Huh?

[reen12]

Hi, Catholic Dude,

quote: Catholic Dude
This stuff looks interesting though Im having a hard time following it. What is this stuff about Luther? It looks like your making the claim that what the early/first Christians did was a major “scandal” to the Jews, and yet Christians see no problem with such a “scandal”, in fact Christians say it was “meant to be”…but at the same time what Luther did was a “scandal” to the Catholic Church, and yet Protestants see this “scandal” as a “meant to be” as well. Your saying this is the big irony, the Jews were there “first” and outsiders started to push their way in…Am I understanding you correctly?
If I am understanding you it is because I have though about the same stuff.

OK. Maybe I can present my thought more clearly:

Think of Catholicism’s claim to be the original faith
establised by Jesus. The truthfulness of scripture,
written by and then interpreted by a God-ordained
group of men. “Entrusted” to them.
Later, Luther comes along and says the Church has
essentially jumped the rails and he ends up
establishing a denomination within Christianity.
“Heretic!” is heard, throughout the land.

---

Go back 2000 years. Judaism is unquestionably
the “parent” faith.
It has doctrine: who the Messiah is to be, what
the “Kingdom of Heaven means” and the premiere
role of crying out for 2500 years:
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.”

Along comes a group within their group [the Apostles
and original disciples were all Jews] saying Jesus is
God and Messiah, that He rose from the dead,
that man is in original sin…
“Apostasy!” cries rabbinic Judaism. They were
genuinely horrified.

My point is: *Apostasy “works” both ways. *
The quarrel with Luther is over the number of
sacraments, authority, sola fides, etc.
This *pales *in comparison with a group within a group
stating: God is Three Persons in One.
I guess you’d have to really understand the level of
horror this evoked, to understand my point.

Because only one of two possibilities exist:

-Christians are right
or
-they are engaging in a form of blasphemy…
i.e., there is one God, period. Not three Persons.

[Can someone give the distinction between heresy and
apostasy?]
I think the distinction is this:
To depart from part of doctrine is considered heresy.
To deny all of the doctrine is apostasy.

I realize that what is stated above is quite starkly put.
But the issue is stark. As clear as crystal. Either
God is One, or God is three Persons in One.

And the whole issue turns on whether Jesus rose
from the dead.
“If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain.” Saul

The gospel accounts of the resurrection are vivid in
their detail.
The question is, are they true?

And that is a matter of faith.

I hope the point on Luther is clearer.

reen12

 

[reen12]

Hi, Semper Fi,

Good to see you!

quote: Semper Fi

If there is no ‘original sin,’, then why is our world not in the grace of God right now and why are the Jews expecting a Messiah still (they are, right)? Also, why aren’t we in the garden of Eden?

Fair questions, I think, Semper Fi.

The belief, in Judaic thought, is that humans do indeed
suffer consequences from the sin of Adam and Eve.
The consequences stated in Genesis: food is produced by the
sweat of the brow etc. Physical consequences.
Man no longer had the intimacy with God that was had
in Eden…spiritual consequences.
Genesis later refers to humans forgetting God…
Later, a covenant is established, to repair the spiritual
loss [intimacy with God.]
But nowhere does it state, in Judaic thought, that man
is estranged because of some wound [stain]. That
thought is totally foreign to the parent faith of Christianity.

Judaic thought holds that man has two inclinations:
one toward good, the other toward evil. Human beings
are expected to fight the evil inclination and to follow
the “good inclination.” [The two “yetzers”.]

As to why

“…the world is not in the grace of God right now”

that is simply addressed:
Many human beings choose to follow the evil inclination.
“I put before you today a blessing or a curse…” Choose!

How can I adequately explain the whole difference in the
worldview of Judaism as opposed to that of Christianity?

The world is a place where we are put to do the work
God gave us to do. Life is to be enjoyed to the full,
in ways that are not sinful. To life! L’Chaim! [spelling?]
There is little emphasis put on the World to Come. To
serve God is a joy in itself. etc. Jews feel a deep obligation to fulfill the Law as
much as humanly possible, but they take* joy* in doing so.]

They do not see life as a “pilgrimage”, they do not exult
in choosing a state of perpetual virginity [they take very
seriously God’s command: Be fruitful and multiply.]

One hassidic reb was crying on his deathbed. His
followers asked why he should be crying. Surely his
place in the World to Come was assured. He had lived
a life full of prayer and faithfulness.
His response? He was upset because he would not be
able to honor God by “works” in this life any longer.

They see God forgiving their forebears over and over.
They speak of the “turning”, back to God, when they sin.
They are confidant of the World to Come. Even their
concept of a kind of “purgatory” lasts up to one year.
To me, it is a much more human life with God.

Sorry this took so long, but I couldn’t find a way to
respond to your question without trying to convey
what Judaism believes and how that contrasts with
Christian beliefs.

As to your question on the Messiah, I quote from my
post, above:
quote: reen12

That the messiah will be a human
being who will restore Israel, build the 3rd Temple and
righteousness will reign on earth, as humanity acknowledges
the God of Israel. Thus, the Kingdom of God will be
established.
That’s what is meant by “salvation.”
“Save thy people, Lord, and bless Thy inheritance…”

You might find WWB’s reply to this description of value.
[please see post #14.]

Best,
reen12

 

[WBB]

Gosh, reen12, I am having a hard time with the Luther thing! I suppose the difference is this: With Jesus and the final everlasting covenant which could not be broken (recall that since Jesus is God incarnate, He cannot be unfaithful to the covenant), the world is being brought into the family of God or the House of Israel. Jesus’ intent was never to reject the Jews (even St. Paul says so in his long discourse in the letter to the Romans), rather to bring the world into the House of Israel (the Gentiles have been shown mercy through the disobedience of the Jews). Luther had no such desire. Rather, his desire was to redefine the covenant as he saw it, not as it had been presented to him. Am I making my point or is this clear as mud?

About the Jewish vs Christian worldview. I don’t find that they are all that different, at least not in the way that I practice my faith. Work has been hallowed by God, so therefore it is good. Life is to be lived in the fullest through following the commands of the Lord. Original Sin is not a “wound”. It’s not like you could take a spiritual x-ray and say, “Ooh LOOK! There it is!” Original Sin is a spiritual defect whereby we profess in word or deed that we do not need the Lord. It is basically a result of human pride. So, you are right, a covenant is forged to repair the defect, but all the men of the covenant from Adam to David failed! The Old Testament is basically a treatise on the failure of the Jewish people to be faithful to the Covenant. Then along comes Jesus. He is God incarnate. He makes a New Covenant which basically renews ALL of the other covenants and is ratified in his sacrificial offering of himself on the cross. (Remember, to “cut a covenant” there was a swearing of an oath and and offering of a sacred meal…like at the Passover…the oath is sworn, a lamb is offerred, the blood is spilled onto the doorposts and the rest of the lamb is eaten. This is a prefigurement of the Eucharist.) So, Jesus gathers his closest friends together and swears and oath to God, takes bread and wine, changes it into his body and blood, and offers it to his friends…the sacred meal…the Eucharist. The Covenant is ratified. But because Jesus is God, he will forever be faithful to the covenant. He is the guarantor of the covenant. So when *we *screw up, the covenant is not broken!

You see, the Jews have the ideal, but not the person who can live up to the ideal. That is what St. Paul means when he says that the Law doesn’t save but convicts because if you break the Law, you break the covenant and when you break the covenant, you incur the curses of the covenant. Jesus incurred the curse of the Law for us so that we now have a person who can live up to the ideal, and that person is the only one who could live up to the ideal, God incarnate. That is why I say Jesus saved us from ourselves. I love the way that St. Paul puts it…“So it is proof of God’s own love for us, that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.”

Be at peace, reen12.

Brian

 

[reen12]

Hi again, Semper Fi,

quote: Semper Fi
1 more thing to contemplate, if there was no concept of original sin in Judaic thought, then how did Paul the Apostle (a Jew), identify it so easily? I think a common error most people make is seperating Christianity and Judaism, and try to look at them from one perspective without aligning them up parallel to each other.

“…identify it so easily?” Arrrggghhhhh!
That’s my whole point! St. Paul made it up out of
whole cloth. Rabbinic Judaism of his day didn’t
know what he was talking about. It was a teaching
totally unsupported by the Hebrew Scriptures and the
teaching of two millenia. Judaism *still *doesn’t know
what he’s talking about.
The genuine “parallel” is Luther talking about
sola fides.

“What is he *talking *about??” cried sixteenth century
Catholic theologians…as they do til this day.

Oh, my aching head.
Any parallels drawn are drawn to “prove” Jesus was
Messiah. I can give you link after link on Judaic sites
that use Scripture to demonstrate why He was not
Messiah.

As I said before, the whole issue turns on whether
or not Christ rose from the dead.
If He did rise, then all of my arguments are straw,
and Christians are blessedly correct in their beliefs.

Best,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Hello, JimG,

quote:JimG

Catholics should never consider themselves separate from Judaism, but rather as a continuation and fulfillment of Judaism. The Messiah came “in the fullness of time,” in the midst of his people, the Jews. He was called a rabbi and preached in the synagogues. He was steeped in the traditions and the scriptures of Israel–the Law and the Prophets.

How about a parallel to what you’ve written?

Luther was called a priest and preached in the
church. Luther was steeped in the traditions and
the scriptures of Catholicism-the gospels and
epistles.
What makes a world of difference, in this
parallel, is that Jesus said He was God the Son,
and “…destroy this temple and I will raise it
up in three days.” [paraphrase]

All claims of “fulfillment” and “in the fullness of time”
rest on one thing only: the Resurrection.
“If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain.”
[and our talk of “fulfillment” and “original sin” and
Christ as the Temple, and the perfect sacrifice.]

If Christ rose, *all *of these things constitute Truth
with a capital “T”.

Thanks for your thoughts, JimG,

reen12

 

[Genesis315]

St. Paul didn’t amke up original sin. See, in the OT we see were are judged according to Adam’s sin:

Ecclesiasticus 35

21 The prayer of him that humbleth himself, shall pierce the clouds: and till it come nigh he will not be comforted: and he will not depart till the most High behold. 22 And the Lord will not be slack, but will judge for the just, and will do judgment: and the Almighty will not have patience with them, that he may crush their back: 23 And he will repay vengeance to the Gentiles, till he have taken away the multitude of the proud, and broken the sceptres of the unjust, 24 Till he have rendered to men according to their deeds: and according to the works of Adam, and according to his presumption, 25 Till he have judged the cause of his people, and he shall delight the just with his mercy.

 

[Genesis315]

A quick side note: what is the reason Jews give for having no more prophets? Is it because the temple is gone? Do they too believe there is no more public revelation? Why?

 

[reen12]

Hi, WBB,

quote: WBBGosh, reen12, I am having a hard time with the Luther thing! I suppose the difference is this: With Jesus and the final everlasting covenant which could not be broken (recall that since Jesus is God incarnate, He cannot be unfaithful to the covenant), the world is being brought into the family of God or the House of Israel. Jesus’ intent was never to reject the Jews (even St. Paul says so in his long discourse in the letter to the Romans), rather to bring the world into the House of Israel (the Gentiles have been shown mercy through the disobedience of the Jews). Luther had no such desire. Rather, his desire was to redefine the covenant as he saw it, not as it had been presented to him. Am I making my point or is this clear as mud?

How to begin?
I’ve seen Original Sin defined as a woundedness in
our natural powers…I sat thru all the episodes of
a Dominican priest giving a presentation on same.

The reason I’m sure this is the case, is because of
the argument of Luther= we are “totally
depraved” in our nature. Whereas the Church
maintains that we are “wounded” in our nature,
because of the fall of Adam. I’ve also seen it
referred to as a “stain”, as in “baptism washes
away the stain of original sin.”
That’s why Judaism doesn’t know what we’re
talking about. There is not now, nor never was,
such a doctrine in Judaic scripture or thought.

As to:

(the Gentiles have been shown mercy through the disobedience of the Jews).

I can’t tell you how exasperating I find that concept.
“Disobedience of the Jews” ??? That view is
totally incomprehensible to me. To me, it’s a
theological construct, designed to validate the
new faith, to partially demonstrate the “why” of the
New Covenant. [Paul had to “explain” the time of
day to St. Peter, on dining with the Gentiles etc.]
From the account, apparently Peter didn’t “get it.”
He still saw himself bound by the Mosaic Law,
in such matters, until he was “freed” of such
“boundedness” by Paul’s theology of the meaning
of the life of Jesus.

I must say, though, that I was positively thrilled
by John the Baptist saying: God could raise up
sons of Abraham from these stones…
“That’s telling 'em, St. John.” Sorry, I digress…

But I’ll tell you, WBB, I was really impressed by
your post #14, and I am most grateful to you
for formulating it the way you did, in a way that
I could clearly understand how it could hook together.

Best,
reen

 

[WBB]

I was afraid that you would be exasperated with the “disobedience of the Jews” comment. I wanted to clarify what I believe is meant by that. I do not believe that St. Paul is saying that the Jews were disobedient by condemning Christ and not adhering to his message. I believe that St. Paul is saying this, “Thank heaven for the Jews failing to fulfill their part in the covenant because this allowed Jesus to renew the covenant in such a way that we ALL achieve salvation.” Is this what you think it means?

 

[reen12]

Hi, Genesis315.

As to Ecclesiasticus 35, I find it amazing that rabbinic
Judaism did not see the concept of original sin in
these verses. The finest minds of 2500 centuries did
not draw that conclusion.

The “work of Adam” refers to Adam’s disobedience.
The Gentiles, to which this quote refers, were
apparently following the “inclination toward evil”,
one of the “yetzers” in Judaism, which has nothing
to do with the concept of original sin, as defined by
the Church.

In short, the Gentiles described in these verses were
acting as Adam had acted…following the inclination
toward evil, not the inclination toward good, which
Judaism teaches is within the reach of a man or
woman who chooses to follow the good.

Where in heaven’s name comes the idea that God
did not forgive sin until New Testament times?

Best,
reen12

PS: In terms of why no more prophets? I’m not at all sure
of my reply on this one. I think that the “age of prophecy”
came to an end with the prophet ____? I am reallllyy
open to correction on this one.

 

[WBB]

Original sin…it is a daunting concept. It would appear that you have heard endless explanations of the concept of original sin, but I believe the Orthodox actually communicate the concept better in what they term “ancestral sin.” It is not a stain or wound. Those are words used to describe it by Western theologians because, well, we don’t have any way to communicate concepts except in words! As I said in my above post, original sin is a result of our professing either in word or deed our lack of dependence on the Lord. It is a result of God’s infinite love and mercy because if God were not loving and merciful, he would make us do right, and that is not love. It is coercion. So, we choose our own path instead of following the Lord’s. This is exactly what Adam did, but if you notice, it is also what Noah did, Abraham did, Moses did, and David did. Jesus on the other hand did not. He could not. He is God. His covenant is only New in that he renewed ALL of the other covenants. It is the same covenant basically, “I will be yours and you will be mine.”

 

[reen12]

WBB,

quote: WBB

I believe that St. Paul is saying this, "Thank heaven for the Jews failing to fulfill their part in the covenant because this allowed Jesus to renew the covenant in such a way that we ALL achieve salvation.

I didn’t know how to interpret it. Yes, I can understand the
position quoted above.
Kind of like “O felix culpa” “O happy fault, that brought
the Savior, Jesus Christ” [paraphrase]
[fault=the sin of Adam]

I’ll be backat some point. Got to set up our medications for the week. That’s what happens at our age. :yup: It takes me 25 minutes
to get them ready for the week.

I’m enjoying the exchange of thought, WBB.

reen12

 

[WBB]

reen12:

I didn’t know how to interpret it. Yes, I can understand the
position quoted above.
Kind of like “O felix culpa” “O happy fault, that brought
the Savior, Jesus Christ” [paraphrase]
[fault=the sin of Adam]

EXACTLY!!! Oh happy fault that won for us so great a salvation! The fault of Adam can be seen manifested in the fault of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc, etc. See how the “sin of Adam” is transmitted? It really is the inclination to evil (or I like the milder form of the concept…disobedience). That is a great way to describe original sin, at least the way I understand it. So basically, when you hear of people who say, “The Jews killed Jesus. They are going to hell for rejecting Jesus!” they absolutely have no clue as to what they are talking about!! St. Paul was saying, “You should kiss the feet of the Jews for not living up to their end of the bargain (their disobedience), because that is what won salvation for you, Gentiles!”

reen12:

I’m enjoying the exchange of thought, WBB.

So am I, reen12! You are a blessing!

Brian

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

reen12:

Hi again, Semper Fi,
“…identify it so easily?” Arrrggghhhhh!
That’s my whole point! St. Paul made it up out of
whole cloth. Rabbinic Judaism of his day didn’t
know what he was talking about. It was a teaching
totally unsupported by the Hebrew Scriptures and the
teaching of two millenia. Judaism *still *doesn’t know
what he’s talking about.
The genuine “parallel” is Luther talking about
sola fides.
reen12

reen, you’re going to have to be more respectful of my beliefs if you want to continue discussing them. I’m sure others feel the same way as me.

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. Rom 5:12

Let’s go over the wording of this passage.

What is sin?

Sin is the result of mankind’s disobedience of God, not putting all of our trust into God alone. St. Paul the Apostle clearly demonstrates that through Adam’s disobedience, all sin spread to mankind. How is this statement false? If it was false, we would still be in the garden of Eden, no? Also, death is the result of sin. When man was made, he was not meant to die (sin). Man’s disobedience of his Creator brought death into this world. God did not. Jesus Christ is the redeemer, through His bloodshed all men have a chance at eternal life. I don’t see why the concept is that hard to grasp? I also see no evidence of St. Paul stating anything untrue here or “making anything up”… By denying that Adam was the first one to sin, you are stating that God created man to sin… I don’t get it?

 

[reen12]

Hi, Semper Fi,

quote: Semper Fi

reen, you’re going to have to be more respectful of my beliefs if you want to continue discussing them. I’m sure others feel the same way as me

Consider the word “respect.”

res spectare…literally “to see the thing.”
I do respect your beliefs, Semper Fi. I do “see them” -I just wholly disagree with them.

quote: Semper Fi

1 more thing to contemplate, if there was no concept of original sin in Judaic thought, then how did Paul the Apostle (a Jew), identify it so easily?

I repeat, Semper Fi, there is not and has never been a

concept of original sin in Judaism. That is a fact.

aish.com/spirituality/growth/Human_Nature_Inherently_Good_or_Evil$_Ethics_of_the_Fathers_17.asp

How you choose to interpret St.Paul is, essentially,

none of my business, but I will not let go, unchallenged,

a statement of the “if…then” variety that I know to

conflict with Judaic thought.

If you choose to interpret my challenge as being

disrespectful, there is little I can do. I ask you to

respect my sincere belief that original sin is an

original claim…not based on Judaic thought.

Not agree with my belief, but respect it = “see it”.

This a a non-Catholic religions forum. There are other

forums on the world wide web that speciffically state: take your

challenges of RC doctrine to the “debate” forums.

Here, on Catholic Answers, that place is the non-Catholic

religions forums, as I understand it.

If I think that St.Paul made up original sin out

of whole cloth…that the concept had no foundation in

the religion of his youth…then I am free, as I understand it,

to state that, on the nonCatholic religion forum.

You and I are not likely to “agree” on much anytime soon.
Will you respect the fact that I am not going to

accept Catholicism’s definition of original sin, and that I

am at liberty to state my disagreement, on a nonCatholic religions
forum?

That I will continue to state Judaic thought, in as clear

a manner as I am capable of, and continue to point out

where I think Judaic thought conflicts with Christian theology?

Disagreement does not necessarily equate with disrespectful speech.

Best to you, Semper Fi,:tiphat:

reen12

 

[reen12]

For those who might have an interest, the following link
provides the Judaic concepts of yetzer tov
and yetzer ra, under the section entitled: Dual nature.
The inclination to good and the inclination toward evil,
and the human being’s ability to cope with same:

jewfaq.org/human.htm

That Judaism has never held the concept original sin:

aish.com/spirituality/gr…_Fathers_17.asp

Be back later.

Best,

reen12

 

[Catholic_Dude]

reen-

Think of Catholicism’s claim to be the original faith
establised by Jesus. …
Later, Luther comes along and says the Church has
essentially jumped the rails and he ends up
establishing a denomination within Christianity.
“Heretic!” is heard, throughout the land.

---

Go back 2000 years. Judaism is unquestionably
the “parent” faith.
It has doctrine: who the Messiah is to be…crying out for 2500 years:
…

---

Along comes a group within their group [the Apostles
and original disciples were all Jews] saying Jesus is
God and Messiah, that He rose from the dead,
that man is in original sin…
“Apostasy!” cries rabbinic Judaism. They were
genuinely horrified.

Ok, that is what I was saying.

My point is: *Apostasy “works” both ways. *
The quarrel with Luther is over the number of
sacraments, authority, sola fides, etc.
This *pales *in comparison with a group within a group
stating: God is Three Persons in One.
I guess you’d have to really understand the level of
horror this evoked, to understand my point.

I would not agree with “Apostacy works both ways”.
I have mentioned in the past the scandalizing tone of “New Testament” in the ears of the Jews, but the relationship is not the same as with Luther. Both Jews and Catholics REJECT the central pillars of Protestantism, which is Faith Alone and Scripture Alone. Tradition and Works are central.
Now the idea of Jesus being God does pale in comparison to Luther, but is it unfounded like Luther?
I was talking of a Jew on these forums and I have been over some of these questions here, some of the first few posts are off topic, but around #25 is where we get into stuff.

And the whole issue turns on whether Jesus rose
from the dead.
“If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain.” Saul

The gospel accounts of the resurrection are vivid in
their detail.
The question is, are they true?

And that is a matter of faith.

Thats the million dollar question. All this talk would be nothing if we could go back in time and see. So how does faith work in all this?

 

[Strider]

reen12:

“…identify it so easily?” Arrrggghhhhh!
That’s my whole point! St. Paul made it up out of whole cloth. Rabbinic Judaism of his day didn’t
know what he was talking about. It was a teaching
totally unsupported by the Hebrew Scriptures and the
teaching of two millenia. Judaism *still *doesn’t know
what he’s talking about.
As I said before, the whole issue turns on whether
or not Christ rose from the dead.
If He did rise, then all of my arguments are straw,
and Christians are blessedly correct in their beliefs.
Best,
reen12

Maureen, Maureen, Mureen,
What have you been reading? I believe the Book of Genesis is in the Jewish Pentateuch. Gen 2:16,17 recounts God’s command to Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 3:1-19 relates the punishment God renders to Adam and Eve for their disobedience, (Original Sin) but also the protoevangelium (first good news). In verse 15, God prefigures the birth of Christ by Mry and his passion, death and resurrection.
Exodus 12 (The passover) is an exquisite prefigurement of Christ.
It doesn’t take long, Exodus 32:1 ff when the people of Israel demand a god from Aaron, who makies the golden calf. Disobedience?
Let’s back up a little to Geneses 22. God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son “whom he loves.”
Beginning in verse 6, And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son.
And in verse 7, And Isaac said to hid father Abraham, “My father!” and he said “Here am I, my son;” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” In verse 8, Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” You know the rest of the story, but the paralells are undeniable: The FATHER sarcifices the SON WHOM HE LOVES, who carries the WOOD FOR HIS SACRIFICE on his shoulder. The difference being that Isaac did not die and rise as Jesus did, but the figure is undeniable.
As for the disobedience of the Jews, have you not read Samuel, Kings and Chronicles? Have you not read how many times the kings of Israel did “what was displeasing in the sight of the LORD”?
That Jewish thought approaches these passages differently than Catholics is no surprise. They are waiting for an event that ook place two thousdand years ago.
I’ll stop there because your comparison of Luther with the early Christians is too far off the mark, IMO, to address.
There are so many more parallels between the Old Testament (Jewish books) and the New Testament, but consider what I’ve written above.
I sincerely pray that I’m not watching the “deconstruction of Maureen,” occur right before my eyes. You’re too good a person for that.
Jesus died and rose. Otherwise, why woul the witnesses, the Apostles, preach this Truth and knowingly suffer and die for no earthly gain?
Think, Maureen. Think. Please.
Gotta pray for you.

 

[Genesis315]

If there was no inherited sin, then you’d think God would have let Adam’s kids back into the garden, no? It’s a very prominant theme in Genesis that the curses and blessings of the patriarchs stay with their seeds. Why would the orginal curse God bestows on Adam be any different?

 

[reen12]

Hi, Genesis315,

quote: Genesis315
If there was no inherited sin, then you’d think God would have let Adam’s kids back into the garden, no? It’s a very prominant theme in Genesis that the curses and blessings of the patriarchs stay with their seeds. Why would the orginal curse God bestows on Adam be any different

It doesn’t matter what I think about God letting the
offspring of Adam and Eve back into Eden.
The fact is, He didn’t.

As for the “curse”, the children of Adam had to till the
soil in sweat because that was now their “existential
situation” due to their father’s sin.

The question is: how does “till the soil in sweat”
transmogrify into “loss of sanctifying grace” and
a “stain” on the soul. [see article on Original Sin
in the Catholic Encyclopedia online. It’s the version
produced in the early part of the last century. The
word “stain” appears in the article.]

quote: Genesis315

It’s a very prominant theme in Genesis that the curses and blessings of the patriarchs stay with their seeds. Why would the orginal curse God bestows on Adam be any different?

Because the “curse” was *amplified *by Christian doctrine…
from “till the soil in sweat” to a “stain” carried forward.

In Judaism, man is not born in sin.

Pretend that I’ve just arrived from some distant place
and never heard of either Judaism or Christianity…
a tabla rasa, so to speak:

Me: So, if there is no loss of sanctifying grace, what
did the Redeemer redeem us from?

I looked briefly at a short paragraph on original sin in
the CCC, and* it* sure knows what it’s talking about.
The essence of the paragraph was that the Church
understands that any challenge to the doctrine of
original sin challenges the salvific act of the Savior.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#VI

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/406.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/407.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/389.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm

My simple way of stating it is:

Me: So, if there is no loss of sanctifying grace, what
did the Redeemer redeem us from?

As I say, over and over, all my arguments and
challenges are straw, if Jesus truly rose from the dead.

Best,

reen12