No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

[crystalonyx]

Stories)......none of it should be taken literal. people.

True about the Xian bible in general.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think it germane to point out here, that many of us do not believe that the first sin resulted in the introduction of physical death. To me it is obvious that the death referred to was a spiritual death: they were separated from God. Being separated from God is far, far worse than any physical death.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

True about the Xian bible in general.

And I'm interested as to why it shouldn't be taken as a literal story. The only reason I can think of is it may possibly go against scientific data that shows that the earth and humans have been here longer than what the bible says so some people and even theologians are now saying...."NO...Adam and Eve weren't literal but an example." "Adam shouldn't be viewed as an individual ...but a community." "The sin that is spoken of is not some single event that has happen." "Original Sin is not the first sin." These are some of the things we are told. Maybe theist are trying to make bible stories fit into a world that seem to contradict its teachings of Adam being the first man.

One thing you will notice is that the theologians of old thought Adam to be a real physical man. Not an archetype, not a community and not a metaphor. The very word (Original) means exactly what we assume it means. It means the "first" of something that was not derived from anything else.

(Copied from what Scott1 posted)
Theophilus of Antioch
"For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death" (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]).'

Irenaeus
"But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]" (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).'
"Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning" (ibid., 5:16:3.)

Tertullian
"On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation" (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200]).
"'Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection' [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word 'man,' who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ" (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212]).


Well,..... where would they be getting the idea that Adam was a real person? I think they would be getting it straight from the people around them at the time and a lot of this teaching stemmed from the the teachings of Paul.

Rom. 5:12 and 5:19
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"


1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul.......

For people to constantly say that;

Sourjourner
"What we call "original sin" is not a single event at a single point in time, committed by a single person. Rather, its the propensity for human beings to blur the distinction between humanity and Divinity. That's all it is. That theological stance is imparted to us through metaphor and narrative."


is strikingly different from what we find in history or even in the bible. If Adam is to be viewed as a literal and physical person then I can understand why people adopt this concept but if the man didn't exist and is only a metaphor then there is no such thing as original sin. This concept is clearly taught from the position that Adam was literal and his act left a mark of sin upon all humanity.

 

[Dunemeister]

For people to constantly say that;

Sourjourner
"What we call "original sin" is not a single event at a single point in time, committed by a single person. Rather, its the propensity for human beings to blur the distinction between humanity and Divinity. That's all it is. That theological stance is imparted to us through metaphor and narrative."


is strikingly different from what we find in history or even in the bible. If Adam is to be viewed as a literal and physical person then I can understand why people adopt this concept but if the man didn't exist and is only a metaphor then there is no such thing as original sin. This concept is clearly taught from the position that Adam was literal and his act left a mark of sin upon all humanity.

Sojourner's bang on. I have already answered this criticism, but I'll do so again. I've already acknowledged previously that the bible conceives of Adam as a literal first human being. In light of what we've learned from science, Christians have been forced to re-examine how the bible presents truth. From that perspective, it's obvious that the first 11 chapters of Genesis can't be a straightforward, literal journalistic account of our origins. As we've examined it more closely, we've discovered that yes, the account has poetic features similar to other ancient sagas that we already take in a nonliteral way. So perhaps that's the best way forward.

So, taking that way forward, does the doctrine of original sin stand? Yes, it does, and in exactly the sort of way sojourner and I have been explicating. For emphasis:

(1) "Original sin" does not teach about the first sin.

(2) "Original sin" denotes the deplorable condition all humans are born into in which they have a propensity for sin, individual acts of unrighteousness.

(3) The third chapter of Genesis tells us, by means of mythic saga, that humankind is separated from communion with God as a result of humankind's wilfull rebellion against God. That rebellion takes the form of a desire to be like God, knowing all things. If this is the first sin, IT'S NOT WHAT THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS ABOUT (See (1)). If we take it as symbolic of the human condition presently experienced, it fits nicely.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sojourner's bang on.

His comment seemed to be at odds with the writing of the theologians back in the day. His comment seems to be at odds with what your Paul said.

I've already acknowledged previously that the bible conceives of Adam as a literal first human being. In light of what we've learned from science, Christians have been forced to re-examine how the bible presents truth.

So the ideology had to change because of new discovery? Adam, who was thought to be literal is now considered a myth?

From that perspective, it's obvious that the first 11 chapters of Genesis can't be a straightforward, literal journalistic account of our origins.

Well I'm aware of that fact. No matter how it's interpreted today, "Original Sin" centered around the action of Adam and Even. Just a cursory search online reveals that still to be the case.

As we've examined it more closely, we've discovered that yes, the account has poetic features similar to other ancient sagas that we already take in a nonliteral way. So perhaps that's the best way forward.

Then it's not just Adam and Eve, it's the rest of the stories that follow as well. All of the events came after Adam and Eve actually credit their existence to them (genealogy). If Adam and Even were a mythic saga then the rest of it forward is as well. Since Luke says Yeshua is of the bloodline of Adam can we then assume the stories surrounding Yeshua and even Yeshua himself is to be viewed as myth? If you say NO... the why not?

 

[Smoke]

Then it's not just Adam and Eve, it's the rest of the stories that follow as well. All of the events came after Adam and Eve actually credit their existence to them (genealogy). If Adam and Even were a mythic saga then the rest of it forward is as well. Since Luke says Yeshua is of the bloodline of Adam can we then assume the stories surrounding Yeshua and even Yeshua himself is to be viewed as myth? If you say NO... the why not?

For the same reason we don't think Alfred the Great is a myth just because chroniclers traced his ancestry back to Noah -- or Odin, or both, depending on the chronicler.

I think we're safe in saying that nothing before Abraham is historical, and personally, I doubt that the patriarchal narratives are historical, either. They might contain some nuggets of history, just as the story of King Arthur might, but probably not much of any real use. I think there probably was a Moses, but nothing like what the narrative we have suggests. Most archaeologists think the extent and splendor of Solomon's kingdom is greatly exaggerated in the Bible, but I think that by the time of the divided kingdom we're getting what's pretty much history -- though it's history told with a religious agenda in mind.

In the New Testament, I have no doubt that John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and others really existed, but also no doubt that much of what's said, especially about Jesus, is non-factual legend.

 

[Dunemeister]

DP, I can only suggest that you're not reading what I've written. I've said all this before, but here I go again.

So the ideology had to change because of new discovery? Adam, who was thought to be literal is now considered a myth?

Yes.

Well I'm aware of that fact. No matter how it's interpreted today, "Original Sin" centered around the action of Adam and Even. Just a cursory search online reveals that still to be the case.

Perhaps it did (and frequently does). But it needn't have (doesn't have to).

Then it's not just Adam and Eve, it's the rest of the stories that follow as well. All of the events came after Adam and Eve actually credit their existence to them (genealogy). If Adam and Even were a mythic saga then the rest of it forward is as well. Since Luke says Yeshua is of the bloodline of Adam can we then assume the stories surrounding Yeshua and even Yeshua himself is to be viewed as myth? If you say NO... the why not?

The first 11 chapters of Genesis read quite differently from 12 - 50. The style of the former is mythic saga, the latter is more like historical narrative (although even in that section, poetic features remain, the difference is in degree).

Luke indeed says that Jesus is of the bloodline of Adam. If Adam is the original community of humans, then what's the problem?

We might be tempted to think of the Jesus stories as mythical, but we've got good reason to treat them historically. The Gospel According to Luke, for instance, gives every indication in the prologue to being a serious historical endeavor. The Gospel of John makes the same claim near the end. We might disagree with Luke's (or John's) version of events, but we can't disagree that they were trying to do history as we might recognize it.

 

[logician]

In the New Testament, I have no doubt that John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and others really existed, but also no doubt that much of what's said, especially about Jesus, is non-factual legend.

Really, provide independant historical evidence that any of them existed, that is not considered to be forgery or hearsay evidennce.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

DP, I can only suggest that you're not reading what I've written. I've said all this before, but here I go again.

I read it and I understand it. I find the interpretations (new way of looking at the supposed literal Adam) interesting.

Perhaps it did (and frequently does). But it needn't have (doesn't have to).

Well, it's all good to me. I was just interestested in the concept. To me the interpretations differ from how Adam is presented in your scripture (old and new).

The first 11 chapters of Genesis read quite differently from 12 - 50. The style of the former is mythic saga

Here's the kicker.........I totally agree. The creation story, to me...and I can only speak for me, sounds like the sumerian creation story...or even the story of the flood for that matter is similar to an earlier work.

Luke indeed says that Jesus is of the bloodline of Adam. If Adam is the original community of humans, then what's the problem?

Yea, but that's a big (if).

Luke 3:38
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica] Kenan was the son of Enosh. Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam. Adam was the son of God.[/FONT]

I'm quite sure, given the context, Luke was not rendering it to mean Adam was a community. Adam here is being described as a man who is the father of some one and this man was the son of (in the single form) his God.

We might be tempted to think of the Jesus stories as mythical, but we've got good reason to treat them historically. The Gospel According to Luke, for instance, gives every indication in the prologue to being a serious historical endeavor.

I agree to an extent. To me Luke comes off like a reporter, asking multiple people for information. He, himself, wasn't an eyewitness but gathered the memories and maybe opinions of others and recorded them. It's not clear who he actually talked to or how he went about confirming what he was told. Some scholars have summized that his work and that of Matthew were actually, in large part, copied from Mark. I'm not saying it is incorrect. I'm saying I'm not too sure how serious he was at doing the research. A possibility could have been simply copying what was already in circulation for the purpose of conversion, especially considering he wrote his account to Theophilos. The very beginning of Luke basically says he summarized existing information that was given to him.

The Gospel of John makes the same claim near the end. We might disagree with Luke's (or John's) version of events, but we can't disagree that they were trying to do history as we might recognize it.

Again, I agree to an extent. In each of the gospels Yeshua, to me, becomes more mistified or deified. I'm sure each wrote for some one or a community of people at the time and in their particular area. We can see this in Matthew, Luke and John. We can clearly see extra information or even qutoes that did not present themselves in earlier scriptures. To me, I see this as an esoteric progression......making the man into a god)...but that's just me I guess.

 

[Dunemeister]

Yea, but that's a big (if).

Luke 3:38
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica] Kenan was the son of Enosh. Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam. Adam was the son of God.[/FONT]

I'm quite sure, given the context, Luke was not rendering it to mean Adam was a community. Adam here is being described as a man who is the father of some one and this man was the son of (in the single form) his God.

I agree with you (wow, this is getting very kum ba yah!). Luke conceives of Adam as a literal person, in fact the first one. On my reading, "son of" would have to mean "descendent of", and in fact, that's exactly what it frequently means in ancient Sumerian, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Semitic literature. So why not in scripture? All it means is that Luke got it wrong. Previously, we interpreted it correctly, but since it's turned out to be mistaken, we've got to find a fresh way of looking at the text. And it turns out that it's possible to retain the function of the text, specifically the genealogies, even if they are wrong in the details.

Now, the original question was, "Does the fact that there was no actual first human being (Adam) entail that the concept of original sin is mistaken"? Or perhaps "Does the truth of evolution undercut the concept of original sin?" I've argued "no" to both question. Given that original sin means that we inherit our sinful condition from our parents, it doesn't matter whether our first parents are an individual couple or a community. It also doesn't matter how exactly this deplorable tendency got into that original community. To make this theology work in a way that coheres with an evolutionary account of our origins, we have to regard the Genesis account of origins as mythic saga and interpret it as we would other mythic sagas.

 

[Muffled]

(1) "Original sin" does not teach about the first sin.

(2) "Original sin" denotes the deplorable condition all humans are born into in which they have a propensity for sin, individual acts of unrighteousness.

(3) The third chapter of Genesis tells us, by means of mythic saga, that humankind is separated from communion with God as a result of humankind's wilfull rebellion against God. That rebellion takes the form of a desire to be like God, knowing all things. If this is the first sin, IT'S NOT WHAT THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS ABOUT (See (1)). If we take it as symbolic of the human condition presently experienced, it fits nicely.

Even so the deplorable condition would not be possible without the sin of Adam and Eve.

That propensity varies with the person. A person with a propensity to steal didn't acquire that by birth or by Adam and Eve's sin but by believing the devil at some point.
Such propensities don't go away during a sojourn in Heaven but they are forgotten and the person only has knowledge to do what is right. When Adam and Eve returned to knowledge of sin, the propensities returned also. I must say here that it is not a sin to know what is evil but it is a sin to practice it.

 

[logician]

I don't accept the concept of "original sin" because I don't accept the Xian concept of "sin", and the concept of needing forgiveness for same. "Sin" is hard to define and categorize, what is right in one culture is wrong in another. Who decides what is sin and what isn't? What does it matter?

 

[sojourner]

Even so the deplorable condition would not be possible without the sin of Adam and Eve.

That propensity varies with the person. A person with a propensity to steal didn't acquire that by birth or by Adam and Eve's sin but by believing the devil at some point.
Such propensities don't go away during a sojourn in Heaven but they are forgotten and the person only has knowledge to do what is right. When Adam and Eve returned to knowledge of sin, the propensities returned also. I must say here that it is not a sin to know what is evil but it is a sin to practice it.

You need to look back. This is an extension of a post I offered, that sin is defined as our propensity to blur the distinction between humanity and Divinity. that condition is inherent to the human being, regardless of whether the first humans were Adam and Eve or Fred and Ethel. The story attempts to show us, not through an historical account, but through narrative, the propensity we have to blur that distinction, that is inherent in us.

 

[sojourner]

I don't accept the concept of "original sin" because I don't accept the Xian concept of "sin", and the concept of needing forgiveness for same. "Sin" is hard to define and categorize, what is right in one culture is wrong in another. Who decides what is sin and what isn't? What does it matter?

Since "original sin" is unique to Xy, we have to define sin by Xian standards. that definition boils down to: separating ourselves from God by making ourselves to be equal with God. Culture has nothing to do with it. Since you disregard God (and since sin is about a human/God relationship), you need not concern yourself with whether or not you accept the concept. For you, it's a moot point, because it doesn't exist.

 

[logician]

Since "original sin" is unique to Xy, we have to define sin by Xian standards. that definition boils down to: separating ourselves from God by making ourselves to be equal with God. .

I've never seen this definition of sin before.

 

[Smoke]

Really, provide independant historical evidence that any of them existed, that is not considered to be forgery or hearsay evidennce.

Really, dude, on this subject, you're as impervious to information and reason as any fundamentalist, so why bother?

 

[logician]

Really, dude, on this subject, you're as impervious to information and reason as any fundamentalist, so why bother?

Nice cop-out answer, but I've never seen anyone really take on the question.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Nice cop-out answer, but I've never seen anyone really take on the question.

Listen to him. You poison the well and then expect us to drink your Kool Aid? Thanks anyway, but banging my head against the wall would give me quicker results and hurt a whole lot less.

 

[sojourner]

I've never seen this definition of sin before.

Read Genesis: Eating the fruit made one wise (like God.) Eating the fruit made one become like God. Blurring the distinction between humanity and Divinity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I've never seen this definition of sin before.

It's no big deal though. He's right. This is a concept that is viewed by christians and only christians. The jews of that day and even today don't share that view. The book of Genesis, especially the beginning, is one of the biggest mythical stories ever written even though it was originally thought to be a literal story. That has certainly changed in the light of scientific discovery.