Great! another irreconcilable difference between us.
Excuse me??? You object to the words I use and you would disagree with anything I say even if I used the correct words? You reject the doctrine of original sin and don’t like anything I say about it, including who came up with the doctrine and when and where, and you think I should take you seriously? Sorry, you have me confused with someone else.
Christians run amok with Jewish scripture in many ways. This is one facet. The many ways are one way basically: forcing a Christian interpretation on Judaism. Starting with Christ Himself. The Jews do not believe in Original Sin and its transmission.
Yes I posed two problems.
You are confusing the original sin and all it encompasses with the struggle between flesh and spirit.
Even if you remove the phrase original sin kit of the question and you were arguing that there was only a struggle of flesh and spirit after the choices Eve made and it’s turned all flesh into some kind of different flesh after that I would disagree.
So no there is not a Jewish root to original sin and there is not a good theological approach to lining out our bodies changed with Cain and all after. Even in genesis 9 we are referred to as holding to the image of God.
So yes there are issues that we will never see eye to eye on because I think the argument is wrong in every direction.
Adam and Eve was exactly like us. They did not have a immunity to sin, obviously. They were able to be tempted just like we are. They were mortal just like we are. People are not guilty of the sins of other peoples. I’m not guilty of my grandfathers sins and my future grandkids are not guilty of mine.
Since this is a circle argument I won’t worry about responding further since nothing beneficial can come from it. Before this post was made, in a long list of other posts I want to do, is one about the faulty teachings of original sin. Whenever I can, I’ll work on getting that out on paper more clearly and then to typing it out on my phone as it’s own post because I have not came across any really focused on why original sin is not biblical, but merely the implications of it with science by those who believe in it.
What a relief! I’m just sorry that you didn’t recognize your inability to shed any light on my original post or to add anything of substance to it sooner.
You’re projecting your own confusion on me and criticizing me for it. Check the written record: You’re the first and only person to introduce “the flesh and fleshly cravings” and the word “spirit” into this thread, not me.
Proverbs 26:4-5 presents me with a dilemma that prevents me from responding.
Okay, … so you still don’t understand my original post. Why didn’t you just ignore it or say so?
For future reference: If you want to make stuff up, do it in your own thread or somebody else’s, not mine.
Lol… ok Tera.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Well, one branch of Judaism – as seen, others held there was moral contamination.
Plus the Old Testament more than once had Yahweh saying He is their Savior.
True enough. The Orthodox tend to read Paul’s statement about sin and death the way I do:
and so death spread to all men because all sinned
Where the last clause isn’t the cause of death but the evidence, i.e., we can tell that death has spread to all men because we can see that all sin. Thus what is inherited is death, which inevitably leads to sin.
YECists miss that point!
I used to say that in my view Adam and Eve must have been in the Garden for millions of years – if they had “flesh that was immune to sin” then it surely would have taken an immense amount of time for the serpent to wear Eve down!
But the whole bit about forming the Man from dust is an ancient near eastern trope indicating mortality – dust will eventually return to dust. So I don’t really know where the idea that they would have lived forever came from, given that and, as you say, the presence of the Tree of Life.
Christians always baptized infants up until humanistic philosophies started to be infused into theology and it came to be regarded as a merely symbolic action done by a new believer. Initially it had nothing to do with ‘original sin’; I think we owe that connection to Augustine.
Or that we were all “present” in Adam via either primitive biological notions or more refined Platonic ones – thus it was our sin because we “participated”.
Not the most common? That depends on how you’re counting – if by the most Christians who believe it, his is the most common, being held by easily a majority of Christians.
The second most common – or at least it was forty-plus years ago when a study was done – was that we don’t inherit guilt but we do inherit the corruption of human nature. Third was that we inherit only death, not sin or a sinful nature.
It might be interesting if that study were to be repeated!
Well, it was kind of long . . . . 
I didn’t know there were Anabaptists in ancient Rome.
Historically that’s backwards – Augustine invented the doctrine of original sin in part because he didn’t grasp why the church had always baptized infants; he viewed baptism as being about guilt, so if babies are baptized then of course they must be guilty.
True.
That’s a rather odd bit of systematic theology! In Paul, the sin nature is a tendency to sin that can’t be overcome because sin is part of our nature. Crudely, it’s like having a switch with three settings: confirmedly innocent, i.e. not the least inclination to sin; unconfirmed innocence, a ‘neutral’ position with no inclination wither way; and confirmed corruption, where the inclination to sin dominates. Normally, “sin nature” refers to the last.
Since this is about Jewish roots, as I recall my grad studies second-temple Judaism had advocates that we are born in the second condition and others that we are born in the third; I don’t recall any holding to the first. Nor do I recall anyone holding that we are born guilty.
Whether or not you think there are Jewish roots of original sin depends on whether you think that believing that we are born morally impaired qualifies.
I don’t think that division is sound –
I don’t see where a time boundary fits that.
Feeling cranky today?
The issue has never come on my radar.
Re baptism of infants: Except I think @SkovandOfMitaze is correct about the baptism of infants being a latter accretion in the church. Because unless I’ve missed something, there is actually no explicit example of infants (i.e. those incapable of understanding the gospel message) being baptized in the NT. All indications we have from the text is that a “believers baptism” was practiced. Similarly, the earliest document we have describing church practices and catechism (the Didache), speaks about the extensive teaching and training that was given to those intending baptism (all adults). There is no mention of infants yet at this stage in church history.
Good stuff. I am sorry if I missed this, but have you also read Enns’ book, “Evolution of Adam”? It’s quite a well done research on this subject, too, based in part on his education by Jewish scholars. I have a copy, but it’s free with Audible subscription, too, I think. Thanks.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.