The Lie of Original Sin

[RabbiBarry]

The Doctrine of Original Sin is one especially odious to Jews. The idea is obviously false but Christians base much of their theology on this false premise. Let us look at the three passages that are most likely to cause this confusion.

You do remember that Paul is difficult to understand or so says the 2nd Letter of Peter at 3:16. Now in Romans 5: 12-14, Paul says:

Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned -- for up to the time of the law sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come.

Paul's idea that death is the consequence of sin comes from Genesis 3:3 which says that if Adam and Eve ate of the tree in the middle of the garden of Eden or even touched it, they would surely die. He then looked at Psalms 51:7 in which David says:

True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me.

Unfortunately for the history of Christianity, the Pauline lie has been propagated to the ends of the earth and many believe it. However, we need to look at the facts. First, there is no indication in the book of Genesis that G-d stopped talking to Adam so there was no spiritual death. He lived 931 years and died. To suggest that physical death is a result of sin, certainly is not supported by the facts. No one lives to be 931 years old today. In addition, Paul says that death reigned from Adam to Moses. All died as a result of their sin, not their personal sin, but there original sin that they got from their father Adam. From these two passages, Paul concluded that not just Adam and Eve were held guilty by the act of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but also their children. And he concluded that the penalty for this act was physical and spiritual death.

The idea that original sin brought physical and spiritual death is made a lie two chapters later when Genesis says of Enoch:

Then Enoch walked with G-d, and he was no longer here, for G-d took him. Gen. 5:24.

Obviously, one man did not die, Enoch, and the Enochian Jews, from which Nasoreans and Pharisees descended, believed that Enoch became the Archangel of the Presence, the Highest of the Archangels, when he ascended. He neither spiritually nor physically died.

There is a further difficulty with the Pauline idea of Original Sin. Jesus is asked in John 9: 2:

His disciples asked him, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

In verse 3, Jesus says: Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of G-d might be made visible through him.

Jesus denies the idea that one can inherit sin sufficiently to harm one from his parents. He got this idea from the Torah where it says:

Exodus 20:5-6: For I, the Lord, your G-d, am a jealous G-d, inflicting punishment for their father's wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Obviously, we are more than four generations away from Adam. Thus we cannot be held guilty for his sin.

Like so many of the doctrines of Paul, they ignore the very words of the Master and propagate a lie. There is no scriptural truth to the doctrine of Original Sin.

[David Kone]

I too at one time was ready to condemn Paul for other reasons. I personally was not raised to believe in original sin as it is not espoused by the LDS church. I really do wish that Paul was here to defend himself for he has much to answer if the way his statements have been institutionalized are really the way he meant to be understood. One of the problems with making Jesus "God" is that the disciples are also raised to the level of nearly "God". Paul was certainly a man subject to the fragilities that come with being human. He demonstrated that he is capable of great error by his own acts in his early life. Never-the-less I will try to defend him as best I can mostly out of compassion for the man who has been blamed for so much.

We know that our Lord chose to associate with people who were imperfect in the eyes of the Pharisees. They were people who showed humanness by their imperfections. The word Adam also means, I am told, human being. Adam (therefore all human beings) was driven from the Garden where the tree of life exists. Adam was not cursed; the serpent was cursed and the ground was cursed. Therefore the concept of a blanket of original sin covering mankind is false. The curse from the ground was lifted after the great flood thanks to Noah's obedience. Gen 5:29 Gen 8:21

There is an implication that the tree of life is still available but we must risk the terrible cherubim and the fiery sword to get to it. Enoch must be proof of that possibility that it still can be reached. Both Enoch and Noah are specially pointed out as having walked with God. When we walk with God we have nothing to fear except Him. Not flaming swords, devastating floods, or even crucifixion. This is because the body we lose is only minerals; but the love of God, which is our strength and the source of our courage, comes from walking with God on His path that which leads to the tree of life.

Moses was given the law which was a type of map for walking with God. This law was given so we may understand our own dilemma that comes along with our limitations that are part and parcel with our very humanness. It is not our sinful nature that keeps us from Him but our Adamness. Jesus came into his glory so that the Law, the Torah, may be placed within us; so we may be made whole by walking with God. First we needed a lesson in what following the word, the Torah, means. This time of year many of God’s creatures are migrating south as God speaks in their hearts and by listening to the sort of Torah he placed there they preserve their species by following the path set before them. Each man is sinful in his own right and we suffer from the sins of our parents in as everything we are given by them pertaining knowledge is flawed but what we got from Adam was a missing guidance system. Jesus is calls us towards God we only have to follow.

I am only a tech, not a theologian; this is the best that I can explain this. It was I believe what Paul was ineptly alluding to. Please, if any of you can explain this better help Paul and me out as this is a very important matter for many believers are confused over this matter. :'(

[dark_knight]

Paul said that trough one man, Adam, sin and death entered the world. This is obviously true, because Tanakh tells us that the wages of sin is death. Obviously all sin and all die.
Adam and Eve would have lived forever / received immortality from the Tree of Life if they would have triumphed the temptation. We may agree that very young children are innocent of personal sin, but still they die, get sick and may be unhappy. This is my anthropological proof for the Truth of the Original and Inherited Sin.

[RabbiBarry]

Paul said that trough one man, Adam, sin and death entered the world. This is obviously true, because Tanakh tells us that the wages of sin is death. Obviously all sin and all die.
Adam and Eve would have lived forever / received immortality from the Tree of Life if they would have triumphed the temptation. We may agree that very young children are innocent of personal sin, but still they die, get sick and may be unhappy. This is my anthropological proof for the Truth of the Original and Inherited Sin.

Again your scripture is rather weak. Both Enoch and Elijah never died. I have to conclude that they never sinned, because they never died. The doctrine of original sin is false. Further, the Torah says that G-d does not hold us responsible for the sins of the father after the fourth generation. Therefore, I can not be responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve.

[dark_knight]

You're right on that, that we're not responsible for what Adam and Eve did. Eventhough we share the nature of him, because God created certain laws of genetics and inheritence.
You're wrong on the issue that Enoch and Eliyah did not die - you're Scripture on this is quite weak. Yeshua said that no one had ascended in heaven and no one descended from there, before himself!
Enoch was simply "taken away", put to the sleep of death so to speak. Eliyah on the other hand was simply transferred to another location - like Philippus after he encountered the Ethiopian, since later the king received a letter from Eliyah.
You should read sir Anthony Buzzard's recent article about the issue.

[Jesus John]

You're right on that, that we're not responsible for what Adam and Eve did. Eventhough we share the nature of him, because God created certain laws of genetics and inheritence.
You're wrong on the issue that Enoch and Eliyah did not die - you're Scripture on this is quite weak. Yeshua said that no one had ascended in heaven and no one descended from there, before himself!
Enoch was simply "taken away", put to the sleep of death so to speak. Eliyah on the other hand was simply transferred to another location - like Philippus after he encountered the Ethiopian, since later the king received a letter from Eliyah.
You should read sir Anthony Buzzard's recent article about the issue.

If my opinion is important I can say that my Islamic knowledges also says that RabbiBarry is right. God knows the best of course, but I know that Enoch and Elijah is still alive by God's floor.

[LeviathanNI]

Jesus John, just because your opinion might not agree with others, it is still important. Important for you to say, important for us to understand, and important for those who disagree to know what it is they disagree with. I for one welcome your contribution, and enjoy reading your posts.

[Danage]

We are responsible for our sins. That much is certain.

However, Trinitarian baptism of babies to wash them of original sin sounds absurd (to me at least), as to say we are responsible for others sins (despite the passage in the Tanakh that says we are responsible for the sins of our fathers, or grandfathers) is contradictory to morality.

You are responsible for your own actions, not the actions of people long since dead. If you are responsible for other's sins then personal morality is useless.

[Archbishop Michael-John]

Rabbi Barry has hit the nail on the head with this quote...
Jesus denies the idea that one can inherit sin sufficiently to harm one from his parents. He got this idea from the Torah where it says:

Exodus 20:5-6: For I, the Lord, your G-d, am a jealous G-d, inflicting punishment for their father's wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Obviously, we are more than four generations away from Adam. Thus we cannot be held guilty for his sin.
Although I would not discount Paul's writings as I believe they are authentic, I have learned that he did not always speak with the authority with which he claimed! He even appears to have doubts about his own apostolicity in 1 Corinthians 9:1-2. I do believe that Paul has shown his misinterpretation of Genesis in Romans Chs 5 and 7.

We cannot be held responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve. I believe that we are all born with the inherent desire to commit sin which is indicated in Genesis chs 2-3, but it is astonishing how the Roman Catholic church has taken this idea and used it to justify the trinity and deify the virgin Mary as the mother of God. They turned her into a perpetual virgin (making it necessary to transform the biblically mentioned brothers and sisters of Jesus into half-siblings or cousins), then using Ezekiel 44:1 to claim that she was a postpartum virgin, then in the 19th century claiming her to be immaculately conceived keeping her from original sin and in the 20th century assumed into heaven as Queen based on the fact that no one knew her place of burial because "she had never died"!

[Jesus John]

"Exodus 20:5-6: For I, the Lord, your G-d, am a jealous G-d, inflicting punishment for their father's wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments"

What is the different to be a person in the fourth generation or to be now? What is the meaning to be a member of them? Why four, is this the limit to be cleaned or not to be responsible? Must be absolutely a different about saying that you are not responsible of Adam and Eve now and been a member of them till the fourth generation? Do you think that this view is Just for our God? In my believe Adam and Eve's children either we are not responsible of the sin.

The An-Najm (The Star) Sura verse 36-42:

36. Nay, is he not acquainted with what is in the Books of Moses-
37. And of Abraham who fulfilled his commandments?-
38. Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another;
39. That man can have nothing but what he strives for;
40. That (the fruit of) his striving will soon come in sight:
41. Then will he be rewarded with a reward complete;
42. That to thy Lord is the final Goal;

The Al-Anaam (The Cattle) Sura verse 164:

164. Say: "Shall I seek for (my) Lord other than God, when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear of burdens can bear the burden of another. Your return in the end is towards God. He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed."

"No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

Love,

Oguzhan

[RabbiBarry]

As a real matter, the acts of ones parents often follow one down several generations. If you do something in a small community, every body remembers it and mentions it to each other. Your children are judged by your acts. As a real matter, many genetic diseases go down several generations. As a real matter it takes four generations for a convert to become a full Jew. Whether it is just or not, it is the way things are. I do not judge the wisdom of the Torah. I have too often observed that my judgement was wrong and that the Torah was right.

[dark_knight]

You just don't listen what I'm trying to tell ya (Except you Rabbi, in last messege seem to grasp my point finally!!!). I do not believe we are personally responsible for ANYTHING Adam and Eve or any of our ancestors did. That would be unjust! But their genetic traits follow us!

Fair or not, how we lead our life can mutate and alter our genetic traits and so affect our children. Do you guys not believe this? Go on and just say how unfair it is, but this is Satan's world, and man's... This is a plane of suffering and an era of misery. Innocent suffer. Jesus came to change this.

I shun the Roman Catholic blasphemies. I reject them utterly. I do not believe small children need absolation because of Original Sin. However they are mortal instead of having eternal, continuous life they could have, ought Adam and Eve not sinned. This is where the Doctrine of Restitution becomes in. It has been foretold by the mouth of literally all the holy prophets, that there will come a time, an Era of Justice and Peace, when God himself will rule the Earth and people will have extended life - even immortality, if they choose. This is a sequel to the chapter of redemption Christ wrote in Golgatha.

[Jesus John]

As a real matter, the acts of ones parents often follow one down several generations. If you do something in a small community, every body remembers it and mentions it to each other. Your children are judged by your acts. As a real matter, many genetic diseases go down several generations. As a real matter it takes four generations for a convert to become a full Jew. Whether it is just or not, it is the way things are. I do not judge the wisdom of the Torah. I have too often observed that my judgement was wrong and that the Torah was right.

I agree some of your opinions such as the effects of the act on several generations. This maybe can but it will not cover all the persons. The persons who can think can see the false and will not follow them. These are not responsible for the guilty. I understand why you wrote fourth generation because this happened in the past to Moses and to the Children of Israel. The Holy Quran gaves information about this event. Moses said to his nation to enter the holy land which God hath assigned to them. They became afraid of some people on the land for this reason reject to enter the land and said to Moses to go with his Lord and fight together for them. After this answer God forbidden to reach the land to them forty years. The years passed and after forty years Moses went there with a young nation of the men who rejected to fight with the enemies. This is a important example for us. Probably The Torah points this event, it is true but the false is that everyone cant be responsible for the guilt.

Here are the verses from the Quran about this story:

The Al-Maida (The table spread) Sura verse 20-26

20. Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favor of God unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
21. "O my people! Enter the holy land which God hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin."
22. They said: "O Moses! In this land are a people of exceeding strength: Never shall we enter it until they leave it: if (once) they leave, then shall we enter."
23. (But) among (their) God-fearing men were two on whom God had bestowed His grace: They said: "Assault them at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on God put your trust if ye have faith."
24. They said: "O Moses! while they remain there, never shall we be able to enter, to the end of time. Go thou, and thy Lord, and fight ye two, while we sit here (and watch)."
25. He said: "O my Lord! I have power only over myself and my brother: so separate us from this rebellious people!"
26. God said: "Therefore will the land be out of their reach for forty years: In distraction will they wander through the land: But sorrow thou not over these rebellious people.

Love,

Oguzhan

[miseretur]

I belive the original sin, and sin is in our flesh what we inherit at adam, when hi was made sin. and adam was our ancestor in flesh. Little baby is born in sin, and the sin isn´t do something it is in our flesh, babys born and they heve illness and lots of diffrent sicness and they have done enything bad, but they dont have to do bad... that is reason they are born in human and human who are birth the child is sinless and incomplete. the ide of original sin is only way how we understand these suffering of worl wide and our bad human nature. But we must thank God our lovely and heavenly father who send his son, and jesus is second adam but without sin.

bible say:Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to everyone, because all have sinned.

Rom 11:32 For God has locked all people in the prison of their own disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ will all be made alive.

I dont know how good bible verse this is in this question but I think it tell us something or not?

1Co 15:47 The first man came from the dust of the earth; the second man came from heaven. And when the earth was polluted it wont grow nothing good or product.
And so, the ground will be under a curse because of what you did.

[RabbiBarry]

Genesis 1:31: And G-d looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.

Those who believe in original sin essentially say that G-d made a mistake. Man is not very good. He is flawed. He is flawed from the beginning because he has free choice. His free choice gave him the ability to discern good from evil and the eventual result of an action.

The difficulty arises from a man, named Paul, who erred. He said that man had original sin. Most of the passages you have cited are Pauline. They are meaningless to me because Nasoreans reject Pauline doctrine. And we cite Scripture to show that the early church had real problems with Paul. 2 Peter 3:15.

Judaism has said continuously that man is created with Yetzer Ha
Ra, an evil impulse. From it, we gain creativity, originality, debate, the ability to look at both sides of an issue, a desire to live. Only later did G-d create in Man, yetzer ha tov, the Good Impulse, which makes us gentle, loving, kind, and obedient to G-d's will. G-d stationed a good angel on our right shoulder and a bad angel on our left shoulder. When our human nature is attuned to G-d and seeks to to His will, then the Good angel gains the upper hand and forces the Bad angel to use the gifts of Yetzer HaRa for the Good. Likewise, when our human nature is attuned to self and seeks to do our will, then the Bad angel gains ascendancy and forces the Good angel to use the gifts of Yetzer hatov for the Bad. Because, our G-d made everything good, both the evil impulse and the good impulse were made by G-d and they are good. All the universe is subject to G-d. We do not perceive a Satan who is equal to G-d. Rather we perceive a Satan who is just one of seven archangels, subject to G-d's will.

bible say:Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Obviously, the answer is yes. Enoch and Elijah were clean. Yeshua died. Apparently, if we believe your doctrine that the wages of sin are death, Yeshua is bad.

[Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

The passage is about David only. No one knows why he thinks he was brought forth in inquity. But it is not others he speaks of.

[Jesus John]

Dear RabbiBarry,

We are close again in our believes. I had not any idea about Yetzer Ha Ra and Yetzer Ha Tov. I will search this in our Islamic knowledge, this is a new thing for me. I agree you with your words about the two angels in our shoulders. But the difference is that in our believe no one of them are bad. Because an angel cant be bad from his creaturing point. The angel which sits on the left shoulder writes the sins, the right one writes the good works in his book. This is a reason for the Judgement Day because no one will say "O my Lord I didnt this" because they are choosing everything with their free will and this is the real fact why we are living in earth. I knew that Angels can force the Satan from God's lovely servants if God will. But I can sadly say that most of the humans are living with Satan and his troop.

I hope from my Almighty God to forgive us and to take us to his Heaven (Amen)

Love,

Oguzhan

[David Kone]

I believe that it would be constructive to examine what the concept of sin meant to the ancients. Our interpretation of that word is highly biased by our living in a shame based society. Sin and shame may not be directly linked. If a priest accidentally looked upon a dead body he became unclean and had to do prescribed things to remove that sin. Jesus must have incurred such sin in his life. When he was baptized that level of sin was removed exposing the sinless man underneath who then fully received the Holy Spirit. We received our humanness from Adam. Being human is not shameful it is just somewhat less by heavenly standards. My humanness is both a curse, which I struggle to improve upon, and a great blessing, for which I thank God always, but it is not shameful in anyway unless I choose to squander my inheritance from Adam.

[dark_knight]

Dear Rabbi

Genesis 1:31: And G-d looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.

Those who believe in original sin essentially say that G-d made a mistake. Man is not very good. He is flawed. He is flawed from the beginning because he has free choice. His free choice gave him the ability to discern good from evil and the eventual result of an action.

I do not believe God has ever done mistakes. It was a gift, the Freedom of Choise, which came a curse because misused. Of course omniscient God may have known this (I say may, because maybe he doesn't want to know everything sometimes?), but despite evil, he gave us good. The Word, in flesh.

The difficulty arises from a man, named Paul, who erred. He said that man had original sin. Most of the passages you have cited are Pauline. They are meaningless to me because Nasoreans reject Pauline doctrine. And we cite Scripture to show that the early church had real problems with Paul. 2 Peter 3:15.

I find it very diffucult to have a sound doctrine, if I'm ought to discard some portitions of the written Word, laid down to us as they are. The Canon many ante-nicean fathers gave us and which according to the Scriptures' own testimony are indeed Scripture.

Judaism has said continuously that man is created with Yetzer Ha
Ra, an evil impulse.

This brings us bit more near to each other.

All the universe is subject to G-d. We do not perceive a Satan who is equal to G-d. Rather we perceive a Satan who is just one of seven archangels, subject to G-d's will.

I do not believe Satan is equal with God. I believe he may have been and probably were an Archangel, but now he is a Prince of Lies and Deceit. Enemy of the faithful and of Christ.

Obviously, the answer is yes. Enoch and Elijah were clean. Yeshua died. Apparently, if we believe your doctrine that the wages of sin are death, Yeshua is bad.

You misundertand or misrepresent our faith. Please Rabbi, you're intelligent man, you cannot misunderstand it - show little more patience and respect for us! Yeshua was THE ONLY PERFECT MAN WHO REMAINED PERFECT. He died willingly, he was in a figure of speech; made sin for our sake. He took the wages of sin in our behalf. He was an innocent sacrifice.

The passage is about David only. No one knows why he thinks he was brought forth in inquity. But it is not others he speaks of.

[dark_knight]

I believe that it would be constructive to examine what the concept of sin meant to the ancients. Our interpretation of that word is highly biased by our living in a shame based society. Sin and shame may not be directly linked. If a priest accidentally looked upon a dead body he became unclean and had to do prescribed things to remove that sin. Jesus must have incurred such sin in his life. When he was baptized that level of sin was removed exposing the sinless man underneath who then fully received the Holy Spirit. We received our humanness from Adam. Being human is not shameful it is just somewhat less by heavenly standards. My humanness is both a curse, which I struggle to improve upon, and a great blessing, for which I thank God always, but it is not shameful in anyway unless I choose to squander my inheritance from Adam.

David, I believe it is not shameful to be born a human. It isn't our fault what Adam and Eve did - it just has consequenses that affect us. If I commit a murder and go inside, it isn't my son's fault, but he'll suffer for it anyway.

As the Rabbi said, we have "the evil inside" - thus it is inevitable that during our life we WILL commit shameful acts, all of us. But because God is so perfect in Love and Mercy, and we have Jesus as our mediator, we can lead a life without unhealthy shame and guiltiness.


All,
I sincerely hope you people could grasp our intensions and sincere belief in the way we are trying to represent it - not by making assumations and between-the-lines labelling us idiots and heretics.

-Henrik

[Archbishop Michael-John]

The difficulty arises from a man, named Paul, who erred. He said that man had original sin. Most of the passages you have cited are Pauline. They are meaningless to me because Nasoreans reject Pauline doctrine. And we cite Scripture to show that the early church had real problems with Paul. 2 Peter 3:15.

It's interesting to note that the next verse turns verse 15 on its head...
<SUP>15</SUP> and consider that <SUP></SUP>the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, <SUP>16</SUP> as also in all his <SUP></SUP>epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the <SUP></SUP>rest of the Scriptures.
Note that at the end of verse 16 Peter equates the letters of Paul with the rest of the Scriptures, indicating that Peter considered the apostle Paul's writings to be the Word of God.

Peter says in reference to Paul's epistles that some people who are untaught and unstable destroy themselves. "Untaught" refers to one whose mind is untrained and undisciplined, while "unstable" refers to one whose conduct is not properly established on the truths of God's Word.

In my view both statements seem to pull in different directions, Peter appears to be being critical of Paul's epistles then suddenly accepts them at the end of the sentence. >:-O

[David Kone]

All,
I sincerely hope you people could grasp our intensions and sincere belief in the way we are trying to represent it - not by making assumations and between-the-lines labelling us idiots and heretics.

-Henrik

Please believe that we are bringing these things to debate in the spirit of love and honor. By each of us standing to our ground we are helping to illustrate the complex nature that exist between personal beliefs, long established doctrines and the open examination of the truth through the perspectives of modern scholarship. To many of us the evidence supports the notion that those scriptures left to us as the second testament have been selectively arranged, subtracted from and added to. Concepts such as the manner of salvation are likely to be widely debated for some time. You are respected for standing up for your beliefs; in this cause we are assembled.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (NKJV)
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
.
”according to the wisdom given to him” is the operant phrase. Some say that Paul and many others were given only part of the inner teachings of Jesus on purpose. In any case Peter is very wise in noting that we are to be judged by what we were given.

[RabbiBarry]

[QUOTE=dark_knight;865]Dear Rabbi[/QUOT

You will have to define for me what you mean by "our faith". His Grace the Archbishop has spoken on the subject and he seems to agree with me.

[dark_knight]

I referred to the faith I share with bro.Miseretur.

[RabbiBarry]

I referred to the faith I share with bro.Miseretur.

Thank you for clarifying that fact. I started this particular thread to discover the commitment of this church to the ideals and theology of the ancient Jerusalem Church. It has been instructive. I especially thank you Henrik, David and his Grace for their participation. I trust there will be no conversions to ACC from Jewish or Muslim quarters after this thread.

[Danage]

"I trust there will be no conversions to ACC from Jewish or Muslim quarters after this thread"

So the doctrine is for original sin, or not? From what I have read, it doesn't seem very clear either way. I think that Judaism and Islam say 'no' to original sin (am I right Rabbi Barry?), so the Arian Catholic Church say 'yes' to original sin.

[RabbiBarry]

It's interesting to note that the next verse turns verse 15 on its head...

Note that at the end of verse 16 Peter equates the letters of Paul with the rest of the Scriptures, indicating that Peter considered the apostle Paul's writings to be the Word of God.

Your Grace: I know of no scholars who would agree that Pauline letters were considered scripture by the time of the writing of 2nd Peter in circa 110. I think that the letter clearly refers to the difficulties people have understanding Paul's questionable theology which meanders from orthodox to gnostic to Pharisee and back to orthodox through many of his writings.

Peter says in reference to Paul's epistles that some people who are untaught and unstable destroy themselves. "Untaught" refers to one whose mind is untrained and undisciplined,

Again I would disagree with you. Untaught means not schooled with a rabbinical teacher or in a philosophical school. He says this because he knew that Paul was trained in a rabbinical school under the great Rabban Gamaliel. But those who read him cannot participate in his nuances because they have not the eduction and therefore take what he says literally when it was meant to be filled with metaphor and simile.

while "unstable" refers to one whose conduct is not properly established on the truths of God's Word.

Again I think you miss the point, Your Grace. Unstable is a condition inherent in a charismatic milieu when those speaking on the authority of the Holy Spirit seem to want to change the revealed word to meet their own opinions. That is the charge that was leveled against Paul. That is the charge that stuck.

In my view both statements seem to pull in different directions, Peter appears to be being critical of Paul's epistles then suddenly accepts them at the end of the sentence. >:-O

Your Grace is surely aware that tradition says that Peter died in 64 CE and that the letter called 2nd Peter was written no earlier than 100 CE. By that time, the church had had much time to consider Pauline writings and their dangers. There is no indication that Paul's writings were ever taken seriously by the Apostles themselves.

[LeviathanNI]

I personally don't believe in the concept of 'Original Sin'. I find it ridiculous that God, having created us, would make us all suffer. I also find it hard to take at face (literal) value writings that we know to have been adulterated to suit the Theo politico times of the era.

I have a relationship with God, I talk and worship Him. I read and study the works and writtings of those who I consider to be enlightened, teachers and guides.

Rebbe, if anything I would suggest that this thread serves to prove that, at this moment and time, there are very different views on what Arianism actually is, what its central core is. Some of us are looking and searching, with the idea of learning, finding and re enforcing what we believe to be true in the depths of our hearts. Others are steadfast and sure that what they believe to be true, is the truth, regardless.

I have to presume that the one overriding thing, that is beyond dispute, is the inherent weakness in us all, that we are human.

[RabbiBarry]

Dan asked whether everything is centered on original sin:

My response is that yes, it does. Why because the Doctrine of Original Sin is the first nail in the cross that separates Paulinism from the Jerusalem Church, IMHO. The Jerusalem Church was staunchly Torah-observant. Acts 21:20. The Jerusalem Church still participated in the Temple sacrifices. See Acts 21:23-26 where Paul participated in the paying of the vows of nazirites and gave the proper offering (sacrifice). Jewish belief is that the sacrifices in the Temple forgave sin. But Paul says that Jesus death forgave sin and that no amount of sacrifices of animals can forgive sin. The doctrine of original sin, which Paul held so dear, says that only the perfect sacrifice can remove sin and that Jesus did that once and for all and no other sacrifices are necessary. The Jerusalem church disagreed as do the Nasoreans. The sacrifice has changed but not been abolished.

Judaism refuses to believe that mankind is responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve. They are responsible for their own sins. The Archbishop said:

[QUOTE=Archbishop;826]Rabbi Barry has hit the nail on the head with this quote...

We cannot be held responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve. I believe that we are all born with the inherent desire to commit sin which is indicated in Genesis chs 2-3,

This position is consistent with Nasorean positions. Yet the Archbishop has not spoken clearly enough to reaffirm that there is no original sin. It is on this doctrine that is so important for evangelicals and others that we see the basic split. Every other unacceptable doctrine arises from this doctrine.

[Jesus John]

Judaism refuses to believe that mankind is responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve. They are responsible for their own sins.

We cannot be held responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve. I believe that we are all born with the inherent desire to commit sin which is indicated in Genesis chs 2-3

This is also the stand of Islam. Adam and Eve's (Peace be upon him) event with Satan is a example for us to be careful and not to be seduced by Satan. Because if he can seduce them he can also seduce us. Of course we have a inherit desire to commit sin this is true. The examine point begans from this. If a person will fight with his inherit desire (Sinful nature) he will find God in the end. Most of the sin becomes from following and obeying our wills of our sinful nature. "Knowing sinful nature knows God" says Muhammad (Peace be upon him) Our life in earth is a fight between our Soul and sinful nature. Satan most of all uses our sinful nature to seduce us.

In our believe there isnt a original sin and every human is responsible from his own sins.

I wish from God to improve us (Amen)

Love,

Oguzhan

[dark_knight]

Take heed, so you don't misunderstand me: You people keep saying that you reject this doctrine because we can't be responsible for Adam and Eve - I agree that we are not responsible for it, but you keep unnoticing it.

If we are to define the term "Original sin" as something that would make me responsible for the sins of my ancestors, than I say: No, I don't believe in that kind of a doctrine.

Most of you agree that there is 'inherent desire to commit sin' in us.
There we are in agreement.
-> I see that this desire came to be activated inside human soul once Adam and Eve commited the first sin.

We are not responsible for that since, though our mortal nature is due to that fact, since death entered the world because of sin.

Dear all,
I see this doctrine central to the doctrine of Salvation and Atonement. Even though you'd utterly reject the original sin, you still will have to come up with your own personal sins.

This issue may be a stumbling block for you (all of you) and me, which will utterly destroy all mutual agreement and fellowship.

[Danage]

"personally don't believe in the concept of 'Original Sin'. I find it ridiculous that God, having created us, would make us all suffer"

Agreed. Original sin makes little sense. I don't agree with it. You are responsible only for your own sins, not those of others. If we are responsible for other people's sins, then it defeats the whole idea of eternal reward, eternal punishment and morality.

Thank you Rabbi Barry for making clear the position of original sin in other churches.

[Danage]

However, we are all mortal, and we all stray from good and G-d's commandments and laws, but I say original sin makes no sense. However, reward and punishment for one's actions do. The 'original sin' doctrine was something the Roman Catholic Church came up with as another way to control the masses.

This would have been an interesting subject to debate in Christian Ethics in A-Level Phoilosophy and Ethics. I wish I'd thought of that now. I could have debated with a load of Christians about the original sin concept, although we usually debated G-d in that bit of the subject.