul, Jesus is Lord? And I seem to recall he had something to say about the Gnostics, too.

76

Don’t all Christians believe Jesus to be Lord and be raised from the dead(spiritually or physically )? Unless you are talking about the trinity

Paul didn’t address any Gnostics in his letters and writings as I’m aware since Christian Gnosticism came much later than him if I’m not mistaken. However Id assume you don’t accept them as your brothers in Christ hense why I said you don’t agree with my reply above. You hold the same opinion as @St.Roymond but more “inclusive” to certain groups.

If anything you two(people with the same beliefs) are the reason there’s no unity lol. But I digress.

Fanaticism has truly ruined the human race. This race is beyond saving no matter the God. That’s why I’m and will remain a misanthrope. We are beyond fixing. I rest my case

77

Okay, he addressed a syncretistic heresy, an “incipient Gnosticism” or “pre-Gnosticism” in Colossians.

78

But that’s what you’re definitely NOT doing: it does not say “truth FROM your heart”, it says “speak truth IN your heart”. The truth has to come from outside and is to be spoken within.

See, Jesus tells us what comes from the human heart, and none of it is good. That’s why division and dispute and y-all the works of the flesh come from people thinking truth comes from their heart. It’s why the same Psalmist says “Create in me a clean heart, O God”, because the human heart is only against God and for itself.

What is truth? God’s word is truth; Jesus said so. And the Psalmist recognized this when he sang, " Guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior, and my hope is in you all day long. "

80

Not all who say “Lord’ Lord!” about Jesus belong to Him. We are to watch out for those who proclaim another Jesus than the one the Apostles proclaimed, and anyone who denies the Incarnation has a different Jesus.

The greatest disunity of Christendom in history has come from those who say that merely saying “Jesus is Lord” is sufficient.

[content removed by moderators]
“resurrection” in Koine Greek had no “spiritual” meaning, it literally means that a dead body stood up again alive.

81

Thjs ignores the biblical claim that the “plan of salvation” was instigated AFTER the fall of man.

The proof of this is the lack of such a plan after the angels sinned in heaven when they rebelled against God (an act of treason)

Gods offer of salvation in the bible applied only to mankind.

I ask, please provide biblical texts that support the claimChrist become mortal prior to the incarnation and virgin birth…as prophesied by Isaiah 9:6

> For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah is clearly talking of a (then) future event.

83

I agree that we are entirely dependent on God’s special revelation, but not with regard to all truth. Legitimate reason leads to truth as well.

You are severely overstating your case, bordering if not fully entering into judgmentalism and judging my heart.

This verse gets abused and made an excuse for all kinds of misapplication, but it makes my point and counters yours:

But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie – just as it has taught you, abide in him.
1 John 2:27

84

There were Jewish Gnostics before there was a Christianity, and some saw the new faith as something else they could twist to their views. They had used Greek philosophical terms for at least three centuries before Christ, and Paul opposes them in several places.

No, it was a full-fledged Gnosticism given the language he used that is lifted right out of the existing eastern Hellenistic gnosticism and its derivative Jewish gnosticism – some scholars trace the origin of Jewish gnosticism all the way back to the Exile, but it is certain that it was going ‘strong’ in the period of the Maccabees.

And we are evidently hosting a modern gnostic since he puts his own inner voice above the scriptures and does the same as the Gnostics of old, denying the Incarnation. The apostle warns against this when he tells us that those who affirm that Jesus came in the flesh are of God and those who deny He came in the flesh are not.

1 Like
85

The Bible does not make that claim, it says Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Since God s God cannot be slain, then Jesus already had an aspect that could be slain, and that aspect had to be human because angels cannot be slain either.

The plan of salvation was announced after the Fall, but it was instigated before the foundation of the world.

That proves nothing since we aren’t angels and Jesus did not incarnate as an angel nor was He slain for angels.

Of course he was – Jesus had not emerged from eternity into this world by birth yet. But even at the moment He was conceived He was already the Lamb Who was slain.

You’re trying to force eternity to conform to a limited mortal grasp of linear time.

86

I don’t think you have a clue what the theology of the trinity even means.
In trinitarian theology, all of the members of the triune God are co eternal…that includes the past.
The Bible very specifically calls Christ in the text I quoted…“everlasting Father” AND Prince of peace!.

You cannot makeup theology to suit your science …theology that simply isn’t there

Some texts…

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, truly, truly, before Abraham was, I am"
Isaiah 9:6 (i have already quoted this one)
1 John 1:1 what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched, concerning The Word of Life

Revelation 1:17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me saying, be not afraid, I am the first and the last

Revelation 1:9 I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is that same yesterday and today and forever

Hebrews 7:3 Without Father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually

Revelation 1:18 and the Living One, and i was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and Hades

Hebrews 7:16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life

Psalm 104 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, you are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek (see also Hebrews 5:6, 7:17, 7:21, 6:20, 7:24)

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you, to lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

The point is St. Roymond, you are confusing the duel nature of Christ. Christ was God, then he humbled himself and became a man…he is now both God and man (hence the saying often used “the God/man”. That is what the incarnation doctrine means…its does not mean He was created and only became an eternal being after the cross. The references back to the foundation of the world are often used to make out that Christ is Adam reborn (ie the second Adam). The theology is not so simple as that attempt at stitching together doctrine.

You must learn to look at biblical themes before making stuff up out of single passages.

and before you attempt to go down a rabbit warren…i suggest you go to Isaiah chapters 40-45…you will note that repeatedly the Bible makes very self evident and straightforward statements that discredit your view,

ch 40: 3A voice of one calling:
“Prepare the way for the LORD in the wilderness;a
make a straight highway for our God in the desert.b(quoted by John the Baptist)
4Every valley shall be lifted up,
and every mountain and hill made low;
the uneven ground will become smooth,
and the rugged land a plain.c
5And the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
and all humanity together will see it.d

ch 40:10Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might,
and His arm establishes His rule.
His reward is with Him,
and His recompense accompanies Him.
11He tends His flock like a shepherd;
He gathers the lambs in His arms
and carries them close to His heart.
He gently leads the nursing ewes.

The text containing the passage you have misrepresented…

Ch 40:21Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the foundation of the earth?
22He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth;
its dwellers are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
23He brings the princes to nothing
and makes the rulersj of the earth meaningless.
24No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown,
no sooner have their stems taken root in the ground,
than He blows on them and they wither,
and a whirlwind sweeps them away like stubble.

ch 40: 25“To whom will you liken Me,
or who is My equal?” asks the Holy One.

ch 41:13For I am the LORD your God,
who takes hold of your right hand
and tells you: Do not fear,
I will help you.
14Do not fear, O worm of Jacob,
O few men of Israel.
I will help you,” declares the LORD.
“Your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.

ch 42:8I am the LORD;
that is My name!
I will not yield My glory to another

ch43: Before Me no god was formed,
and after Me none will come.
11I, yes I, am the LORD,
and there is no Savior but Me.
12I alone decreed and saved and proclaimed—
I, and not some foreign god among you.
So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“that I am God.
13Even from eternity I am He,
and none can deliver out of My hand.
When I act, who can reverse it?”

92

It took on a metaphorical meaning over a couple of millennia. But in Koine Greek it had no such meaning – indeed if it had had the Greek philosophers Paul encountered and preached to would not have been shocked at all. I checked several Koine Greek lexicons to see if there was any room for a metaphorical meaning in either the first century BC or the first century AD, and it turns out that I was correct: it meant a physical standing up; the closest it came to being metaphorical was its use regarding pillars and other upright structures, but that just confirms that the core meaning was an actual physical “standing up”, so in reference to a human being that meant the body which had come back to life.

Reading Koine Greek through modern Greek eyes is a guaranteed way to get things wrong, just as reading the opening of Genesis as though it was composed for modern English readers does.

[content removed by moderator]