An Original-Sin conundrum

[razredge]

Good, straight-up reply. Thanks!

No problem, we seem to share quite similar views - actually most of the Catholics on here who accept evolution and the ahistoricity of Adam & Eve would too.

Indeed, you can just as easily read the account of Genesis as humanity first sinning after they developed a conscience (ie. represented by the act of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and so became human moral creatures and not just animals.

Frankly, it doesn’t really make much practical difference to Catholicism. It’s not like questioning the Resurrection of Jesus or anything.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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?

Augustine was more the inventor of the mechanics of original sin, rather than the concept itself. Creeping neo-Platonism. We are still suffering.

 

[greylorn]

Augustine was more the inventor of the mechanics of original sin, rather than the concept itself. Creeping neo-Platonism. We are still suffering.

I should have figured it to be a committee sort of process. Thanks for the expansion of knowledge. I’d not have figured on Plato, though.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I should have figured it to be a committee sort of process. Thanks for the expansion of knowledge. I’d not have figured on Plato, though.

This is ALL about Plato. Too bad you don’t like the Gospel according to John–he lobs some major grenades in Plato’s direction.

 

[greylorn]

No problem, we seem to share quite similar views - actually most of the Catholics on here who accept evolution and the ahistoricity of Adam & Eve would too.

Indeed, you can just as easily read the account of Genesis as humanity first sinning after they developed a conscience (ie. represented by the act of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and so became human moral creatures and not just animals.

Frankly, it doesn’t really make much practical difference to Catholicism. It’s not like questioning the Resurrection of Jesus or anything.

I don’t seem to encounter many of those Catholics, so in their absence, your appearances are little breaths of fresh air. To keep the record straight, you should know that while I accept the evidence of evolution, I regard Darwinism as the greatest pseudo-scientific con job ever perpetrated upon educated men.

My historic understanding of the Genesis tale is that it was written by two different Hebrew writers, one living in south Babylon during the captivity, the other in the north, each getting the story from the Babylonians, who themselves had cribbed it from some Greeks.

This would fit Mr. Noonan’s implication a few posts back, that Platonists, or Plato himself, invented the original sin notion. Your thoughts/knowledge?

 

[greylorn]

This is ALL about Plato. Too bad you don’t like the Gospel according to John–he lobs some major grenades in Plato’s direction.

It was 40 years ago since I tried to read Plato and found him not-interesting, at least not in the sense that I’d learn something from him that I needed to know. I’m not especially interested in philosophical history, so that leaves me too ignorant about Plato to appreciate John’s grenades. I might have appreciated John the more.

But to listen to confused people proving one another wrong, any Darwinist vs. Creationist debate will do when the Jerry Springer show isn’t on.

 

[razredge]

I don’t seem to encounter many of those Catholics, so in their absence, your appearances are little breaths of fresh air. To keep the record straight, you should know that while I accept the evidence of evolution, I regard Darwinism as the greatest pseudo-scientific con job ever perpetrated upon educated men.

My historic understanding of the Genesis tale is that it was written by two different Hebrew writers, one living in south Babylon during the captivity, the other in the north, each getting the story from the Babylonians, who themselves had cribbed it from some Greeks.

This would fit Mr. Noonan’s implication a few posts back, that Platonists, or Plato himself, invented the original sin notion. Your thoughts/knowledge?

Ok, so you believe in something like ID then?

I don’t know who developed the Genesis tale, but yeah, like most of the Torah it probably developed in the Babylonian captivity. But since the Jews (and Muslims) who have the exact same text do not arrive at the doctrine of original sin, I tend to see it as a development of the Early Church (primarily St Augustine) drawing from the letters of Paul who references the Sin of Adam etc.

However this seems to be just speculation on Paul’s (and the Church Fathers) part on a theological motive for Christ’s coming, death and resurrection and though as an explanation it works within the context of the Gospels- it doesn’t necessarily mean it is actually so and that there aren’t other explanations for the incarnation (especially as Christ himself makes no mention of Original Sin)

 

[grannymh]

Then explain why neither the Muslims or the Jews (who share the exact same account in Genesis) have no notion of Original Sin.

The Muslins, Jews, Christians, possibly people of religions such as Baha’i who consider Jesus Christ as a prophet among prophets, and anyone else who is interested in ancient writings can read Genesis and interpret it accordingly. No big deal.

So it wasn’t some pre-existing belief among the Jews - the first mention of something like original sin was in the writings of St Paul "just as all sin came through one man, so salvation came through one man etc.) which was then developed by Church Fathers in the 2nd century as a response to Gnosticism.

Did gravity exist before the apple conked someone on the head?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Did you scroll down to where it cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition? Actually, those who are interested in Catholic teaching need to start at the beginning which is paragraph 355 and keep going to paragraph 421.

After reading umpteen CAF posts, I am beginning to think that the reason many Catholics are clueless about Original Sin is that they gained their knowledge from those cutesy children’s books. I sure lacked full knowledge of Original Sin.

Furthermore, the genetic and historic evidence against the existence of Adam & Eve doesn’t help the case either.

I keep hearing that. And I keep asking CAF Catholics – what evidence and what is it based on? Silence. Now there are a few CAF Catholics who can rattle off some informative sentences about evidence, but their further silence is safeguarded because evolution discussion is banned in this forum and some other forums.

 

[greylorn]

Ok, so you believe in something like ID then?

Yes. I’ll call it Generally Intelligent Engineering when I’m in a good mood, and split it up into engineering
1.) matter and large scale structures,
2.) planetary accommodations for lifeforms, and
3.) self-replicating critters. Each seem to be different specialties.

I don’t know who developed the Genesis tale, but yeah, like most of the Torah it probably developed in the Babylonian captivity. But since the Jews (and Muslims) who have the exact same text do not arrive at the doctrine of original sin, I tend to see it as a development of the Early Church (primarily St Augustine) drawing from the letters of Paul who references the Sin of Adam etc.

However this seems to be just speculation on Paul’s (and the Church Fathers) part on a theological motive for Christ’s coming, death and resurrection and though as an explanation it works within the context of the Gospels- it doesn’t necessarily mean it is actually so and that there aren’t other explanations for the incarnation (especially as Christ himself makes no mention of Original Sin)

Your thoughts make perfect sense in the context of the available knowledge. I’m wondering if there is a good summary of Gnostic ideas on the subject of Christ’s purpose. It might help to check out the competition for the Original Sin belief. .

 

[grannymh]

Your thoughts make perfect sense in the context of the available knowledge. I’m wondering if there is a good summary of Gnostic ideas on the subject of Christ’s purpose. It might help to check out the competition for the Original Sin belief. .

And I am wondering –
What exactly is your definition of “Original Sin”?

From Post 1. “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?”

While checking out the competition sounds great, what exactly is it that has this competition? Does a pseudo-sin have a pseudo-meaning?

My next area of interest is – Who do you say Christ is?

 

[fhansen]

Christ’s purpose was to bring about positive moral change to humanity and enlighten them on how to achieve salvation.

Has nothing to do with original sin, which is largely an invention of St Paul and the Church Fathers

But this still involves a question. Why would humans need to change at all and why would they need salvation. What is salvation, for that matter? The doctrine of OS seeks to answer those questions-mainly to explain the existence of moral evil in an otherwise good creation.

 

[grannymh]

But this still involves a question. Why would humans need to change at all and why would they need salvation. What is salvation, for that matter? The doctrine of OS seeks to answer those questions-mainly to explain the existence of moral evil in an otherwise good creation.

I may be wrong. But I am sensing a more basic question – Is there a personal God Who has a relationship with humans? Relationship is the operative word.

 

[greylorn]

And I am wondering –
What exactly is your definition of “Original Sin”?

From Post 1. “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?”

While checking out the competition sounds great, what exactly is it that has this competition? Does a pseudo-sin have a pseudo-meaning?

My next area of interest is – Who do you say Christ is?

I do not personally have definitions of things whose existence make no sense, such as the big bang or original sin. When referring to such beliefs I accept the meanings assigned to them by their perpetrators.

I have several theories about the nature and purpose of Christ, none of which you will like. All make sense only the context of my overall theory set, which among other ideas, assumes that either God the Creator never heard of planet earth, or that he last visited it in the pre-Cambrian period and concluded that the engineers in charge of biological life development were simply too incompetent to cut it, so God left and forgot about this backwater place.

I can already tell that you don’t like the idea, so there’s no point in proceeding further. If I’m wrong, we can get to this question later. Soon as my book is printed, I’ll find a place to set up and answer questions from anyone who might read it. So many good questions, such as yours, require that background before an answer would make sense.

I almost forgot— one element of my theory set is the conclusion that the human soul has, in effect, always existed. This requires an entirely different theory of Christ’s purpose than the belief that God created the soul.

 

[razredge]

But this still involves a question. Why would humans need to change at all and why would they need salvation. What is salvation, for that matter? The doctrine of OS seeks to answer those questions-mainly to explain the existence of moral evil in an otherwise good creation.

The existence of moral evil is a necessary side effect of free will, and the notion of an otherwise good creation assumes a literal reading of Genesis (ie young earth creationism), if you accept evolution and scientific evidence in general it is readily apparent that suffering and death existed on earth long before humans came along to eat fruit from the wrong tree.

So with that in mind, Jesus came to show people a better way of living based on the notion of radical, self-sacrificing love for others, which is the true path to God and ultimate satisfaction rather than the quest for worldly riches and power and even the legalistic, self-serving religion of the time.

 

[christosdavid]

If you’re planning to publish a book you may need to do some more work on the construction of the OT canon.

The Genesis account, for which you have as coming from the Babylonian captivity, I would certainly agree that this bases as an account for humanity’s knowledge as a terminus ad quem. This is due to the fact that Ezra had a copy of the law (TORAH)/ Penteteuch at the return of the exiles. (4thC BCE)

This however, is not the sum of our knowledge. Many scholars associate the law with the reforms of Josiah (7BCE).

Further, the existence of the tabernacle/ temple and the liturgical basis of the covenant people assumes not only a covenant but also legislation.

Thus, the most critical scholars, say in the Julius Wellhausen camp (JEDP sources) at least acknowledge a Hebrew/ Israelite provenance.

Similarities to Babylonian sources are not supprising, as you suggest, but the existence of anti-egyptian polemic in Genesis/ Exodus suggests a predating of the source material.

Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh are both profoundly different in their theology proper and relationship between the “council of gods” and YHWH who is alone and holy.

Finally, Plato and the philosophical tradition of the greeks, From Thales (5thC BCE) to the great Athenian philosophers would not have existed to influence anyone. Plato is Aristoltles teacher, who taught Alexander the Great who you may know was 300s BCE.

 

[grannymh]

I do not personally have definitions of things whose existence make no sense, such as the big bang or original sin. When referring to such beliefs I accept the meanings assigned to them by their perpetrators.

I have several theories about the nature and purpose of Christ, none of which you will like. All make sense only the context of my overall theory set, which among other ideas, assumes that either God the Creator never heard of planet earth, or that he last visited it in the pre-Cambrian period and concluded that the engineers in charge of biological life development were simply too incompetent to cut it, so God left and forgot about this backwater place.

I can already tell that you don’t like the idea, so there’s no point in proceeding further. If I’m wrong, we can get to this question later. Soon as my book is printed, I’ll find a place to set up and answer questions from anyone who might read it. So many good questions, such as yours, require that background before an answer would make sense.

I almost forgot— one element of my theory set is the conclusion that the human soul has, in effect, always existed. This requires an entirely different theory of Christ’s purpose than the belief that God created the soul.

Your answer and explanation are accepted. Thank you.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Big Bang- Catholic priest came up with it
Original Sin- Catholic Church came up with it

That simple.

 

[razredge]

Original Sin- Catholic Church came up with it

That simple.

wr
Yes, the idea first appears in St Paul’s letters and has been developed over the past 2000 years by the Church.

 

[fhansen]

The existence of moral evil is a necessary side effect of free will, and the notion of an otherwise good creation assumes a literal reading of Genesis (ie young earth creationism), if you accept evolution and scientific evidence in general it is readily apparent that suffering and death existed on earth long before humans came along to eat fruit from the wrong tree.

If creation isn’t inherently good, than I’d suggest there really can’t be any good-and therefore no evil (moral or otherwise) to contrast it with.

 

[greylorn]

If you’re planning to publish a book you may need to do some more work on the construction of the OT canon.

The Genesis account, for which you have as coming from the Babylonian captivity, I would certainly agree that this bases as an account for humanity’s knowledge as a terminus ad quem. This is due to the fact that Ezra had a copy of the law (TORAH)/ Penteteuch at the return of the exiles. (4thC BCE)

This however, is not the sum of our knowledge. Many scholars associate the law with the reforms of Josiah (7BCE).

Further, the existence of the tabernacle/ temple and the liturgical basis of the covenant people assumes not only a covenant but also legislation.

Thus, the most critical scholars, say in the Julius Wellhausen camp (JEDP sources) at least acknowledge a Hebrew/ Israelite provenance.

Similarities to Babylonian sources are not supprising, as you suggest, but the existence of anti-egyptian polemic in Genesis/ Exodus suggests a predating of the source material.

Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh are both profoundly different in their theology proper and relationship between the “council of gods” and YHWH who is alone and holy.

Finally, Plato and the philosophical tradition of the greeks, From Thales (5thC BCE) to the great Athenian philosophers would not have existed to influence anyone. Plato is Aristoltles teacher, who taught Alexander the Great who you may know was 300s BCE.

That was thorough. And I’m thoroughly impressed. You appear to have studied this stuff.

When I was a kid and did wrong, if my father caught me he would give me a lecture. By the time it was done, I’d forgotten exactly what I did wrong, so probably went out and did it again to get clear on the matter.

But when my mother caught me, she just told me to wait until my father got home. When he did, she told him to give me a few whacks. He wanted dinner and a generally peaceable evening after a hard day’s work, so of course he took me in the basement. But by then I’d forgotten what I was being spanked for.

Here I am again, in the basement. Except for hearsay and occasional exposure to unexpected information, I know about as much about ancient biblical history as you probably do about physics, so I’m not clear on what I wrote that was incorrect.

I did figure out from your comments that based upon timing considerations, Plato could not have been the source of the paired creation stories in Genesis. That was a guess, apparently not a good one. Anything else? Please do not be subtle or indirect— just correct and teach me.

If you don’t quote or reference Julius Wellhausen as if I should have the slightest idea who he is, I promise not to reference either Louis de Broglie or my neighborhood bartender, Elmer Blivet, as if you ought to know their opinions on anything at all.

Thanks!

P.S. My book isn’t about biblical history. That would be folly. It is simply the description of a theory which integrates theology and physics.

I’m going to check it tomorrow and remove any references I may have been ignorant enough to make about biblical history.