Who laid the blame of "original sin" upon Adam?

[lsayre]

There may be some sort of Zen in all of this, but doesn't one need to know where they are at in order to know how to get where they want to be? If it took until Augustine to determine where Adam was initially at, then how did Adam know where he was at?

This makes Romans 5:13 look like babbling nonsense. If sin is not counted (or accounted) when there is no law, then Adam could not possibly inherently transmute to subsequent generations "initial sin" in the Augustinian (and Pauline?) sense. And the need for a last (second) Adam is negated. And Paul's entire theology (and thereby all of NT theology, at least) collapses...

[iskander]

There may be some sort of Zen in all of this, but doesn't one need to know where they are at in order to know how to get where they want to be? If it took until Augustine to determine where Adam was initially at, then how did Adam know where he was at?

This makes Romans 5:13 look like babbling nonsense. If sin is not counted (or accounted) when there is no law, then Adam could not possibly inherently transmute to subsequent generations "initial sin" in the Augustinian (and Pauline?) sense. And the need for a last (second) Adam is negated. And Paul's entire theology (and thereby all of NT theology, at least) collapses...

"but doesn't one need to know where they are at in order to know how to get where they want to be? If it took until Augustine to determine where Adam was initially at, then how did Adam know where he was at? " What does it mean?

[Garon]

It's a story ceated by scibes to give an answer to the question, "why do we die?" Someone or something has to be blamed. So then, if we die because of "sin" then how can we "die" but also "live?" So we created or experienced images in our dreams we called, "gods." Well these gods like human blood so we sacrifice humans to them. That didnt work so we started sacrificing animals. (at least we could eat them after they are cooked.) That didnt work so they came up with the ultimate sacrifice. Since man is the image of God (but we dont believe that) maybe if the True image came and was Sacrificed that would work. All ya gotta do is "BELIEVE." No proof necessary.

So a man was chosen (by religious and political writers) to be the true image of God, was killed (but really sacrificed) was seen only by his friends for forty days after his death, and all you have to do is "BELIEVE" that story and you wont die but pass through the death process to life somewhere in a part of the universe or outside the universe called heaven.

One problem that those writers cant explain is. The God of the true image doesnt want any sacrifices to it. That God only wants it's people to be nice to each other of those twelve tribes.

Now here are...Talking about campfire stories.

ps. Remember only your own "Beliefs" can trigger the story to be true. Without the "Belief" to trigger you are SOL. Beliefs make or break Gods/gods/religious writings.
All we need is "Beliefs" not "Love."

[iskander]

It's a story ceated by scibes to give an answer to the question, "why do we die?" Someone or something has to be blamed. So then, if we die because of "sin" then how can we "die" but also "live?" So we created or experienced images in our dreams we called, "gods." Well these gods like human blood so we sacrifice humans to them. That didnt work so we started sacrificing animals. (at least we could eat them after they are cooked.) That didnt work so they came up with the ultimate sacrifice. Since man is the image of God (but we dont believe that) maybe if the True image came and was Sacrificed that would work. All ya gotta do is "BELIEVE." No proof necessary.

So a man was chosen (by religious and political writers) to be the true image of God, was killed (but really sacrificed) was seen only by his friends for forty days after his death, and all you have to do is "BELIEVE" that story and you wont die but pass through the death process to life somewhere in a part of the universe or outside the universe called heaven.

One problem that those writers cant explain is. The God of the true image doesnt want any sacrifices to it. That God only wants it's people to be nice to each other of those twelve tribes.

Now here are...Talking about campfire stories.

ps. Remember only your own "Beliefs" can trigger the story to be true. Without the "Belief" to trigger you are SOL. Beliefs make or break Gods/gods/religious writings.
All we need is "Beliefs" not "Love."

Yes, it is an explanation for the suffering in a world that was created by a loving and all powerful God, Hashem , Allah, Vishnu, the gods, karmas etc. The Greek Gods created the world in Metamorphosis like this:

Bk I:68-88 Humankind
Then Humankind was born. Either the creator god, source of a better world, seeded it from the divine, or the newborn earth just drawn from the highest heavens still contained fragments related to the skies, so that Prometheus, blending them with streams of rain, moulded them into an image of the all-controlling gods.
Ovid describes a Golden Age like the Garden of Eden before the ' fall'.
Ovid, The Metamorphoses


I suppose the OP wants us to consider the text of the bible as it is.

[Garon]

The bottom line is... No God can do anything for you or to you without "Belief" in that God. In the meantime humans continue to kill in the name (nature) of their God. Hate and fear causes more people to go to church then Love.

[neilgodfrey]

I had always understood that we owed the doctrine of original sin (from Adam) to St Augustine. Checked Wikipedia and noticed a reference to Robin Lane Fox's Unauthorized Version in which he writes:

These texts were creating new scripture by constructive abuse of the old, a process which reaches a climax in the letters ascribed to Paul. At Ephesians 5:31-2 the author inclined to believe that the union of man and woman (‘one flesh’) was a mysterious reference to the union of Christ and his Church; this hidden meaning is not at all in Genesis.

At Romans 5:12-18 Paul himself tells his Roman Christians how through one man, Adam, sin ‘entered into the world’ and by the sin of one man death reigned too. These famous verses have inspired whole theories of sin and original sin which have changed many Christians’ perspective on human nature. It seems clear that the Fall of Adam and Eve was not just the moral tale of a single couple’s fate: the story was meant to be the origin of a change for all subsequent humans.

It is not, however, stated that what originated was sin or sinfulness, words which occur nowhere in the Hebrew text. It was St Augustine who ended by arguing that original sin had been transmitted to each of us through Adam, a view which he backed up by Paul’s language in Romans 5. However, he followed a mistranslation of it, based only on a Latin version of the text. Paul’s Greek had merely said that ‘death passed upon all men, because [in that] all sinned’; Augustine followed an author who mistook it to say ‘death passed upon all men because of Adam, [in whom] all sinned...’ Original sin was read unnecessarily into Genesis and was then forced on to Paul by a wrong translation of his writings.

[iskander]

The bottom line is... No God can do anything for you or to you without "Belief" in that God. In the meantime humans continue to kill in the name (nature) of their God. Hate and fear causes more people to go to church then Love.

Anyhow, the original sin was our birthday , O felix culpa!

"O certe necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est! O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!"

'O truly needful sin of Adam, which was blotted out by the death of Christ! O happy fault, that merited so great a Redeemer

[iskander]

There may be some sort of Zen in all of this, but doesn't one need to know where they are at in order to know how to get where they want to be? If it took until Augustine to determine where Adam was initially at, then how did Adam know where he was at?

This makes Romans 5:13 look like babbling nonsense. If sin is not counted (or accounted) when there is no law, then Adam could not possibly inherently transmute to subsequent generations "initial sin" in the Augustinian (and Pauline?) sense. And the need for a last (second) Adam is negated. And Paul's entire theology (and thereby all of NT theology, at least) collapses...

The Pelagius controversy: the response of Augustine

" Book III.
In which Augustin refutes some errors of Pelagius

Chapter 1 [I.]—Pelagius Esteemed a Holy Man; His Expositions on Saint Paul.


The questions which you proposed that I should write to you about, in opposition to those persons who say that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned, and that nothing of his sin has passed to his posterity by natural transmission

Chapter 2 [II.]—Pelagius’ Objection; Infants Reckoned Among the Number of Believers and the Faithful

Chapter 3.—Pelagius Makes God Unjust.

Chapter 7 [IV.]—Proof of Original Sin in Infants

Now, since their tender age could not possibly have contracted sin in its own life, it remains for us, even if we are as yet unable to understand, at least to believe that infants inherit original sin

NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings "



What Pelagius was saying:

1. Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he
had sinned or not.
2. The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race.
3. Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall.
4. Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die,
nor by the resurrection of Christ rise again.

[iskander]

Is there any biblical reason that one can point to (particularly meaning here from the perspective of a God issued directive or edict ...) to accuse Adam of "original sin"?

I.E., do we all sin and/or have an inherent sin nature merely because Adam sinned first?

Judaism teaches Adam committed the "original" sin by disobeying God's instructions.
Augustine added on the belief about the PERSONAL GUILT of that sin being passed down biologically.

In Christian Tradition, the Messiah is a "New Adam" who atones for Adam's "original sin".

Augustine heresies:
"Protestants and Roman Catholics believe that Christ died on the Cross to turn the anger of God away from guilt-laden mankind and to Himself. They argue that the first man, Adam, sinned against God, and the guilt for his offense, and therefore, God’s wrath, was passed on to all the generations that followed. Atonement was demanded for both Adam and personal sins.


How contrary this is to Orthodoxy! For we do not teach God predestined the fall of any man because of Augustine’s idea of original sin, but rather, He allows all men to freely choose life or death.


Augustine taught that baptism was instituted to wash away original sin, the guilt we inherited at conception. Augustine believed that the sexual act is mingled with evil, inasmuch as it is the means by which an evil, Adam’s guilt, is transmitted to those born by such generation

Orthodoxy teaches that we are baptized to become members of the Body of Christ.



In another place Augustine taught differently about guilt. In baptism, he said, the consequences of original sin are removed, but not the guilt. One may be free from original sin, but not … the guilt, the tyrannical burden which children inherit from their parents despite the grace of baptism [On Marriage and Concupiscence I, xxvi, 29 PL 44:430]. Here is the quintessential Augustine. Original sin as a fallen nature is not really his main concern. For him, the relationship between God and man is essentially an external juridical one: judgment and guilt. A specific number of people are predestined to salvation, regardless of their nature, regardless of their own inner disposition and motives. Their nature is not destined to be changed, but merely their legal status


As we can begin to see, Augustine uses words and terms not common with the holy Fathers. Original sin, Guilt of Adam, Predestination, are terms not used by the holy Fathers, because they are not Orthodox"

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/20 ... -heresies/

Any comments?

[iskander]

No original "sin" in Semitic teachings. Both videos are good to watch.

Just the first case of venereal disease . see file