Gamera

Your assuming that the phrase "return to dust," is intended literally. Given the context of the highly poetic nature of Genesis, given the ambiguities of the terms in the text, where death and life mean something other than physical death and life, and given the contradictions in the narrative (they didn't die physically that very day), something else is up. What it is is probably irretrievable. But whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be a doctrine about original sin.

This is further suggested that no author in all the texts that follow Genesis in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, even mention such a doctrine.

The fact that he's using symbology (and I agree he is) suggests he too is not talking about some simple doctrine where original sin = death. Paul's terminology is very subtle and complex -- body, flesh, death, life, all have meanings that don't correspond exactly to how we use them in everyday speech (or how a Greek speaker would at the time). A good case can be made that Paul has no interest in theology per se, but only in guiding the nascent church in applying this new veiw of life to the social conditions of the time. Paul's epistles are guides, not theological tracks. And of course he never mentions original sin, or the trinity, or any of the later theological apparatus of mediaeval christianity.


Traceable as a misinterpretation of prior unrelated themes, maybe. Traceable as an idea, no.

Solo

Lot of what I say is 'nonsense' in other people's experience. And vice versa. But one thing, for all the 'nonsense' that I seem to be saying, I never said, nor do I think ,that Jews, apart from a small apocalyptic sect at the break of the ages, believed the 'original sin' or 'first sin' is something that needs fixing.

Jiri

Gamera

[QUOTE=greyline;3697546]This is a highly ambiguous statement you need to examine and explain. As is, it's almost unintelligible. Are you saying God lied and then revealed his lies in Genesis. Or that the author of Genesis discerned God's lies and wrote them down to expose them. Or that the author didn't notice the lies of God but foolishly didn't edit them out.

We agree on this part. Though I don't think Paul is refering to original sin, but something less simplistic, and ultimately not for the purpose of theology per se but rather merely to offer some guidelines for early Christians to apply their new faith to the social conditions of the time.

Solo

Are you saying then that Paul misinterpreted (and since he preached to Gentiles, mirepresented) the existential Sitz im Leben as portrayed by the Genesis story of the Fall ?

Jiri

greyline

God said they'd die that day, and they didn't die. That was a lie. I don't know the motivation of the writer as to why he didn't fix that lie, but given similar inconsistencies all over the OT, it might be that the writer didn't have a problem with the lie. For the writer, A&E dying "eventually" was as good as dying "this day" and the discrepancy (or God changing his mind/showing mercy) didn't bother him.


Agreed - Paul says something kinda vague that the early church could latch onto, while the OT is even more vague and needs to be interpreted outside of a Jewish context in order to use it as a basis for their doctrine of Original Sin.

Which begs the question: if Original Sin, eternal damnation and salvation via the sacrifice of a perfect man was such a big deal in God's plan, why didn't the Jews or Jesus know about it?

greyline

If Matthew can miscount something as simple as an ass, it's not such a stretch that Paul might misinterpret the Hebrew scriptures.

Gamera

It's a lie if he meant physical death. The simple alternative is that "die" didn't mean physical death, which accords with the highly figurative narration in Genesis.

According to Paul, the Jews did, since faith in God's transformative power is the essence of the gospel, which Paul discerns in the Hebrew scriptures.

The subsequent discourse about it in various epistles is a way of talkling about it to the audience of his time in the conditions they faced. It is intended not to impart theological truths, but rather to provide guidance to people who already have faith and are not sure how to apply it in their lives. So Paul struggles and tries to give them a language to guide them.

If you look at Paul's actual preaching to nonChristians, it's utterly different (assuming we can take Acts as accurate) and doesn't even hint at theology but is focussed on transformation of the self

Sgent29

The "liberal wing of contemporary Judaism" is the modern orthodox? At least pretend to learn the religious history that you spout off.

There are two branches of normative/historical Judaism -- Modern Orthdox Askanazi & Sephardic Traditions (aka Rabbinical aka Pharasee), and Saddacee (limited to a few thousand). All other Jewish traditions (Chassidic, Reform, Conservative, etc) are repudations of these in some manner -- and are all less than 300 years old.

So when you quote a Chasidic source which doesn't support your point anyway -- it is reasonable to conclude that it doesn't represent historical or modern Judaism in the abscense of evidence to the contrary.

The concept of Original Sin was an invention of St. Augustine. That's fine, and its certainly every bit as valid as the Jewish belief in Noah's Ark, but it is a uniquely Christian belief.

Gamera

Not Paul. He got it right. Subsequent mediaeval clerics wandered into theology and doctrine. A close reading of Paul finds a complete dearth of interest in such topics. He struggles for a way to teach christians how to apply faith in their lifes. He is utterly disinterested in doctrine per se. He even says so, more or less.

1 Timothy 6:4
He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions

2 Timothy 2:14
Warn them before God against quarrelling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

People who discern a preoccupation with theology in Paul are reading him through the lens of mediaeval schoolmen, and not engaging the text directly.

Anat

Actually neither Adam nor Eve were cursed. The snake was cursed, and the earth was cursed, but the latter curse was removed when Noah was born.