No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

[zoe and vic]

Leader implies reponsibilty, not dominion.

Rule is dominion. And dominion can hold you responsible.

Adam couldn't hold Eve responsible for His actions, one who has dominion over you can. They have dominion. Dominion (Ba'al) implies ownership... that is the life in Adam outside of the garden... those who hold in high esteem ownership worship Ba'al.

The leader implies responsibility... Jesus did not come to Lord over us he came to take the responsibility and serve us.

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God."

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

God took the responsibility for us. That's the Adam I am born of. He reversed the curse for His bride.

 

[Dunemeister]

This "patriarchy" began immediately with the her bite of the apple.

Well, that's my point. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were perfectly equal in status and responsibility. There was no subordination in any sense whatsoever. They had unqualified equality. The word "helper" denotes an assistant, but in the Hebrew can also connote an equality of status and responsibility to the one helped. The fall has marred that essential equality. The church, whose role in God's design is to be that place where the eschatological future (including the refashioning of equality between the genders) is prefigured. Unfortunately, at least on this, we have been more intent on prolonging the curse.

 

[zoe and vic]

Well, that's my point. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were perfectly equal in status and responsibility. There was no subordination in any sense whatsoever. They had unqualified equality. The word "helper" denotes an assistant, but in the Hebrew can also connote an equality of status and responsibility to the one helped. The fall has marred that essential equality. The church, whose role in God's design is to be that place where the eschatological future (including the refashioning of equality between the genders) is prefigured. Unfortunately, at least on this, we have been more intent on prolonging the curse.

If the man is the head that would imply responsibility, not dominion. Just as Jesus took responsibility for us and He is the Head of man.

The truth is that the Son confirms this: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God." The pattern represents the hierarchy of Christ and His bride. Also the pattern by which we are to live. Husbands love their wife enough to give their life for them. Women submit to the husband as to Christ.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord... Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

This is the same as it has been from the beginning. They didn't need commandment concerning the natural state of things. It wasn't until sin introduced Ba'al (ownership-dominion) that it was a questioned state of being.

This willful submission that existed is not the same as the imposed system that followed. The devil uses God's design and injects pride and selfishness. In Genesis help meet is 'ezer a noun:

help meet- 'ezer- help, succour

The act or an instance of helping; Aid or assistance; Relief; remedy.; One that helps: You've been a great help. A food processor is a help to the serious cook.;
A person employed to help, especially a farm worker or domestic servant (Such employees considered as a group. Often used with the.)

syn. ministration- The act or process of serving or aiding

 

[Dunemeister]

If the man is the head that would imply responsibility, not dominion. Just as Jesus took responsibility for us and He is the Head of man.

The truth is that the Son confirms this: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God." The pattern represents the hierarchy of Christ and His bride. Also the pattern by which we are to live. Husbands love their wife enough to give their life for them. Women submit to the husband as to Christ.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord... Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

This is the same as it has been from the beginning. They didn't need commandment concerning the natural state of things. It wasn't until sin introduced Ba'al (ownership-dominion) that it was a questioned state of being.

This willful submission that existed is not the same as the imposed system that followed. The devil uses God's design and injects pride and selfishness. In Genesis help meet is 'ezer a noun:

help meet- 'ezer- help, succour

The act or an instance of helping; Aid or assistance; Relief; remedy.; One that helps: You've been a great help. A food processor is a help to the serious cook.;
A person employed to help, especially a farm worker or domestic servant (Such employees considered as a group. Often used with the.)

syn. ministration- The act or process of serving or aiding

Yes, you've pointed out the denotation well, but not the connotation. The word connotes equality of status and equal partnership, not a subordinate relationship as you suppose. The subordination occurred later, after the fall.

Paul himself was not very consistent about enforcing his own ethical intuition that "there is no longer male nor female, but we are all one in Christ Jesus." On the one hand, he urges equality with this saying, but then goes on to argue for subordination of women on the other. I prefer to think that Paul couldn't quite see through to the logical conclusion of the majesty of Christ. That's why he didn't speak out against slavery despite the fact that "there is neither slave nor freedman." Similarly, although "there is no longer male nor female, but we are all one", Paul couldn't bring himself to shed his prejudices as fully as his own intuitions demanded. In a case of inconsistency such as this, I prefer to go with Paul's ethical intuitions rather than his specific command.

 

[zoe and vic]

If you justify God's Word, looking past Paul, then you can conclude that we are created equal in each other's eyes, but not in the eyes of God, or He could have simply made woman first. The fact is that God made man the heir and woman the helper. Any change in that rationale is a world with women POW's. The enemy can do so many more things to torture women than men, because we are not created equal.

Jesus was master, but He humbled Himself as servant. That did not change the fact that He was the Head of all things. It was a willful submission. Sin is a state of being that is anything outside of the character of God. Judging if God is right concerning the doctrine of marital relations using the argument of Paul's humanity is flawed since God is the Word, and the Word is God. God spoke through Paul and God's Word is pretty clear on how He feels about it. Nothing is different in the Son than that which is found in the Father.

God's view on women teachers was disheartening until I realized that it wasn't an equality issue... it's homeostasis for the body of Christ. The same goes for the makeup of the issue at hand. It's not Paul that has issue, or God, it's man. If we justify man we don't submit to the Word... if we justify God then the Word is God and God's Word stands as authority. There was at least one female apostle and prophetesses in the first century and they willfully joined the body with these conditions in mind: to submit to God's authority is the only way to walk in the Spirit of God in you. If you reject His Word on the basis of inconsistency then you worship an imperfect God and you will not be able to see God's judgment concerning the issue. For God to be perfect and for His Word to be flawless there can be no inconsistency in His Spirit.

"Every word of God is flawless. He is a shield to those who take refuge in him."

Regardless to how we feel about it the way of God is the way and we will never walk in the perfect will of God unless we accept it and realize that God knows better than we do what is good for the world He created. We willfully submit to the sovereignty of His Word as did He when He went to the cross to show how to submit to the authority of His Word.

 

[gnostic]

If you look at Genesis 1 on the 6th day, God created man and woman. There were no first and second here, and they weren't given names. Only in Genesis 2, do we see woman was created after man.

The Genesis is contradictory, so do you believe the more dramatic storytelling version (2) or the the bland version (1)? Neither is believable, because of the amount of exaggeration in both versions, and the mythological aspect seemed derived from the older myth of Sumer.

 

[Dunemeister]

If you look at Genesis 1 on the 6th day, God created man and woman. There were no first and second here, and they weren't given names. Only in Genesis 2, do we see woman was created after man.

The Genesis is contradictory, so do you believe the more dramatic storytelling version (2) or the the bland version (1)? Neither is believable, because of the amount of exaggeration in both versions, and the mythological aspect seemed derived from the older myth of Sumer.

The stories are indeed mythical, but that doesn't mean they don't tell us truth. In fact, their mythical character means they can express far more truth than a dry, didactic presentation. So they are both eminently believable, if you treat them as they are, poetry that is trying to tell us theological truths.

And it's not derived from the older Sumer myth. It's a response to it, a rejection of it. In fact, I think its main target is the Mesopotamian myth which describes the creation of humans as the byproduct of a gory battle between Tiamat and Marduk. Humans, created by violence, were supposed to simply serve the caprices of the gods. By contrast, the Hebrew myth indicates that humans are the loving and intentional creation of a single Creator God, charged with the noble task of tending creation. A starker contrast can't be imagined, I think.

 

[gnostic]

And it's not derived from the older Sumer myth. It's a response to it, a rejection of it. In fact, I think its main target is the Mesopotamian myth which describes the creation of humans as the byproduct of a gory battle between Tiamat and Marduk.

The Enuma Elish, the myth that you are referring to Tiamat and Marduk, was written in the later part of Old Babylonian (literary) period, and written in 16th century BC. Before that time, there was no evidence of this being known in the early part of Old Babylonian period.

And there is certainly no myth of Tiamat and Marduk in the older Sumerian literature. He is mention in Sumerian literature, but Marduk was a very minor god in Babylon, until the 16th century BC. There was no war in heaven or vying for powers in Sumerian legend.

There are several different versions of Sumerian myths where a god, sometimes Enlil and sometimes Enki, had created humans from clay or earth. There is even one in which humans were created by the goddess. And there were no war in any of them.

There are Sumerian versions and Akkadian-Babylonian versions in regarding to building of the ark-like boat, during the Deluge. When was Genesis composed? Centuries later, after these myths were composed, and you think that Hebrew created their own Creation and Flood myths? I don't think so, especially considering that stories of Gilgamesh and Ziusudra/Atrashasis/Uta-naphistim were known in as far west as Hittite Empire, Canaan, Syria and even in Egypt, from the evidences that clay tablets were found in all these regions. Many of these tablets may have been fragmented, but enough is recognisable that epic of Gilgamesh is recognisable and known in the region where Israel would later occupied by Joshua.

So spare me the excuse that the Hebrew came to their creation myths alone, without any influence by Sumerian/Babylonian/Egyptian.

Even the myth of Jesus in regarding to his resurrection, is not only derived from Mithra, but also from Egyptian myth about Osiris, Isis and Horus, long before any Christians wrote gospels and letters. There are also sins and cleansing of sin, self-sacrifice, resurrection and afterlife in heaven in Greece and Asia Minor, also centuries before the Christian Era.

 

[Dunemeister]

Perhaps gnostic and I are taking things off topic a tad. The OP was about what the concept of original sin entailed, specifically whether it requires a literal first human named Adam. I've argued not. Perhaps we'd better bracket discussions about the origins of the Genesis or the New Testament resurrection stories or start new threads about those.

 

[gnostic]

Ok.

But you must realised that the NT is related to the Genesis, especially in regarding what Christians think about Genesis with the concept of Original Sin. It has to do with death and afterlife, thus it's about resurrection.

The Original Sin have always been a Christian concept....even then some Christian sects don't believe in the Original Sin.

It was never a Hebrew-Judaic concept. Ask any Jew and they will tell you that they don't believe such nonsense. The Jews do believe in afterlife, but not in the way Christians believing that human souls (or spirits) would go to and live in heaven for all eternity. To the Jews, all souls, regardless if they were good or bad, Christians, Jews or some other groups, believers or non-believers, all went to Sheol. It had nothing to Original Sin, because they don't believe in eternal life for us.

My answer to the OP, is that - there is no Original Sin, regardless if there was Adam or not. And I don't believe that there were any Adam or Eden, or Trees of Life and Knowledge, because all of these are myth, including your God, just as your Christian myth about the Original Sin.

 

[Katzpur]

Perhaps gnostic and I are taking things off topic a tad. The OP was about what the concept of original sin entailed, specifically whether it requires a literal first human named Adam. I've argued not. Perhaps we'd better bracket discussions about the origins of the Genesis or the New Testament resurrection stories or start new threads about those.

You have a problem with "literal" stuff, huh, Dune?

 

[Scott1]

To redeem for what, entry to heaven, if so, you are saying that only Christians can go to heaven, if not, what is redemption needed for?

Sorry, I guess I was not clear... since it seems you are not a Christian, all you need to know about "original sin" is that it means you will die..... beyond that, don't worry about it.

Peace,
S

 

[crystalonyx]

Sorry, I guess I was not clear... since it seems you are not a Christian, all you need to know about "original sin" is that it means you will die..... beyond that, don't worry about it.

Peace,
S

Actually, I was a Christian for quite a number years, please answer the question.

 

[Scott1]

To redeem for what, entry to heaven, if so, you are saying that only Christians can go to heaven, if not, what is redemption needed for?

It has nothing to do with "heaven"... heck, I'm sure some atheists even get into heaven.

It's about adoption.

'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.' This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God': God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.
CCC #422

 

[Dunemeister]

You have a problem with "literal" stuff, huh, Dune?

Not "really."

 

[Ephratah7]

I don't believe people are born evil. I believe people are born as Adam was made good and that each of them eventually makes the choice to sin sometime during their lives. You truly see innocence when you look into a newborn baby's eyes. How can anyone think that we are born evil?

Yes, I agree.
If it wasn't because of Eve...

 

[Scuba Pete]

The enemy can do so many more things to torture women than men, because we are not created equal.

Shenanigans. Equality has nothing to do with this.

Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. NIV

There is no "gender" in heaven. This was provided as a way to procreate and God decided to make it fun at the same time (Yay God!).

Many of the scriptures are written by men who are trying to comprehend the spiritual from a physical standpoint. Incredibly hard to do actually, and so they use terms that we can understand but that aren't very descriptive of what heaven will be like.

 

[Ronald]

So god made us this way and then blames us?

There are 'two' persons who were made in the "image" one made a wrong decision, the other chose right! We all choose, some make the right decision and some don't!

You can choose 'snake skin' or the "Glory of Moshiach."

Shalom

 

[Smoke]

The concept of original sin, as understood in Western Christianity, is nowhere to be found in the Genesis account, or indeed anywhere in the Bible, and is foreign to both Judaism and Eastern Christianity. Therefore, there's no particular reason why people who believe in that odd doctrine should reject their doctrine just because Adam turns out not to have been a real person. What they had construed as a historical account of how sin was introduced to the world can just become a parable about original sin.

It doesn't make much sense as history or as parable, if you ask me, but the ability to believe things that make no sense is highly valued in the Abrahamic religions, so that's no problem for believers, either.

 

[Ronald]

OBTW, He punishes us for tarnishing the Image.