Magus55

Actually, Original sin is in the OT. It isn't purely NT, although thats where its concentrated since thats part of what Jesus died for.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

There is another verse on original sin, I think in Isaiah but can't think of the passage off the top of my head.

Bernard Muller

Do not take me wrong. I never said HJ preached what you said. I just meant, than in early Christianity (when the NT was composed, one text by one), the idea was around very early, even if not accepted by all.
Yes 'Hebrews' is not by Paul, nor 1Peter by Peter, but the epistles just represent views on the subject during the NT era.

What I tried to say, we do not have to wait for Augustine to read about that concept.

Best regards, Bernard

Doctor X

Magnus55:

That passage does not support original sin. It merely makes a general observation about men.

I suppose it is better than wiping them out for being "noisy."

--J.D.

Doctor X

Bernard:

Ah! I pulled the Augustine from the same orifice . . . at least the Hebrews complaint was correct. . . .

I recalled being taught that the "formed" concept of Original Sin [™--Ed.] came from Augustine . . . of course if you can point to, say, Heirocanious the Flatulent's writings of 110 CE that would be earlier!!

As for early Christianity . . . I remain unconvinced that Mt and the rest at that stage believed the "he died for our sins" as in Original Sin. It DID become an apology . . . to give a "point" to the highfalootin kerygma, but I do not think it was universally accepted . . . or widely accepted . . . by the time of the Synoptics.

However, I am more than happy to sit corrected . . . I hope this damn reference I ordered discusses the matter!

--J.D.

Bernard Muller

That's not even close! You have to be very imaginative to see the original sin here (and its cancellation by the "sacrifice" of a Christ in the future).

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Right on J.D.
On an earlier post, I said the idea of Jesus dying for the original sin came AFTER the NT was written. Early Christians were led to believe Jesus died for ALL their sins (at least the ones they accumulated before being converted/baptized).
However I said there was an obscure passage in Paul's epistle which likely was used to justify the later belief:
Romans 5:12-19 Darby
"12 For this [cause], even as **by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death**; and thus **death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned**:
13 (for until law sin was in [the] world; but sin is not put to account when there is no law;
14 but death reigned from **Adam** until Moses, even upon those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is [the] figure of him to come.
15 But [shall] not the act of favour [be] as the offence? For **if by the offence of one the many have died, much rather has the grace of God, and the free gift in grace, which [is] by the **one man Jesus Christ**, abounded unto the many.**
16 And [shall] not as by one that has sinned [be] the gift? For the judgment [was] of one to condemnation, but the act of favour, of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by the offence of the one death reigned by the one, much rather shall those who receive the abundance of grace, and of the free gift of righteousness, reign in life by the one Jesus Christ
18 so then as [it was] by one offence towards all men to condemnation, so by one righteousness towards all men for justification of life.
19 **For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous.**"

So the original sin comes from Paul, not Jesus.

PS: I noticed "one man Jesus christ", another argument against mythicist!
I do not know how the smily get in here

Best regards, Bernard

Doctor X

How did the smiley get there?

Could it be. . .

. . . SATAN!!?

I must confess I am a bit "antimythist" since I shy away from opinions I would "like" to be correct--proving even Junior was a myth, since Paul mentions his brother, and EVEN IF a "Historical Junior" existed it does not make all of the myth true. It is a bit like finding out that Arguwalder of the Iron Dick--second assistant skull crusher of Hllwqwerthog the Rampant--inspired the first "Arthur" story! It does not make hunting the lakes of Swansea for Excalibur any more useful!

--J.D.

Soul Invictus

Thanks for that passage Bernard. I'm comparing Paul's message to Jesus'. Now if I can only remember where Jesus rebuked Paul for his message...

Soul Invictus

Please let me know once you get that source. I want to look into that issue as well.

Doctor X

I do not think Junior ever rebukes Paul/Saul . . . unless you believe the Damascus incident that takes place after his decomposition in Acts. . . .

Certainly, Paul never claims to have met Junior . . . he even sort of boasts that his knowledge is better for having never met him. . . .

I really should stop posting away from my sources . . . danger of blathering incoherently [Nothing new.--Ed.]

--J.D.