L
Loving_disciple
Guest
What os the proof for orginal sin in the Torah? I was talking with some Muslim and I have quote Genesis to them but they don’t think that is enough. Some help would be nice
- Status
L
laircy
Guest
The Torah is the first five books of the Bible. Quoting Genesis is also quoting the Torah.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
I do not know if I can help.
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan we might get an answer.
The person that asked Jesus how does one inherit eternal life. The answer is love God, self, and neighbor.
Also, the first commandment is: to love God. The second is to love one’s self and neighbor.
It is the first in the sense it is the most important.
It is the first in the sense that it is the original.
The first or original sin (missing the mark) was not entrusting, believing or loving God.
I hope that helps you; I do not think it will help your friends, but it might.
Blessings
Jim Baur
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan we might get an answer.
The person that asked Jesus how does one inherit eternal life. The answer is love God, self, and neighbor.
Also, the first commandment is: to love God. The second is to love one’s self and neighbor.
It is the first in the sense it is the most important.
It is the first in the sense that it is the original.
The first or original sin (missing the mark) was not entrusting, believing or loving God.
I hope that helps you; I do not think it will help your friends, but it might.
Blessings
Jim Baur
L
Loving_disciple
Guest
Let me ask this how do I defend the doctrine of original sin from Muslims
H
Hieronymi
Guest
I don’t think you have to “defend” the doctrine. Rather, you could explain original sin to your friend.
Not to be flip, but the term “original” means just that; the source from which something arises, the first &c.The fact that your friend says the first book of the Torah does not sufficiently explain original sin and it is “not good enough” does not make it not good enough.
Perhaps you could ask him if the concept bothers him. If so, why? If he is willing to take a fair look, I am sure you know many sources of solid information on the subject.(CCC, CA)
Not to be flip, but the term “original” means just that; the source from which something arises, the first &c.The fact that your friend says the first book of the Torah does not sufficiently explain original sin and it is “not good enough” does not make it not good enough.
Perhaps you could ask him if the concept bothers him. If so, why? If he is willing to take a fair look, I am sure you know many sources of solid information on the subject.(CCC, CA)
T
Truth_Faith13
Guest
I think it will be difficult. Having spoken to a Sunni Muslim last week who was trying to convince me of the truth of Islam, I realised that the accept the bible as prophetic word at the same time as denying the divinity of Christ which is a bit…well…strange!
He told me that the Quran is the third and final testament meaning they fully accept (in their words) the first two.
If they can accept and deny the bible at the same time, you could given them dozens of scripture referencing original sin and they still wouldn’t see it!
T
thistle
Guest
You are right.I think it will be difficult. Having spoken to a Sunni Muslim last week who was trying to convince me of the truth of Islam, I realised that the accept the bible as prophetic word at the same time as denying the divinity of Christ which is a bit…well…strange!
He told me that the Quran is the third and final testament meaning they fully accept (in their words) the first two.
If they can accept and deny the bible at the same time, you could given them dozens of scripture referencing original sin and they still wouldn’t see it!
When the Quran was put together muslims checked it against OT and NT scripture and they assumed that what was in the Quran would be verified by the OT and NT. When they found that much of it didn’t they faced a dilemma. What to do?? Their solution was that any part that agreed with the Quran was correct but any part of the OT and NT that didn’t agree must be corrupt. What kind of nonsensical logic is that?
- Status