Let me get this straight: Jesus died for our "Sins"? What sins are they?

Every religious christian post seems to presuppose that we are born with certain black marks against us called "sins"; how is that supposed to happen? How is a newborn baby a sinner who will go to hell if it dies a moment or two before some idiot can splash water on it and mumble a few mis-pronounced latin phrases?

I was a sinner as soon as I was born , the first thing I wanted was a big giant titty full of milk

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Every religious christian post seems to presuppose that we are born with certain black marks against us called "sins"; how is that supposed to happen? How is a newborn baby a sinner who will go to hell if it dies a moment or two before some idiot can splash water on it and mumble a few mis-pronounced latin phrases?

The bible says all children are innocent, so they go to heaven.

There is no original sin.
Jeremiah 1:5
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Meaning you are pure when you come out.

That's how you indoctrinate people. Teach 'em while they're young. Make the parents believe the kid needs blessings etc, then the cycle continues.

I think what you're refering to is original sin. As far as I know the first sin by humanity was caused by Adam from the Adam & Eve story by disobeying God and eating the apple from the tree of knowledge.

Don't quote me, look up "original sin" on google and have a little read.

Well Christians believe in original sin. Which is sin you somehow aquire through adam and eve eating the forbidden fruit. Complete bs.

Where that I think that idea came from is the ancient pagan religions. They called the Sun, gods sun, because nobody owns the sun. They knew the sun gives us life and without it we would not be able to live. Which is why they say the Sun gives its life for us.

Now you have to realize that Jesus is a personification of the Sun. Jesus didn't actually exist. So now they say Jesus is the Son of God who gave his life for us. Which eventually turned into Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins. It' all a very symbolic story about the movement of planets and stars throughout the sky

reply to post by mydarkpassenger

Every religious christian post seems to presuppose that we are born with certain black marks against us called "sins"; how is that supposed to happen? How is a newborn baby a sinner who will go to hell if it dies a moment or two before some idiot can splash water on it and mumble a few mis-pronounced latin phrases?

Most christians sadly seem to show a lack of familiarity with their own scriptures, in addition to lack of awareness of the main ideas of their faith.

Paul teaches, reasonably so, that while "the wages of sin is death", sin is also "not imputed where there is no law." As such, one ignorant of the law as given in the bible (in my opinion, either by age, mental handicap, remote location, or lack of ever having such properly presented to them) is judged according to how they act in light of the 'law of god' as written on their heart - I take this to be how we respond to our conscience, the little voice that I know I hear quite frequently guiding me in what is right...that I tend to ignore and feel like a jerk for having done differently later.

Additionally - infant baptism is utterly pointless. Baptism, like circumcision, in merely an outward ceremony that can only indicate an inward change. Paul was also quite clear on those who aren't circumcised in the flesh, but are in the heart (as compared to those in the flesh who AREN'T in the heart - which does no good), and this correlates directly to baptism.

Thanks and be well.

I got to agree with the post about the teat; I was a bottle baby, but I have been trying to make up for it ever since.

I'm familiar with original sin as a concept, but thanks for bringing it up.

Question to any believers in original sin:

If I had kids, and one of them shot his or her self with my pistol which lays right beside the bed on my nightstand, who would you hold responsible? Me, or a five year-old?

Obviously, I would be at fault; correct?

How is an omniscient, omnipresent God any less responsible for Adam and Eve tasting the "Fruit Of Knowledge", when he placed it in Eden and also let the serpent roam at will corrupting them, than I as a single parent fallible human would be?

To add to that post above; tell me again what sins I have committed that I should feel gratitude to Jesus for erasing?

What kind of psycho would let their child take the rap and the punishment, when they themselves are the root cause and at fault?

How is that supposed to make me feel grateful to a crazy God?

Originally posted by booyakasha
Well Christians believe in original sin. Which is sin you somehow aquire through adam and eve eating the forbidden fruit. Complete bs.

Where that I think that idea came from is the ancient pagan religions. They called the Sun, gods sun, because nobody owns the sun. They knew the sun gives us life and without it we would not be able to live. Which is why they say the Sun gives its life for us.

Now you have to realize that Jesus is a personification of the Sun. Jesus didn't actually exist. So now they say Jesus is the Son of God who gave his life for us. Which eventually turned into Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins. It' all a very symbolic story about the movement of planets and stars throughout the sky

In the "Golden Bough" by Sir James George Frazer, original sin is non-existent among pagans; it was an idea imposed by early christians.

Yeats, Eliot, Lovecraft and others cited Frazer's twelve volume work among their writings; it scandalized church goers by laying the blame for much barbarity right at the feet of the Church Of Rome.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


try to look at it from a different point of view...

He died to show the world the existence of the afterlife.

reply to post by Akragon


the belief of an afterlife was around long before Jesus was ever invented. The resurrection and the virgin birth were both around long before Jesus as well. The theory of Reincarnation was around long before Jesus too.

I think Christianity and Jesus were created as a compilation of many ancient religions in an attempt by Julius Caesar to unite the people of the world under one common religion.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger

I didn't mean that pagans actually invented original sin. I agree that it is from early Christians. I think original sin stemmed from the pagan belief that "the Sun of god gives its life for us" which evolved into" The Sun of God died for us" which evolved into" the Son of God Died for us" which evolved into " the Son of God died for our sins".

Originally posted by booyakasha
reply to post by Akragon

 

the belief of an afterlife was around long before Jesus was ever invented. The resurrection and the virgin birth were both around long before Jesus as well. The theory of Reincarnation was around long before Jesus too.

I think Christianity and Jesus were created as a compilation of many ancient religions in an attempt by Julius Caesar to unite the people of the world under one common religion.

Though this may be true, the fact is the bible is the worlds most widely distributed book. The fact that those ideas pre-exist the bible is not the point.

And although many religions were created to assert control over the populous at the time, the message that can be found in the bible is truth.

Follow a religion and you'll probably miss that truth... Find it for yourself and you can easily see why religion is not for everyone. It does bring many people closer to God in some cases, but its also spiritually crippling for others.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by booyakasha
reply to post by Akragon

 

the belief of an afterlife was around long before Jesus was ever invented. The resurrection and the virgin birth were both around long before Jesus as well. The theory of Reincarnation was around long before Jesus too.

I think Christianity and Jesus were created as a compilation of many ancient religions in an attempt by Julius Caesar to unite the people of the world under one common religion.

Though this may be true, the fact is the bible is the worlds most widely distributed book. The fact that those ideas pre-exist the bible is not the point.

And although many religions were created to assert control over the populous at the time, the message that can be found in the bible is truth.

Follow a religion and you'll probably miss that truth... Find it for yourself and you can easily see why religion is not for everyone. It does bring many people closer to God in some cases, but its also spiritually crippling for others.

Very true i do agree. For the most part the message is the truth, and it does teach good values. It is a shame the bible people read today is so heavily edited though. I feel there is a lot of the story edited out or changed to fit each generation of peoples beliefs or to hide other truths.

For the most part, every religion has a good message. There are truths and pieces to the big picture in every religion. I feel that by subscribing to one religion is just cutting yourself off from knowledge that another religion can offer.

I think the whole "Jesus died for our sins..." idea is overused by many evangelists and is a total cop-out to avoid personal accountability for their actions. Then again the bible was written, edited and rewritten, by MAN. By members of the Temple, then the Church. Jesus was one of mankind's greatest prophets, only to have his most important messages reinterpreted and perverted so the Institution could have a new tool to control the masses.

Constantine deified Jesus. He declared that Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus taught that within every man God resides. Divinity comes from within and is throughout. He taught that every Man can become God. All the answers you seek are already inside you. Open your mind and see with your true vision.

End rant.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


The sins we will commit in our lifetimes? Sort of like, paying for something before you can have it.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Every religious christian post seems to presuppose that we are born with certain black marks against us called "sins"; how is that supposed to happen? How is a newborn baby a sinner who will go to hell if it dies a moment or two before some idiot can splash water on it and mumble a few mis-pronounced latin phrases?

Wow, so many straw men burning at once!!

1. Newborns don't go to hell.
2. Baptism doesn't save anyone, nor is it necessary for salvation. (See: Thief on the cross)
3. Latin phrases don't save anyone.

If you want a list of laws to keep to justify yourself to God there are 613 listed in Exodus and Leviticus. If you can keep them all up till your death you'll be able to walk up to the throne in heaven and say "Move over, now there are two of us."

I'd really suggest "plan B" though, it's free and takes a few seconds of prayer on your knees.

reply to post by psychoacoustic1

Constantine deified Jesus. He declared that Jesus was the Son of God.

Wow, what ignorance. Peter and Paul did that 300 years before Constantine:


Peter:

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matt. 16:16


Paul:


"For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." Acts 9:19-20

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh by according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1-4

"If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? Who will bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us." Romans 8:31-34




The only thing Constantine did was legalize Christianity. It was his 2nd successor who declared Christianity the State religion of the Roman Empire.

reply to post by booyakasha

a shame the bible people read today is so heavily edited though.

Only the "modern" versions which rely on the manuscripts that originated out of the Gnostic schools at Alexandria, Egypt. There are a great number of verses expurgated from the texts. Modern versions will put the texts in footnotes and claim they were "added centuries later by scribes", and the "earliest manuscripts do not have these verses". One small problem...

First century apostolic fathers quote from a lot of these verses in their writings/sermons.

How We Got Our Bible: the NT

A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18

Note the roots of corruption:



I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)


A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17

C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John."

("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)



II. Tatian (150 A.D.)


A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.

B. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.

C. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20).

D. His. "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.



III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)



A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.")

B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.

C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.



IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)



A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).

D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.).

E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).



V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)


A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.

B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).

These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.

C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).

D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.



VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)


A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.

B. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.



VII. Tischendorf (1869)


A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.



VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)


A. They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.

B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.

C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section "A Brief Comparison of Bible translations".)

D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.

WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."

"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."

These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4

NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11

The King James Controversy

Originally posted by Avyuir
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

The sins we will commit in our lifetimes? Sort of like, paying for something before you can have it.

But that would in effect mean that we are automatons, destined to play a role on a stage and not exercise freewill to change the lines.

In effect, God the playwright playing with his or herself.