Adam = all Men's nature becomes sinful; Jesus =/= all Men become sinless?

[Villager]

Anywhere Jesus pays for someone else's sin.

I'm asking, where does the Bible teach 'original sin'?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm asking, where does the Bible teach 'original sin'?

Romans 5 is where it's framed more or less formally and defined as a curse, but Paul is speaking of Genesis [where it is also referred to as a curse, by God himself].

Now that I've answered your challenge with your own scripture, what of it?

Unless your 'out' is that the phrase 'original sin' isn't used in the Hebrew? Are we going for semantics?

Now, since I have met yours, it's time for you to meet my previous request that you define Original Sin in a way which allows it to escape the description I placed on it, in that other post.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why do we need to heed this man's declaration in any way?

who said 'we" do? I was just putting forth another viewpoint. Don't read so much into things.

His statement is observably wrong.

Who are you trying to convince? I don't believe in jesus at all, nor do I believe in this Jose Luis yahoo.

The op seemed to want to know why if inheritance of Adam's sin is unconditional, the act that supposedly atones for Adam's sin is conditional.

And I remembered that this guy says that it's not conditional.

No need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

who said 'we" do? I was just putting forth another viewpoint. Don't read so much into things.


Who are you trying to convince? I don't believe in jesus at all, nor do I believe in this Jose Luis yahoo.

The op seemed to want to know why if inheritance of Adam's sin is unconditional, the act that supposedly atones for Adam's sin is conditional.

And I remembered that this guy says that it's not conditional.

No need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

All right, fair enough. It's just that since you put forth this person's viewpoint as an answer, it follows you were promoting said viewpoint.

 

[Villager]

Romans 5 is where it's framed more or less formally

No, it's described figuratively.

and defined as a curse, but Paul is speaking of Genesis

Which is obvious allegory.

Ask, don't tell.

 

[Poisonshady313]

it follows you were promoting said viewpoint.

No, it doesn't. That might be your personal justification for jumping to conclusions, but I could be playing devil's advocate (which doesn't require one to promote the view that is put forth) or I could be making known the existence of a viewpoint without promoting or defending it (which is what I was doing)

I don't know if there are any mainstream sects that have similar views, or if it's unique to Creciendo en Gracia.

So if the OP thought that there aren't any people who call themselves Christians that believe jesus' death unconditionally did away with original sin, I provided an example I know of one group that does.

It does NOT follow that I must support or promote that group or their beliefs just because I mention their existence relative to the topic at hand.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, it's described figuratively.

Which is obvious allegory.

It's there, nonetheless. So, your part, then?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, it doesn't.

All right then. Thank you for playing devil's advocate. An interesting and odd citation.

So if the OP thought that there aren't any people who call themselves Christians that believe jesus' death unconditionally did away with original sin, I provided an example I know of one group that does.

That wasn't what my OP was about, though. I have been clear, having to repeat this several times. In this case, the person whose words you quote, did not demonstrate that sin was removed; we still sin. He was simply making a comment, non sequitur, about being forgiven of the sins one commits.

 

[Villager]

It's there

As figure, yes. Keep looking.

 

[Poisonshady313]

That wasn't what my OP was about, though. I have been clear, having to repeat this several times. In this case, the person whose words you quote, did not demonstrate that sin was removed; we still sin. He was simply making a comment, non sequitur, about being forgiven of the sins one commits.

I think these people actually believe that sin was removed.

More from the website:
PROOF THAT THERE IS NO SIN – (YOU ARE NOT A SINNER)
With the death of Jesus, we were saved and perfected once and forever (Hebrews 10:14).** The Lamb sacrificed itself to remove sin (Hebrews 9:26). *Christ placed you dead to sin (Romans 6:2), therefore you cannot live in sin.* The law of the Spirit of your life in Christ freed you from sin and from death (Romans 8:2).* Christ put an end to the law, and without it sin is dead (Romans 10:4, Romans 7:8).* If he removed sin, you cannot be called a sinner.

PROOF THAT THE DEVIL DOES NOT EXIT – (IT WAS DESTROYED FOREVER)
God entered a body named Jesus of Nazareth to destroy the devil with his death (Heb 2:14). Therefore, a child of God is one spirit with him, therefore cannot be possessed by something that was destroyed over two thousand years ago.* Evil doings are the works of the flesh, which is the enemy with whom we battle.* For this reason, the Word of God (the Gospel of Uncircumcision) is there, to battle the desires of the flesh and to battle against the ignorance of 2000 years of religious lies.*

 

[krsnaraja]

Why is it that the coming of Jesus did not undo the error of Adam? Original Sin is not a choice by any means; why is forgiveness for that sin a choice? Why did Jesus' actions not cleanse us wholly from Adam's error?

Christ Jesus undid what Adam did when the former received circumcision. Adam was not circumcised. The original Sin came to being when Adam broke Eve`s hymen-the most sacred part of Eve`s genitalia. It was through circumcision Christ Jesus cleansed Adam`s original Sin. That is why the Catholic Church advises her Catholic virgins to marry 1st before cohabiting with a man preferably a Catholic himself.

 

[James Humphreys]

This question arose after I viewed a comment from a Christian friend on another venue.

Adam's action definitively changed the very nature of all humans. Even though all subsequent people did not commit the action he did, we were nonetheless infused, in essence, with sin. If the tale is taken to its logical conclusion we can view it as an actual physical change to reality, wherein mankind's nature became inherently sinful.

Then, Jesus arrives. And although some dogmatists claim that his sacrifice at the end, took away all sin, or forgives all sins, or however one wants to frame it - the appearance of this second [in the view of some who saw Adam as initially being created perfect] perfect being on Earth does NOT change the inherent nature of Man. In this case it becomes choice; or perhaps in some views, divine grace/choice.

It is positional, and not inherent. Subsequent humans are not then born sinless once again. Original Sin stains every one, up to and through Jesus' appearance. Why did this condition not change back to the way God first created Man?

Why is it that the coming of Jesus did not undo the error of Adam? Original Sin is not a choice by any means; why is forgiveness for that sin a choice? Why did Jesus' actions not cleanse us wholly from Adam's error?

Jesus' sacrifice and victory 2000 years ago brought us spiritual rebirth, but not physical rebirth, IMO. Christians can enter the realm of God's grace spiritually, but the tendency to sin is still alive in the physical body. And Christians, no matter how devout, do pass on the original sin to their children. The implication of scripture though is that at end, after Christ returns, that the purification of our hearts and actions will be complete. There will be no more trace of sin. God would be a failure in a sense if he was unable to fully realize his original purpose of a world of goodness without sin.

It's true we have no choice about being born with original sin. But I think an essential element of being human is personal responsibility. Adam and Eve having a responsibility to accomplish ("do not eat the fruit") set them apart from other living things. I think the pattern is the same for fallen people. We have a responsibility to believe and act on that belief, and then we can receive God's grace and love.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

As figure, yes. Keep looking.

I've already looked. My point is proven, now, refute it intelligently, or concede. Pretending to be cryptically wise isn't working for you.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Christ Jesus undid what Adam did when the former received circumcision. Adam was not circumcised. The original Sin came to being when Adam broke Eve`s hymen-the most sacred part of Eve`s genitalia. It was through circumcision Christ Jesus cleansed Adam`s original Sin. That is why the Catholic Church advises her Catholic virgins to marry 1st before cohabiting with a man preferably a Catholic himself.

Never heard this before. And, AGAIN, it fails to address my actual question. The only possible connection to my question, is are you stating that jesus came to remove Adam's Original Sin, and nobody else's? Great for Adam, i guess, but we are all still screwed by Adam's mistake. I am concerned about all the rest of us.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Jesus' sacrifice

It wasn't a victory since sin remains. I have already clearly stated the question; your response does not answer it. Please try.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm sorry gang but at this point I believe it's simply pathologically impossible for the responding Christians to actually address my question. Perhaps the implications are simply too dreadful to contemplate, and a kind of mystical intellectual disconnect occurs; it's like being invisible in a room of people because they refuse to look at you, or something. I am amazed at how long this cognitive dissonance can continue. Frankly and honestly amazed.

 

[krsnaraja]

Never heard this before. And, AGAIN, it fails to address my actual question. The only possible connection to my question, is are you stating that jesus came to remove Adam's Original Sin, and nobody else's? Great for Adam, i guess, but we are all still screwed by Adam's mistake. I am concerned about all the rest of us.

Have you read in the Bible Christ Jesus genealogy? If you go up, it starts with Adam & if you go down, it ends with Christ Jesus.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Have you read in the Bible Christ Jesus genealogy? If you go up, it starts with Adam & if you go down, it ends with Christ Jesus.

Yes, I have. I've read it all, several times. Of what matter is Jesus' genealogy to the issue? Adam being saved or not, does not help us, who have been and continue to be born with sin.
Also, someone on a previous page here, said something which made me comment that Adam and Jesus were not of the same flesh. Do you disagree with that?

 

[krsnaraja]

Yes, I have. I've read it all, several times. Of what matter is Jesus' genealogy to the issue? Adam being saved or not, does not help us, who have been and continue to be born with sin.
Also, someone on a previous page here, said something which made me comment that Adam and Jesus were not of the same flesh. Do you disagree with that?

Christ Jesus is the fallen Adam & who was raised from the dead for obeying finally what God has commanded. Who says Catholics do not believe in reincarnation?

 

[Villager]

I've already looked.

So all you have is a passage that you admit is figurative.

What you ought to have done is apologised and got the thread closed.

If the assault on Christianity has to be launched from a base of fundamentalism and misrepresentation, Christianity must be a winner.