Biblical concept of original sin

[MoreCoffee]

Just about the lamest and most thoughtless reason I have heard to date.

psalms 91, as an infant...

P91: Waaahh! I am hungry, but I don't know how to speak yet!
Mom: You are crying? You want food? Selfish! Sinful! You are a child of wrath!
P91: Waaahhh! My diaper is dirty, but I don't know how to communicate this yet!
Mom: You are crying? You need assistance? Why don't you change your own diaper?! You selfish little devil! You exemplify original sin!!

3-5 years later...

P91: (At grocery store) I want this!
Mom: No.
P91: I want this and I want it now!!! NOOOOOWWWW!!!!
Mom: No
P91: Waaaahhhh! I want it I want it I want it (screaming)
Mom: You little sinful being! You have been crying to get what you want since that is the only thing you knew to do to survive and communicate! But it is not simply a matter of unlearning a previously needed behavior, it is a prime example of the SINFUL NATURE!!!!

Jesus was a baby so unless one postulates that the children's hymn is revealed truth when it says no crying he makes is seems very likely that Jesus cried when he was an infant because he wanted to be fed, was uncomfortable because he'd soiled his 'nappy' and for other reasons which might be interpreted as selfish and hence as sinful. But is it the doctrine of any Christian group that Jesus sinned in infancy?

 

[Stravinsk]

Jesus was a baby so unless one postulates that the children's hymn is revealed truth when it says no crying he makes is seems very likely that Jesus cried when he was an infant because he wanted to be fed, was uncomfortable because he'd soiled his 'nappy' and for other reasons which might be interpreted as selfish and hence as sinful. But is it the doctrine of any Christian group that Jesus sinned in infancy?

Like I said, it's about the most thoughtless and lame argument I have heard to date.

Children in general, especially small children and infants are totally dependent on those who provide for them. They can barely communicate except to cry when they are very small. They cannot feed themselves, take care of themselves, provide clothing for themselves, go and earn a living etc. To point to a child's need as indicative of a selfish or sinful nature is patently dishonest and heartless, a position which is totally unfair to a child as well as being a totally unfair measure for the so called inherited or sin nature. When they grow in age, and only under the assumption that some discipline from previous ways(ways needed when they were infants, such as crying to indicate needs), weaning and training has occurred, and after being so, then willfully choose the wrong knowing it is wrong and for selfish ends - only then could even the hint of such an argument be made - although hardly a convincing one, in my opinion.

Children are in a prison of inexperience and inability that grows with time and experience and good parenting and later with some of their own initiative.

Can you imagine a prison guard lecturing an inmate that he is exhibiting signs of a sinful nature just because he's hungry and hasn't been fed? Or that his toilet is backed up and hasn't been fixed making his cell stinky and unhealthy? Or maybe a cell mate who's physically abusive and he's complaining about it? All signs of "selfishness" according to a person who uses such measures to judge that. Anyone with half a brain and a little compassion and understanding would fire the guard for having rocks in his head instead of brains.

 

[Pedrito]

Some thoughts about thoughts in this thread.

Post #24 MennoSota: “Thanks. I'll take a host of translators, working together, over your own personal opinion. But, I appreciate the effort.”

Post #28 MennoSota: “I don't take your word as authoritive over all the other translators. When teams of translators use an English word, after multiple peer reviews, it's better than your personal opinion.

Those comments seem to overlook the fact that different teams of translators present conflicting translations at times.

Also overlooked is the (more than simply) temptation for teams of translators who share particular doctrines, to bias their translations in favour of those doctrines. If that is done often enough, then the thrust of scripture appears to suggest that favoured (but not necessarily correct) doctrine.

==============================================================================================

Post #23 Stravinsk: “Proof:
Genesis 29:27(KJV)
Here the context is clear. Jacob worked 7 years for Rachel. But Laban didn't give him Rachel, instead, Leah, citing the custom of not giving the firstborn. So Jacob had to do another 7 years.
Since the original 7 years was already fulfilled (Genesis 29:21(KJV) ), then the phrase used in verse 27 "fulfill her week" (the word "week" actually being Shabuwa "7"-(H7620)) refers to another 7 (years in this case) for Rachel, not Leah.”

Couldn’t the "fulfill her week" simply mean give Leah his undivided intimate attention for a week, then he could have Rachel as well? Geness 29:28-30 seem to indicate that. Seven-day cycles seem to have importance in those times.

==============================================================================================

Post #36 Stravinsk: “As for what I dismiss (Saul/Paul's teaching is what you refer to?) I have given lengthy explanations for this elsewhere, that not ONE PERSON has even attempted to address honestly without being insulting and leveling childish accusations (and that would be others at this point, not you)”

I don’t think I’ve yet replied to those explanations. May I have the opportunity to do so (time permitting)?

I request that either those thoughts be re-presented together in another Post, or that links to those original Posts be provided for ease of access.

==============================================================================================

Also: “As for Genesis, there is no original sin found there. You can put quotes around the word *fact* if you like, but the concept as it relates to Genesis is largely from Saul/Paul's writings. It's unique to Pauline Christianity. Judaism by and large does not accept it. ”

Well, off the top of my head I can think of a few Scripture statements, spanning the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, that seem to indicate the concept. (Even if some focus on the related “sinful nature” as it is labelled, and some have been tendered before.)

Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Job 14:4: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Job 15:14: What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 25:4: How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
Isaiah 64:6: But we are all as an unclean thing , and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Matthew 15:19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Romans 5:19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Romans 7:18: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Proverbs 22:15: Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] [MENTION=216]Stravinsk[/MENTION]

Reading your rebuttal of [MENTION=43]psalms 91[/MENTION], I have to wonder if either of you ever had children. It is not "Waaa, I'm hungry" or "Waaa, I need changing" that leads one to conclude the existence of an innate sin nature. Watch one infant crawl over to another, take the toy from their hand and hit them with it when they complain ... did their parents teach them that, or do their parents need to teach them that natural behavior is wrong? You really need to volunteer in a nursery and refresh your memory on what toddlers are like. Remove the rose-colored glasses and get a reality check.

Matthew 22:37-40 NASB
37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Do babies innately love others or are they innately selfish? Which must be taught?
Do adults innately love others or are they innately selfish? Which must be taught?

 

[Josiah]

The result of sin is death. Do babies die? The Bible says the reason why humans die is..... what?

 

[Josiah]

Children are not sinful only if they are as morally perfect as is God, as loving as is Christ on the Cross.... always doing the will of God. If not, then they fall short. "Fall short" is the meaning of the word "sin." It ain't complicated.

See post # 5

 

[MoreCoffee]

The result of sin is death. Do babies die? The Bible says the reason why humans die is..... what?

Jesus died.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus died.

...because He accepted the sins of the world. He didn't die as a result of HIS sin (Catholics agree with all other Christians that He had no sin) but OURS. It's in the Bible. And the Church Fathers. And in the latest edition of the official RCC Catechism (608, etc.).


See post # 5



- Josiah




.

 

[NewCreation435]

Jesus died.

He did. He died and canceled out my sin debt and yours by dying on the cross. He died that I might live.

 

[Stravinsk]

The result of sin is death. Do babies die? The Bible says the reason why humans die is..... what?

Jesus died.

...because He accepted the sins of the world. He didn't die as a result of HIS sin (Catholics agree with all other Christians that He had no sin) but OURS. It's in the Bible. And the Church Fathers. And in the latest edition of the official RCC Catechism (608, etc.).


See post # 5



- Josiah




.

Funny that. Can you find in the words of Christ this specific reason for His dying? Maybe it's something I've missed. Here is the reason He gives:

Matthew 17:22-23(KJV) And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

It's clear throughout the Gospels that Christ's dying is a murder, it happens because of men, and in His case, because men conspired to kill him, and finally did so by torturing Him and then nailing Him to the cross.

He also warns that those who follow him will share the same fate. (Matthew 24:9(KJV))

Again, can you find anywhere in the Gospels where Christ teaches that His body dies specifically as a result of bearing the sins of the world, as opposed to simply being murdered by men?


The comparison to babies dying to "prove" the point about original sin is just insane.

 

[NewCreation435]

Funny that. Can you find in the words of Christ this specific reason for His dying? Maybe it's something I've missed. Here is the reason He gives:

Matthew 17:22-23(KJV) And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

It's clear throughout the Gospels that Christ's dying is a murder, it happens because of men, and in His case, because men conspired to kill him, and finally did so by torturing Him and then nailing Him to the cross.

He also warns that those who follow him will share the same fate. (Matthew 24:9(KJV))

Again, can you find anywhere in the Gospels where Christ teaches that His body dies specifically as a result of bearing the sins of the world, as opposed to simply being murdered by men?


The comparison to babies dying to "prove" the point about original sin is just insane.

I don't have to defend Christ's sacrificial death on the cross on this forum to you. Neither do other members. It is one of the tenents of our faith and maybe one of the few things most of us would agree on. I'm not going to debate this with you. It is beyond debate. It is the core of who we are as christians.

The saving role of Christ runs through the Old Testament as well as the New. When Jesus appeared after his death to the disciples on the road to Emmaus he said to his disciples. "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" Luke 24:25-26. You see Jesus said it was necessary.It didn't just start with Paul. I know your disagreement with Paul, but it didn't start with him. Even before Jesus incarnation, the angel Gabriel announced to Joseph
"And she will bear a Son; and you shall call Him Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." Matthew 1:21

His death was not just a murder by evil men. God could have stopped it at any point if that was all it was. He went willingly to the cross as an atonement. You have most definitely missed something.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...because He accepted the sins of the world. He didn't die as a result of HIS sin (Catholics agree with all other Christians that He had no sin) but OURS. It's in the Bible. And the Church Fathers. And in the latest edition of the official RCC Catechism (608, etc.).
See post # 5
- Josiah

CCC 608 After agreeing to baptise him along with the sinners, John the Baptist looked at Jesus and pointed him out as the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the suffering Servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes, and also the Paschal Lamb, the symbol of Israel's redemption at the first Passover. Christ's whole life expresses his mission: "to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

If people die because of sin - not necessarily their own sins - and Jesus died because of other people's sins then doesn't that punch a hole in the argument that infants die because of [their own] sins?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Infants wouldn't die because of "their own" sin, but "Sin" - singular. The wages of Sin is death; unless it can be shown that this is merely a spiritual death.

 

[Josiah]

CCC 608 After agreeing to baptise him along with the sinners, John the Baptist looked at Jesus and pointed him out as the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the suffering Servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes, and also the Paschal Lamb, the symbol of Israel's redemption at the first Passover. Christ's whole life expresses his mission: "to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

If people die because of sin - not necessarily their own sins - and Jesus died because of other people's sins then doesn't that punch a hole in the argument that infants die because of [their own] sins?

No, it just punches a whole in how you changed what I posted (and what your Catechism states). Yes, babies die because they have sin. They don't die for Jesus' sin, Jesus died for theirs. And ours. "The wages of sin is death" it says somewhere in some good book.

See post #5.

Can you find in the words of Christ this specific reason for His dying?

It had to do with the reality of sin and the necessity for atonement. Exactly WHY His death was required is not specifically stated; there are several "Atonement Theories" and each would address that question with a different set of Scriptures and a different perspective. Some denominations do embrace a particular such "theory" but Lutherans do not - holding that none is all sufficient in itself but that all are partly true. But for example, the "Vicarious Atonement" view (popular in Evangelicalism) hold that the "answer" is that 1) All have sin. 2) The wages of sin is death. 3) Jesus took that punishment for us (the "vicarious" point). But I'm sure there's nothing no one could say that you'd accept on this point. Jesus IS the SAVIOR - and HE accomplishes that by His life, death and resurrection. THAT is clear in Scripture. Exactly WHY Jesus doing those things accomplishes that is not entirely explained... But you are way off topic.



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, it just punches a whole in how you changed what I posted (and what your Catechism states). Yes, babies die because they have sin. They don't die for Jesus' sin, Jesus died for theirs. And ours. "The wages of sin is death" it says somewhere in some good book.

See post #5.

I didn't change what you wrote - the quote of your post was complete except for the "." that you leave dangling 4 or 5 lines after your name. Nor did I change what CCC 608 says my post gives a verbatim quote of the section from the CCC. It appears that your reply is not entirely honest.

If babies have sin what sin is it that they have? Are you referring to "original sin" meaning the sin of Eve and Adam that theologians argue is transmitted by natural procreation and brings with it the penalty of sin - namely death - and if that is what you are arguing in favour of then why get into this whole story about infants being selfish and hence sinful? Surely infant selfishness is as inscrutable as infant faith and infant innocence all of which are speculations that appear in CH threads but are not particularly well documented in holy scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Infants wouldn't die because of "their own" sin, but "Sin" - singular. The wages of Sin is death; unless it can be shown that this is merely a spiritual death.

It is a fact that cannot be denied that infants die - not all infants but some - and it is also a fact that virtually all human beings die - Elijah, Enoch, and possibly Blessed Mary being possible exceptions - and it is argued by theologians that death is a consequence of sin but it is clear that not all death is a consequence of the sins of the thing that dies. I say this because plants die, animals die, bacteria and single celled things die, even viruses die yet it is not clear that any of these things sins. It is argued by theologians that death is present in creation because of sin and because of the curse pronounced by God on sinful Adam and Eve. The argument in theology is not simple nor should it be treated as an explanation for day to day encounters with human death. But this thread is about an allegedly biblical concept of original sin and I am interested to see where in the holy scriptures that concept is articulated according to the understanding of CH contributors.

 

[Stravinsk]

I don't have to defend Christ's sacrificial death on the cross on this forum to you. Neither do other members. It is one of the tenents of our faith and maybe one of the few things most of us would agree on. I'm not going to debate this with you. It is beyond debate. It is the core of who we are as christians.

The saving role of Christ runs through the Old Testament as well as the New. When Jesus appeared after his death to the disciples on the road to Emmaus he said to his disciples. "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" Luke 24:25-26. You see Jesus said it was necessary.It didn't just start with Paul. I know your disagreement with Paul, but it didn't start with him. Even before Jesus incarnation, the angel Gabriel announced to Joseph
"And she will bear a Son; and you shall call Him Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." Matthew 1:21

His death was not just a murder by evil men. God could have stopped it at any point if that was all it was. He went willingly to the cross as an atonement. You have most definitely missed something.

The issue in question is the "how" of Christ's death, not that He died or for what reason. The point being brought up to defend the doctrine of original sin.

Josiah argues that it was the weight of the world's sin that caused Christ's body to die. I think it is being tortured and nailed to a cross.

I have simply asked for proof of the method or "how" of this idea that it is the former (death via weight of the world's sins) vrs the latter (from torture and the cross) from the Gospels (if people can find it in Matthew or John, preferred, as I disregard Mark and Luke).

So if I've missed something, please do tell, instead of getting defensive, thanks.

If instead it's not there, well...

 

[Stravinsk]

It had to do with the reality of sin and the necessity for atonement. Exactly WHY His death was required is not specifically stated; there are several "Atonement Theories" and each would address that question with a different set of Scriptures and a different perspective. Some denominations do embrace a particular such "theory" but Lutherans do not - holding that none is all sufficient in itself but that all are partly true. But for example, the "Vicarious Atonement" view (popular in Evangelicalism) hold that the "answer" is that 1) All have sin. 2) The wages of sin is death. 3) Jesus took that punishment for us (the "vicarious" point). But I'm sure there's nothing no one could say that you'd accept on this point. Jesus IS the SAVIOR - and HE accomplishes that by His life, death and resurrection. THAT is clear in Scripture. Exactly WHY Jesus doing those things accomplishes that is not entirely explained... But you are way off topic.



- Josiah



.

Umm. So you cannot quote Christ from the Gospels to prove your point about His body dying specifically from the weight of the world's sin and not torture/the cross to prove your point as to the "how" of Christ's death being related to original sin?

 

[Stravinsk]

It is interesting to me some of the arguments being brought forth.

Idea: Infants die to to original or inherited sin (er...let's assume this wasn't because of being dropped or obliterated in a car crash...but maybe just because of sickness of sudden infant death syndrome or something like that...)

Somehow reconciles with the idea that a multiple murderer can live to his or her 70's or more in jail.

Gee. If I were to judge these things as both being true, I'd say God somehow favors greater wickedness with longer life. Fortunately, I don't believe in inherited sin.

 

[Lamb]

We all die at some point...that's the result of Adam's fall into sin.