It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the bizarre doctrine of "original sin" is flawed.

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


You are using a completely different Bible than I quoted so of course your Grammatical construction is going to be different. It is best that you use the Bible I quoted from and not bring in another Bible where it allows you to misrepresent me and my words by using another version to prove my points were wrong when I never used that version at all to make my points about Original Sin and how it is not imputed to you or anyone else by both Adam and Eve.
That "different Bible" is the Greek, which the NT was written in. I was not using it to prove anything but to make it a bit less ambiguous as what you might come away with by just reading the KJV. You seem to be getting a bit defensive and reading too much into what I wrote. You make a statement of opinion, then I make a statement of my opinion. There is no "proving" unless you do something like say, "I know for a fact that somewhere it says. . ." or "I know for a fact that it nowhere says. . .", then someone comes along and says, "I just found this verse which you claimed is not in the NT." Then you can counter with, "I meant in the KJV." The point being, it is all a matter of opinion because people can read things the way they want. I find the Greek, as originally written, is more restrictive in how you can veer off in one direction or another. I have gotten to where it is a necessity for me to study the sentence structure of every verse I read, you can choose to ignore my noting of such things.


Which Greek?

Do you speak Supposed Koine Greek?

Have you ever seen an original Greek Bible whole and Complete?

Either God has kept his word to preserve his words to every generation as promised inPsalm 12:6, 7and we can have faith in his word. Or he hasn't kept his word so everyone has to reinterpret the Bible for themselves as if it is some sort of relativistic guide book, then he is not a God to follow. I have faith in God and not man

The Original sin answer was shown in Romans 5:12-21 already but you changed it by going to another version like a JW. If you can't understand a Bible in plain simple English no need running to a Greek Language no one has spoke in 1800 years.

you can counter with false claims if you want about not finding any thing in the Bible, it is a form of Sophism so I will not engage with a sophist seeing sophist always have to be correct and have the last word on any given topic discussed. And sophist follow a Greek tribal deity of Yahweh, the god of knowledge. Who is not the true and living God of the Bible.
edit on 27-9-2011 by ChesterJohn because: incomplete sentence.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by charles1952
 
All speculation, conjecture, assumptions, rationalization, and philosophy, so not really any way to come to a consensus other than to agree to throw out "original sin" as even being a term in any discussion. That is, unless you just mean it as the point of departure, as in a temporal sense, a historical event.


edit on 27-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


How about using terms that are Biblical then?

Seeing the term "Original Sin" never appears in the Bible. Also the word "Original" by it self never appears in the Bible as well. for your sake I will clarify this term and word is never found in the only whole and complete English Bible, the AV text.

When you add words to the Bible that do not exist in the Bible you are adding to it. read the following verse
Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deut 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book
AV Text)

No need to run to any supposed originals that don't exist, no need to run to another verse to explain it away the words are simple and true. Now you either believe it or you don't? If it is the later then it is useless for anyone to converse with you for you do not discern spiritual things and are not taught of the Holy Ghost. 1Corinthians 2:13-15 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear jmdewey60,

Well, I do see the original sin as an historical event. One with incredibly long-reaching consequences. As for physical evidence of the event, I don't see how any is possible. But I do think it is possible to show that it is neither "bizarre" nor self-contradictory. I think that would meet the OP's requirements.

But let's wait until we have some agreement on the definition first.

With respect,
Charles1952


Not only definition but also lets use one set of Scriptures so there is no confusion. the AV text has all the verse. All other do not and they contradict each other. Let's just stick to simple English as found in the AV text and deal with the Grammar in that, and let us use terms and words that are found in the Text so we can use a concordance to define the words or terms in the context of the verses of one complete and whole Bible. the AV Bible is its own Dictionary so you can get the meaning of the word by reading all the text with the same word. And the AV text has it won internal cross referencing system not found in any other Version.

With that as our basis we can move on to hearty and respectful conversation.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

. . .you changed it by going to another version like a JW.
I don't get your point because from my point of view, whatever it is you are saying seems contradictory. What is the real word, the King James? How can you be anti-Greek when the NT was written in that language and to me, it makes sense to read the Greek. I have never seen a "Greek" Bible but I own a very nicely bound Greek NT which is nice enough to take to church as a Bible, and I have done that. I read the interlinear at Biblos.com, usually which is the Greek Text Based on the Westcott-Hort Edition of 1881, the same text the JW New World Translation was translated from. I do have reference material where the different variations between texts comes up, which I refer to whenever there is any for the verse I am looking at, so I do not blindly follow just one text.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n


1. God is shown to be 'pleased' with so many people in the Old Testament... just born after the original sin sin was committed. Starting right with a son of Adam.... Abel.

2. Jesus was not around for any OT era sinner to believe in, but yet many are shown to be "righteous" and were led by God.

3. God never said anywhere in the bible that all humanity in general are born as sinners, by default and that the only way to get saved is to believe that an innocent man died for our sins.... the the old testament prophets or Jesus never said such a thing.

4. God is shown to differentiate between righteous people and sinners even in the OT.

Actually, I thought you had more of a reputation for being a Bible skeptic than this thread appears to show. Do you assume then that the OT character who claims to be God is in fact God? Your questions seem to show this assumption.

1) The OT "god" was not pleased with Abel, rather he was pleased with Abel and his offering of fat portions of first born. Cain on the other hand was a first born. The OT 'god' demands the death of all first born, or, the substitution of another blood sacrifice to 'redeem' the first born. Cain gained protected exile status by substituting Abel(means superfluous) for himself, the first born.

2) No comment at this time.
3) No comment at this time.

4) The OT "god" made general statements about who must die: a) all first born, unless redeemed. b) all Amorites c) all Midianites d) all Perrizites e) all Hivites f) all Amelikites g) all Jebusites etc. etc. That includes new born babies and pregnant women.

So, given the prejudices of this OT "god" character, it would probably be best to not consider him a god worthy of the title.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by charles1952
 

I don't know how many people even care about something like that.

all people do it is a matter of respect that we are all speaking of the same topic by understanding the definition.


If you think it should be relegated to the status of an archival data type thing, then we would have two people in agreement.

agreement in scriptures establishes a doctrine and agreement among men establish a truth that is teachable.


Like I said two posts ago, people mistake the deleterious affects of our being separated from the presence of God for a genetic defect, which needs to be pointed out, did not prevent Jesus from living so as not to sin. (of course that does no mean that God did not preordain a lineage conducive to faithfulness as a natural attribute that could be passed down, to at least give Jesus a fighting chance, as compared to, let's say, a long like of thieves and murderers and traitors)

1) Maybe you are the one who is mistaken and are under the "deleterious affects" of your present state? To claim others are is to claim you know their heart and that you are superior to them.
2) Again you add to the Bible words not found in it. There is no Genetic Defect in any. Search as you may you will never find it in your DNA. Sin is not a defect it is a condition. So what you are pointing out you are saying is you are smarter than God as to the cause of Sin calling it a Genetic defect.
3) Jesus did not ever sin and if you claim he has you are not a Christian by any stretch of the word. Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. and 1Pe 2:21-23 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
4) Christ did not have a sin nature as you and I because he did not have an earthly father. Sin was passed to all men from the one man, not the woman, that is where I corrected the erroneous notion that original sin was passed on by Adam and Eve, no only Adam. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

edit on 28-9-2011 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

Sin is not a defect it is a condition.
Right, like being sick, or dying, an ill health, but a bad health because of The Lord in the OT shut Himself off and wanted everyone to die and go away. Glad we can agree on everything. I think we have it all figured out now, trade in that bad lord from the OT and accept Jesus as the new Lord.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

Sin is not a defect it is a condition.
Right, like being sick, or dying, an ill health, but a bad health because of The Lord in the OT shut Himself off and wanted everyone to die and go away. Glad we can agree on everything. I think we have it all figured out now, trade in that bad lord from the OT and accept Jesus as the new Lord.


Maybe your remarks would better fit in the "Rant" Thread. Because as of your last post that is what it amounts too.

No not a condition like an illness but it has a cure. No not like dying but there is a way of life. You don't know the Lord of the Old Testament so you can't speak for him or correctly of him. Your ideas are nothing but humanistic, childish and lack any real merit to support worth discussing.

You could trade in all the gods you want it wont help you with your Condition which is spiritual, Unbelief.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 
Jesus said the will of The Father is to believe in him.
Jesus himself believed in the Prophets, or at least some of them, in the Old Testament but did not go into discourses about how we need to believe in God being all those things in the Old Testament that where attributed to being the Most High or some similar description. The God which Jesus revealed is something beyond what sort of beings are so described and he was revealing it to us if we were already so inclined to seek a higher God.



edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

Sin is not a defect it is a condition.
Right, like being sick, or dying, an ill health, but a bad health because of The Lord in the OT shut Himself off and wanted everyone to die and go away. Glad we can agree on everything. I think we have it all figured out now, trade in that bad lord from the OT and accept Jesus as the new Lord.


Maybe your remarks would better fit in the "Rant" Thread. Because as of your last post that is what it amounts too.

No not a condition like an illness but it has a cure. No not like dying but there is a way of life. You don't know the Lord of the Old Testament so you can't speak for him or correctly of him. Your ideas are nothing but humanistic, childish and lack any real merit to support worth discussing.

You could trade in all the gods you want it wont help you with your Condition which is spiritual, Unbelief.


While I share practically none of jmdewey's theistic beliefs (but pragmatically can accept their social consequences), I have no problems understanding his points and find him a good educational communication-partner, who has clarified several bible-related issues for me. He even includes the use of my own criteria: Rational reasoning, which is far from common amongst theists.

So I find your present direction towards such as.......

highlighted quote: ["Maybe your remarks would better fit in the "Rant" Thread. Because as of your last post that is what it amounts too."]

more a setting of your own standards, than of jmdewey's. I have followed jm's posts on this thread and find his thoughts on 'original sin' quite informative.

And more factually and topic relevant this quote (02.30 AM): ["So what you are pointing out you are saying is you are smarter than God as to the cause of Sin calling it a Genetic defect."]

Which for a non-theist would start with: "Is there a 'god'?". For a theist: "Which 'god'?" For a christian: "Which version of Jahveh/Jesus' god?", meaning: "What premises are we using?"

It's not difficult to be 'smarter' than a non-existing 'god' or to be 'smarter' than a fake-god. Using your own premises universally is non-sense.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 
Jesus said the will of The Father is to believe in him.
Jesus himself believed in the Prophets, or at least some of them, in the Old Testament but did not go into discourses about how we need to believe in God being all those things in the Old Testament that where attributed to being the Most High or some similar description. The God which Jesus revealed is something beyond what sort of beings are so described and he was revealing it to us if we were already so inclined to seek a higher God.



edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Once again it does not say that in my Bible. Again you make a statement that does not exist in a whole and complete Bible. So here is what is truly says. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

there is a big difference between believing "ON" someone and believing "IN" someone.

But how and when did the topic change to Jesus Never did something from the Topic "Original Sin" Your posts are about as spaced out as a pot head after a few green spiffs.

your rambling and ranting that's is for sure.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 
Jesus said the will of The Father is to believe in him.
Jesus himself believed in the Prophets, or at least some of them, in the Old Testament but did not go into discourses about how we need to believe in God being all those things in the Old Testament that where attributed to being the Most High or some similar description. The God which Jesus revealed is something beyond what sort of beings are so described and he was revealing it to us if we were already so inclined to seek a higher God.



edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Once again it does not say that in my Bible. Again you make a statement that does not exist in a whole and complete Bible. So here is what is truly says. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

there is a big difference between believing "ON" someone and believing "IN" someone.

But how and when did the topic change to Jesus Never did something from the Topic "Original Sin" Your posts are about as spaced out as a pot head after a few green spiffs.

your rambling and ranting that's is for sure.



That one is easy:

Without original sin no need for a redemptional Jesus. Without a redemptional Jesus no need for original sin.

As to the rest. I have authored a thread on 'the bag of theist tricks', including such as character defamation, circle-arguments etc., where you possible would feel at home and more in topic context.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 
Jesus said the will of The Father is to believe in him.
(edit by JM to cut part of my quote out)
Once again it does not say that in my Bible. Again you make a statement that does not exist in a whole and complete Bible. So here is what is truly says. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

there is a big difference between believing "ON" someone and believing "IN" someone.

John 6:29
Jesus replied, “This is the deed God requires – to believe in the one whom he sent.”

In this same discourse by Jesus, he says
John 6:40
For this is the will of my Father – for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So I was paraphrasing a bit, probably, from these two verses and combining them into a single statement.
To get to what I was trying to get across, here is what would serve to illustrate.
John 12:44 - 46
But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, and the one who sees me sees the one who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in darkness.

Seems like odd things to say, considering where he was, which was the temple in Jerusalem, and here he is saying if you want to know God, and step out of darkness and into light, to look at him, Jesus. Here were people from all around the world coming to this festival, if Jesus thought the truth was in the temple, he would have been feeling rather content that they were right where they needed to be to find it. No, because in his mind, the only reason they could find truth at the temple was that he was standing in it, speaking the truth, which was all about the God he knew.

As for on vs. in, that may be something peculiar to the English of the KJV, and it may be significant if you learn the various nuances in that particular language. In the Greek, there are three prepositions that have to do with in and out, eis, en, and ek. Eis is going in, and en is being in, as in static but there, and ek, which is going out or coming out of. The preposition describes the action of the verb, believe, and in this verse, John 6:29 the preposition is, eis. So you are believing in a particular way. The verb is subjunctive, which means it is something which may or may not happen. So the meaning of the phrase, to me, could be: to be an accomplished fact, one needs to move into that state, from not believing, into a condition of belief.


edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 
Jesus said the will of The Father is to believe in him.
(edit by JM to cut part of my quote out)
Once again it does not say that in my Bible. Again you make a statement that does not exist in a whole and complete Bible. So here is what is truly says. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

there is a big difference between believing "ON" someone and believing "IN" someone.

John 6:29
Jesus replied, “This is the deed God requires – to believe in the one whom he sent.”

In this same discourse by Jesus, he says
John 6:40
For this is the will of my Father – for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So I was paraphrasing a bit, probably, from these two verses and combining them into a single statement.
To get to what I was trying to get across, here is what would serve to illustrate.
John 12:44 - 46
But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, and the one who sees me sees the one who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in darkness.

Seems like odd things to say, considering where he was, which was the temple in Jerusalem, and here he is saying if you want to know God, and step out of darkness and into light, to look at him, Jesus. Here were people from all around the world coming to this festival, if Jesus thought the truth was in the temple, he would have been feeling rather content that they were right where they needed to be to find it. No, because in his mind, the only reason they could find truth at the temple was that he was standing in it, speaking the truth, which was all about the God he knew.

As for on vs. in, that may be something peculiar to the English of the KJV, and it may be significant if you learn the various nuances in that particular language. In the Greek, there are three prepositions that have to do with in and out, eis, en, and ek. Eis is going in, and en is being in, as in static but there, and ek, which is going out or coming out of. The preposition describes the action of the verb, believe, and in this verse, John 6:29 the preposition is, eis. So you are believing in a particular way. The verb is subjunctive, which means it is something which may or may not happen. So the meaning of the phrase, to me, could be: to be an accomplished fact, one needs to move into that state, from not believing, into a condition of belief.


edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


I wont reply anymore un less we can agree to use the bible that is whole and complete, yours is not, and as long as you keep quoting from a Bible that has removed verses and changed words it is useless to say anything.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

I wont reply anymore un less we can agree to use the bible that is whole and complete, yours is not, and as long as you keep quoting from a Bible that has removed verses and changed words it is useless to say anything.
Textus Receptus was a sales gimmick by the publisher of the Greek NT text. The reason it was universally received was because it was the only printed version available.
The Stephanus text was the same text but with verse divisions which became standard.
It was put together by Erasmus from late Middle Ages Byzantium texts and it was missing the last four pages of Revelation so he just translated it himself from the Vulgate, into the Greek, so he could get it put in print.


edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


That is not an original copy of a whole Greek Bible that is someones copy translated into Classical Greek it is not Koine. So you have faith in a man to translate a bible into Greek but don't have faith in God to preserve his word into English.

However, you did not quote from a Greek text, you quoted an English version so I would say you are being disingenuous.

If you want to converse lets use the AV. But then again you are not a believer so you cannot understand any scripture or any Bible beyond your own mind and spirit. So again it is useless to engage with you on any Biblical topic for they are spiritually discerned by the Holy Ghost in a believer who teaches us (see above for verse reference).

So go ahead and belittle God, Jesus, the Holy Bible. But remember your lack of belief does not affect God or his preserved word one bit.

Staying on target the "Original Sin" is unbelief and you got a bad case of it.
edit on 28-9-2011 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 

However, you did not quote from a Greek text, you quoted an English version so I would say you are being disingenuous.
I quote from a translation where the translator explains why he translated it the way he did. I can agree or disagree (I usually do agree). If I have a problem with it a have a few options and last resort is making my own, which may take me an hour or a week, depending on the difficulty of the verses involved.
I don't know where you get your theories on the Bible from but they are completely foreign to me. Maybe you live in a deep holler in the Ozarks and got your generator hooked up to a satellite feed to get internet, I don't know. I don't hold that against you because people do the best with what they have.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 




Actually, I thought you had more of a reputation for being a Bible skeptic than this thread appears to show. Do you assume then that the OT character who claims to be God is in fact God? Your questions seem to show this assumption.


I am using the Bibles contents, the way its been printed... which believers in "orginal sin" refer to to frame my case.
Yes, there are contradictions and variations in the nature of God... but I feel its better saved for a seperate discussion.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Thanks for your reply but I'd like to point out a few things.

"Sin nature" is not the same as "original sin". A newborn baby acquires the potential to sin upon reaching a certain stage in life. However, the doctrine of "original sin" implies that a baby is born in a state of sin inherited from Adam.

The OP challenges the biblical validity of this doctrine through the 4 points... which establishes that people were labelled as "righteous" or "sinners" based on their OWN deeds. This again is not just one verse, but a theme which appears throughout the bible. The doctrine of 'original sin' is not endorsed by God or any of His prophets or even Jesus. In fact God speaks against it.

If you still insist on quoting Paul to show that 'original sin' has biblical validity, just because its in the bible, then you are ignoring what God himself said about this matter.





edit on 29-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Thanks for your reply but I'd like to point out a few things.

"Sin nature" is not the same as "original sin". A newborn baby acquires the potential to sin upon reaching a certain stage in life. However, the doctrine of "original sin" implies that a baby is born in a state of sin inherited from Adam.

The OP challenges the biblical validity of this doctrine through the 4 points... which establishes that people were labelled as "righteous" or "sinners" based on their OWN deeds. This again is not just one verse, but a theme which appears throughout the bible. The doctrine of 'original sin' is not endorsed by God or any of His prophets or even Jesus. In fact God speaks against it.

If you still insist on quoting Paul to show that 'original sin' has biblical validity, just because its in the bible, then you are ignoring what God himself said about this matter.





edit on 29-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


which Bible?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join