An Original-Sin conundrum

  • Thread starter Thread starter greylorn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

greylorn

Guest
What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?
 
What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?
In what way is original sin a concept? Is this the only thing it is?

In Catholic teaching original sin is an act of disobedience of God by real people.

Until this point is resolved, the reason for Christ’s incarnation won’t mean much to you.
 
What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?
Yes. original sin as defined showed up only later as the understanding of the faith developed. But it doesn’t change the fact that the fall of man occurred. Thats the basis of the fact, Adam sinned and mankind fell from God’s graces.

Its false to say its something made up. The Jews always had ritual sacrifices as a way of cleansing them of their sins.
 
What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?
Well, actually, St. Paul first articulated the idea of original sin, although he didn’t call it that. But original sin didn’t come into existence at the time it was revealed to us; it existed before, but people didn’t come to understand it in the full Catholic sense until later.

Now, even if you buy into the idea that the Genesis story was written or put together after the Babylonian exile, that would be some 400 years before Christ appeared on earth. So those to whom he preached would have been aware of it.

Original sin is the state of human nature by which it “is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin.” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 77) The fact that we recognize that there is evil in the world reveals to us that something is wrong.

Think of original sin as the weakening of our immune system, and our individual sins as various viruses. Jesus came to restore our immune system, thus strengthening us to resist the viruses. Our wills are necessary to cooperate with this cure. The reason why you don’t run into too many perfect people even though Jesus brought the cure is that the treatment is a gradual one, and for the vast majority continues after death. The continued treatment after death is called Purgatory. In the meantime, in this life, we need to keep going back to the clinic (mass) for treatments (Holy Communion). When we are completely cured, with a completely cured incorruptible body to match, that will be Heaven. Those who reject the cure will have the viruses (their sins) permanently inside them. That will be Hell.

Now when Jesus came to earth, his immune system was in perfect condition, and he was thus able to resist all of the viruses. In his Passion, however, all the viruses were tricked into attacking him. Because his immune system was strong enough to resist, he didn’t contract the viruses, but when he died the viruses were killed too. When he rose from the dead, the viruses were gone. We participate in Christ’s total resistance to the viruses, and their elimination, through faith, repentance, and participation in the treatments (the sacraments). But, as I said, the process is a gradual one.

Why is there still evil in the world after Christ, since he killed all the viruses? I think we have that question because of the way we perceive time. We think of it as a process moving in one direction. But the Passion was as effective for those who came before Christ as it was for those who came after. So, perhaps, we should think of time as a kind of mountain, with the Cross and Resurrection at the summit. As we move closer to the summit, the viruses lose their power, until we reach the end where the viruses are all dead and we participate in the eternal life of Christ. Of course, what we think of as time carries us along without any effort on our part. But the real time that I’m talking about requires us to climb it willfully.

Anyway, that’s the best I can do. Like any analogy, use it if it helps you. If not, drop it, and look for another answer.
 
Yes. original sin as defined showed up only later as the understanding of the faith developed. But it doesn’t change the fact that the fall of man occurred. Thats the basis of the fact, Adam sinned and mankind fell from God’s graces.

Its false to say its something made up. The Jews always had ritual sacrifices as a way of cleansing them of their sins.
I’m confused. The Catholic Catechism explains that the old testament is a book of tales mostly used for teaching principal. I’m positive I read that. We also know Jesus had no problem speaking his mind in matters which he believed were important …

I’m definitely not a Bible expert and simply wondering where it was in Scripture that Jesus
emphasized , taught and recommended recourse to the old testament. I’m not so sure this was the case at all.

So, where is the idea of the fall of man coming from anyway, above you decribed the fall of man as a fact. What are the facts? If there are no facts other than teachings and belief, thats fine to know, however , in light of above understandings in the message of Jesus and the Catholic teaching on the old testament, exactly where then, or what inspired the idea of the fall of man…other than ancient man himself…?

When among the little children Jesus himself did not point to them and suggest that they are sinister…Jesus issued a very clear directive that we are to become as children to enter the kingdom. Are children then created in a sinister manner which suggests they require acquit? Certainly not according to Jesus.!

The “experience” of life, unfolds the fall of man, don’t you think? ( time-survival-social)
And I think, this unfolds a very interesting question with respects to the idea, in the thread.
 
I’m definitely not a Bible expert and simply wondering where it was in Scripture that Jesus emphasized , taught and recommended recourse to the old testament. I’m not so sure this was the case at all.
Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
So, where is the idea of the fall of man coming from anyway, above you described the fall of man as a fact. What are the facts? If there are no facts other than teachings and belief, thats fine to know, however , in light of above understandings in the message of Jesus and the Catholic teaching on the old testament, exactly where then, or what inspired the idea of the fall of man…other than ancient man himself…?
Jesus also said “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”. What was the origin of this weakness?
When among the little children Jesus himself did not point to them and suggest that they are sinister…Jesus issued a very clear directive that we are to become as children to enter the kingdom. Are children then created in a sinister manner which suggests they require acquit? Certainly not according to Jesus.!
They are not guilty of any sin but they need to become members of His Church to strengthen them in their fight against temptation as they grow up.
 
What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?
To absolve man of sin. Drop "original if that troubles you. Whether or not sin is originial, it seems clear that all men sin. Since God is morally perfect, this puts all men in the wrong relation to God. Jesus came to deal with sin, and the bible is quite clear on this, that all men sin and require God and forgiveness.

NT Wright’s Book, Evil and the Justice of God is an interesting one that offers some ideas. He says God came to defeat and deal with evil.
 
The purpose of the Incarnation was to** liberate **us from our ignorance, weakness and lack of love for others. Jesus shared our humanity so that we can share his divinity! In other words the power of His love liberates us from slavery to ourselves and enables us to live with Him in heaven - if we are prepared to live for Him on earth. And living for Him means following His example, living as He did and dying if necessary - for others as well as ourselves. 🙂
 
To absolve man of sin. Drop "original if that troubles you. Whether or not sin is originial, it seems clear that all men sin. Since God is morally perfect, this puts all men in the wrong relation to God. Jesus came to deal with sin, and the bible is quite clear on this, that all men sin and require God and forgiveness.

NT Wright’s Book, Evil and the Justice of God is an interesting one that offers some ideas. He says God came to defeat and deal with evil.
There’s a slight flaw in your belief. It bears no relationship to reality. Evil abounds. Not only is it still with us, it has crept into every corner of government, Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary. Or, don’t you study political news? Evil has crept into the Church supposedly entrusted with its removal— or haven’t you heard the term, child molestation?

I believe in a competent God. If He really came to defeat evil, it would not have multiplied since His arrival. Therefore, He had a different purpose. If you stick by your dogma, you are required to believe in an incompetent God. Pick one.
 
TR Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

FS
Ok thanks TR, although the phrasing seems to imply a general conformity. A general
conformity to eliminate an obvious potential for speculative deviation from the OT

Evidence being non specific.and the common human reception of a new leader. I think this is a worthy point which largely dismantles any suggestion that Jesus was sent to confirm the factual occurrence of tales. The exact word used is …fulfill only. Sometimes what is not said unfolds meaning . Meaning which can’t be ignored.

TR
Jesus also said “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”. What was the origin of this weakness?

FS …Time-survival-biology.

Why did Jesus point to the children. We all were children so what happened. ? Time happened. What is time relative to the human experience?

Time relative to the human experience is obviously a greater volume of human experience. A greater volume of human experience can only be one thing, That one thing is a greater volume of surviving biology.

Therefore we know that Jesus came to help us with our surviving biological experience.

The origin of weakness is biology. This is logical and in keeping with the directive set out by Jesus himself. Impossible to argue in light of the fact that all children become adults(hopefully)

TR

They are not guilty of any sin but they need to become members of His Church to strengthen them in their fight against temptation as they grow up.

FS

I don’t know TR, this is getting confusing. Perhaps children are not subject to the fall of man until
puberty?

Basically, Adam & Eve wouldn’t of eaten the apple and disobeyed God if they were not able. The only way they were able is through absolute subjectivity to the fall of man…time-biology-survival.

Above easily unfolds the learning for us in the easy to follow story Jesus explains in the.children-kingdom directive.

Original Sin is a tale early man used to excuse behavior. Behavior which would interfere with a friendly connection with a perceived flawless Creator.

The scheme “eliminates a self perceived peculiar oddness” Misery loves a crowd.
Following the carefully worded teaching of Jesus himself, we know, the fall of man is a tale…
 
There’s a slight flaw in your belief. It bears no relationship to reality. Evil abounds. Not only is it still with us, it has crept into every corner of government, Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary. Or, don’t you study political news? Evil has crept into the Church supposedly entrusted with its removal— or haven’t you heard the term, child molestation?

I believe in a competent God. If He really came to defeat evil, it would not have multiplied since His arrival. Therefore, He had a different purpose. If you stick by your dogma, you are required to believe in an incompetent God. Pick one.
Don’t be ridiculous. Do you really think I am unaware of all the evil in the world? Or that NT Wright is not? why not read his book and see how he accounts for this? And your remark, of course, ignores nearly all of what I say anyway, so I suppose you have no problem with the rest of it. But as for Jesus dealing with evil, he came to do that hard part, the part we could not do for ourselves because we are sinful. It is now left for us to participate in his victory. Of course, some people refuse which is why we have the evils you mention.
 
Do you contrast biology and divinity? How do you vouch for the weakness of the angels–pure spirit–who fell from grace and turned against God?
( I think we may be going off track, so will do the best I can and return at a later date)

I can’t give a perfect answer as to why angels fell. I think the understanding is found in their effort to follow plans in order to em-power themselves to God like stature.

The composition of an angel would obviously contrast the composition of God as they were not God Himself.Therefore whatever composition made up an Angel would be germane in their
quest to become God like. Our biology is germane in our ill-attempted quest to become God like.
 
What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.
oh man, it’s a good thing that there was no such thing as gravity before Newton then! Er… wait… objective reality does not need to be “discovered” to be real. Just because Augustine coined the term “original sin” does not mean it wasn’t the reality before that time.
The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?
Somebody has been watching the history channel too much. The problem there is that the History channel begins from one basic assumption: that Judeo-Christianity copied the pagans. It gives no credence to the possibility that perhaps the Bible is RIGHT and that the pagans have remarkably similar stories because they likewise observed reality (although without viewing it through the lens of the Judeo-Christian God). Ultimately, there is no real proof that the Jews copied Genesis from the pagans, other than the fact that they have a few disjointed similarities.
 
oh man, it’s a good thing that there was no such thing as gravity before Newton then! Er… wait… objective reality does not need to be “discovered” to be real. Just because Augustine coined the term “original sin” does not mean it wasn’t the reality before that time.
Actually, it means exactly that. Aquinas made up the notion. I read most of the gnostic writings years ago, and it was not in there. Didn’t find it in the Bible, either, although I’m sure that some passages can be spun to justify the notion.

I don’t suppose you’d care to show documentation describing earlier examples? My guess is that you are too ignorant to do so, and prefer to stay that way.
Somebody has been watching the history channel too much. The problem there is that the History channel begins from one basic assumption: that Judeo-Christianity copied the pagans. It gives no credence to the possibility that perhaps the Bible is RIGHT and that the pagans have remarkably similar stories because they likewise observed reality (although without viewing it through the lens of the Judeo-Christian God). Ultimately, there is no real proof that the Jews copied Genesis from the pagans, other than the fact that they have a few disjointed similarities.
I don’t watch the H.Ch. often because it has become stupid over the last few years Did you find my reference there? The channel runs a lot of background noise over its information tracks, drum thumping and the kind of repetitive noise that dulls the mind so that it does not think critically about the garbage they are presenting, and prepares it to receive the coming commercials. It is geared towards people who like to get their limited information filtered through noise.

I first recognized the existence of two separate genesis stories by reading the O.T. years ago. Later, a studious friend pointed out where the 2nd writer comes in, and where he stops, whereupon the narrative is returned to the first writer.

I learned about the origin of the Genesis stories from a Catholic priest, in a very serious Bible study class conducted at a Catholic Church about three years ago. By way of reference, he used a rather thick (and expensive, as I later discovered) book written by a Jesuit Bible scholar. I wasn’t in the money to buy it, and lost track of its title, but I’m certain that if someone was actually interested in learning something instead of reiterating doctrine, he could track it down.
 
What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.
No. The concept was not *related explicitly *until Augustine.

The nature of sin is such that, for someone in the clutches of it, it is impossible even to recognize it for what it is. The fornicator always thinks the lusts to which he is captive are pure, an expression of Godliness; and heretics always rationalize their heresy by saying that their conscience demands nothing less. Hence, people simply did not know the spiritual cancer that had overtaken their race until the spiritual surgeon came to cut it out of them.

If you begin by assuming that everything in this religion is made up then you have begun by begging the question – an act of bad faith. Which I guess doesn’t surprise me since you list your religion as “physics,” a materialist field of inquiry for a materialist conception of the universe and the nature of man.
There’s a slight flaw in your belief. It bears no relationship to reality. Evil abounds. Not only is it still with us, it has crept into every corner of government, Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary. Or, don’t you study political news? Evil has crept into the Church supposedly entrusted with its removal— or haven’t you heard the term, child molestation?

I believe in a competent God. If He really came to defeat evil, it would not have multiplied since His arrival. Therefore, He had a different purpose. If you stick by your dogma, you are required to believe in an incompetent God. Pick one.
The unrepentant refuse to be saved.
 
Actually, it means exactly that. Aquinas made up the notion. I read most of the gnostic writings years ago, and it was not in there. Didn’t find it in the Bible, either, although I’m sure that some passages can be spun to justify the notion.

I don’t suppose you’d care to show documentation describing earlier examples? My guess is that you are too ignorant to do so, and prefer to stay that way.
You’re not getting it… you can’t “make up the notion” of an objective reality. The notion was there for original sin all along. The specific term “ORIGINAL SIN” was later coined to describe the fallen nature of man, but the bible is quite clear in describing a sinful nature handed down to us from Adam.

Here’s your documentation:
Romans 7:5-6 “For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter.”
—> Just what do you think that the sinful passions are, other than a fallen nature/original sin? Did God create us with these sinful passions or are they a result of our fall? If they are a result of our fall, then St Paul is documenting original sin right here.

In fact, all of Romans 7 is basically a testament to the sinful nature of man incurred during the fall (in other words, Romans 7 spells out the concept of original sin exactly, even if it doesn’t use that exact name). This is without spin. The entire chapter, taken in context, defines original sin exactly.
I don’t watch the H.Ch. often because it has become stupid over the last few years Did you find my reference there? The channel runs a lot of background noise over its information tracks, drum thumping and the kind of repetitive noise that dulls the mind so that it does not think critically about the garbage they are presenting, and prepares it to receive the coming commercials. It is geared towards people who like to get their limited information filtered through noise.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the same story hosted on the history channel. They’re always claiming that Christianity (or judaism) plaguerized our scripture from pagan myths. Glad to hear you don’t bother with their garbage, though… at least we agree on something! 👍
I first recognized the existence of two separate genesis stories by reading the O.T. years ago. Later, a studious friend pointed out where the 2nd writer comes in, and where he stops, whereupon the narrative is returned to the first writer.

I learned about the origin of the Genesis stories from a Catholic priest, in a very serious Bible study class conducted at a Catholic Church about three years ago. By way of reference, he used a rather thick (and expensive, as I later discovered) book written by a Jesuit Bible scholar. I wasn’t in the money to buy it, and lost track of its title, but I’m certain that if someone was actually interested in learning something instead of reiterating doctrine, he could track it down.
So what you’re saying is that you have historical proof that the Genesis myth was a plaguerism by way of a rather thick book written by a Jesuit (trust me, that means pretty much ALL books written by Jesuits are candidates!)… and we should trust you that this book exists and proves what you’ve said here even though you can’t remember the title.

Um… that’s not documentation or proof. An unnamed “catholic priest” carrying an unnamed “thick book” written by a “jesuit” is not logical proof of anything. While I can turn to the Bible for documentation on the fallen nature of man (original sin) throughout the history of Judeo-Christianity, I can’t turn to ANYTHING in your post as documentation, much less proof.
 
I can’t give a perfect answer as to why angels fell. I think the understanding is found in their effort to follow plans in order to em-power themselves to God like stature.
Well, wait. You say that what makes our biology germane in our ill-attempted quest is specifically “time relative to the human experience–” the fact that humans, being biological, are subject to time. That works for humans, but since it wasn’t their intrinsic biology–so presumably it was something else–that faulted the angels, then maybe it wasn’t our biology that failed us.

Obviously, what I take issue with is your whole biology/ill-attempted quest/children becoming adults construction.
The composition of an angel would obviously contrast the composition of God as they were not God Himself.Therefore whatever composition made up an Angel would be germane in their
quest to become God like. Our biology is germane in our ill-attempted quest to become God like.
I explicitly disagree with this and I think the issue at hand is far more basic. There is the composition of the material (which would include all things biological) and then there is the composition of divinity–pure spirit. Our entity is composed of both. That doesn’t make us gods and it doesn’t make the angels (or the fallen angels, who are of the same original divine composition) gods either. God’s Godliness is ascribed to his identity in an ontological way and, I would argue, is not in any way uniquely bound to the metaphysical substance of HIs composition as pure spirit.

So, in short, I see no contrast between the composition of an angel and the composition of God.
 
I’m confused. The Catholic Catechism explains that the old testament is a book of tales mostly used for teaching principal. I’m positive I read that.
You probably read that on a post by a cafeteria catholic or someone else with an ax to grind. Actually, 46 books comprise the Old Testament.
Here is a link to the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top