Adam and Eve's sin, as recounted in the Book of Genesis is sometimes called in Hebrew החטא הקדמון (the original sin), on the basis of the traditional Christian term. But the term used in classical Jewish literature is חטא אדם הראשׁון (the sin of the first man, or of Adam).

The original (or "first") sin was committed by Adam and Eve (see Book of Genesis Chapter 3). Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is physical death (in this world), only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin (see Book of Ezekiel Chapter 18). Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin. This difference between the two Churches in their understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons that led the Catholic Church to devise their dogma of the 'Immaculate Conception' in the 19th century, a dogma that is completely rejected by the Orthodox Church.

The Roman Catholic Church has defined its teaching of original sin in multiple councils. The first of these was a Council of Orange in 529, which expanded upon the teachings of Augustine of Hippo.

Yet others, believe that the concept is completely unbiblical.



Source: Original Sin

Is the concept of Original Sin a biblical reality or a misinterpretation of the Scriptures that started with St. Augustine?

What do you think?

Its a ruse to keep people coming into christanity, christning them right in from a very early age.

Fiction!

An man made vice, to engender self-deprecating ideologies that make man believe themselves to be less than in the eyes of an assumed deity. The original sin, the blight or curse placed on the subsequent human generations for the sin of the Adam in the paradise garden, is transparent if one reads of how it was effected.

Man disobeyed god. Thus was sin born.
Wrong!
Man did not possess knowledge so as to make a choice, between good and evil, when they were first made to exist in the garden where god planted that tree for their damnation, in the presence of omniscience. Only after the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, would man then have the capacity to make a choice to be good or to sin. Consequently, if one believes in original sin they accept that omniscience curses it's children for what was pre-ordained when it placed the vehicle for that damnation in paradise. It's tantamount to a parent starting a fire in a childs bedroom and when they get burned, beating them to death for coming close to fire.

However, to feel less than in the eyes of what is said to be the god that made that possible, is to then give one's alligance to the church, that promises to help one find their way back to gods grace, if they only believe in the church, that tells them gods breath , edited by man, is the way to find grace, in the eyes of the deity that condemned them, for doing exactly what omniscience foresaw. If a god knew grace, he wouldn't put sin in his paradise, to tempt the humans he created as ignorants.

Then why do 99% of Protestant churches, most of which do not christen or baptise babies believe it too?

Thanks GW, very insightful, got any more?

I dunno. What are you looking for!?

if i ever get in trouble, i want you to represent me in court.

randomhit10

It seems we all need to understand what the sin nature in mankind really is (of course from my Christian perspective should you wish to stop reading now). For the sake of a shorter post I won’t get into the definition of sin, rather I will call it if I may a “fly in the ointment of creation� Man was created with perfection. The accuser of the Creator was very jealous of man and the authority he was given over his domain (the Earth). Some how he managed to put the fly into the ointment (Mans fall from Grace in the garden) this did not make man evil by nature but it did affect the relationship from his Creator.
This fly caused man to understand the difference between right and wrong, I don’t think it was part of the original plan of both parties involved but man because of this flaw was now a very unique creation in the universe kind of the accidental Post It Notes invention.

Mans new found knowledge allowed him to see the law in a different light than his Creator because of our perspective as earth bound and mortal. We tend look at sin/wrong doings as gradients. One sin is greater than another. But God sees all sin as equally abhorrent and therefore not acceptable in His house (heaven). Just as we have the right to tell people that comes into our house to remove their shoes first. It is not a question as to whether we agree with the rules. If your house guest refused to remove his shoes and stood at your door arguing the point you would be inclined to close the door in his face.
The result would be much the same, a separation between visitor and guest. That separation between man and God is what we refer to as hell.
It is very simple really, either you believe or you don’t.
Like the analogy of the house guest being asked to remove his shoes I would comply without question as I have bigger questions to ask over dinner.
Whether we as humans agree or not the ultimate truth is He created us and the law.
And If He brought us into existence He certainly has every right to take us out of it! We could argue this is not fair from our perspective. But who ever said life was fair? Why does the Creator of life have to be reasonable? Perhaps His reasoning is different then ours because of His perspective.
We could argue the semantics of definition but we would miss the point and possibly never agree.
I for one believe that a loving Creator would provide a means to re-unite with His creation. And I believe that through Jesus He accomplished this.
God works in mysterious ways, perhaps like the artists/painters he allowed the flaw to happen for a reason. Much to the chagrin of the guy with the fly. Kind of like a check mate so to speak!

Irish

You gotta deal.

Let's see, man was intelligent enough to name all the animals in creation, he was intelligent enough to talk to God, he was intelligent enough to know that he needed a companion and that none of the animals were proper to be the type of companion (notice, not servant, companion an equal though separate entity) he knew he needed. This "ignorant" man quickly grasped that the woman God presented to him was his genetic equal and someone so special she was his perfect companion and deserved his full commitment, and he understood that at some point that commitment would require that other men leave the home of his parents to be completely committed to their relationship. This man (and I am using man in the broadest meaning of the word, male and female human) was intelligent enough to converse with a serpent, AND to make a subtle change to what God had said to support what the serpent said and begin the process of giving in to a temptation. No, man was nowhere near the ignorant childish creature you want to make him out to be.

Intelligence and knowing right from wrong are still two different traits...

Well, according to your personal opinion, the concept of the Original sin is a false assumption., Not getting into the biblical part of (if you want to do so that's ok with me) why is this concept actually so detrimental or wrong?

I mean, leaving out the part of our capacity to know right from wrong which you mentioned previously, how can we judge from a purely human perspective (or biblical) that this concept is not part of our heritage as human beings but rather a construct of the christian (RCC and Protestant) church?

There are three points I would like to clarify, Irish. I highlighted them both in the above transcript.

Why do you think man was created perfect?

What in your opinion does "Fall from Grace mean?

Finally, what is the difference between sin and "The Original Sin" as concepts?

Did you know that one of the original purposes of mankind's creation was to rule over the Angels? Thats why a few of them don't like us very much.




The loss of innocence.

A baby is synonymous with purity and innocence yet in essence it cares only for its own comfort and survival because of that innocent. A new born baby cares not whom feeds it or takes care of its needs, only that those needs are met. It grows to recognize those that supply his/her needs and is happiest when that person or persons is close by and taking care of their world.

Love is a result of this relationship based on two/three sentient beings needs that are a compatible with each others needs.
The child eventually has to learn that other priorities of the parent may take president over their needs for a period of time. This may result in a temper tantrum of tears and a fit of crying. The interesting question here is this show of selfishness inherent or learnt behavior.

A child is not labeled evil because of its innocents. Being innocent and helpless is the excuse for selfish behavior and rightly so in this case. As the child grows and learns knowledge the excuse of innocents wears thin.




The original sin was disobedience of Gods one rule. The knowledge of right and wrong
By breaking that one rule we opened ourselves to the knowledge of all good and evil and the consequences of knowing such destroyed our excuse of innocents and made us accountable to all the rules of heaven. Something that man in his present state is incapable of doing. God had prepared a plan of redemption even before we made our first mistake.

Irish

I figured I'd use a dictionary for the definition of Original Sin , so as to preclude confusion of prejudice in the event I used a religious textual reference.


Original Sin (Noun)
1. Theology. a. a depravity, or tendency to evil, held to be innate in humankind and transmitted from Adam to the race in consequence of his sin.
b. inclination to evil, inherent in human nature.

2. Roman Catholic Theology. the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam

Sin ~ 1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.


We can go from a general construct if you wish.

It is my personal opinion that it's detrimental, because it is first illogical. This notion of "original sin" , within the context of omniscience , as a curse , as it were, for the violation of gods admonition not to eat of the fruit of the tree god placed in the paradise garden, so as to be at issue for the ignorants he created. Innocence, is certainly another way to describe the mythological first humans. However ignorance was their condition, if they were forbidden by god to eat of a tree of knowledge, because to do so would then make the first of our kind, like unto god.

Because of original sin, of the fore-mother and forefather of the entire human race, we are asked to accept it is the reason women were also damned to suffer pain in childbirth. Giving life to the next generation of humans with souls derived from god, so as to reproduced what are now the damned.

Consequently there was no transgression, really. Because if god had meant for innocence to survive, he would not have rooted the tree that threatened that condition, into paradise. Indeed, one would wonder how a tree that is so bad, could even take root without the assistance, the authority, of the gardens ultimate landscaper, god.

Then, as the myth continues, the devil, in the guise of a serpent, gained access into the domain of the garden, wherein omnipresent god resides. Satan, the first and most beautiful angel. That refused to serve man and so called up an angelic rebellion in heaven. Thwarted in the effort, he and his minions were allowed to live! Which is something future mortals, as reported in the Old Testament, were not able to say when god had them murdered by his faithful servants, for ticking him off. So, allowed to live, satan and his minions were banished from heaven and given an abode all to their own, called hell. And from there, rather than serve humans, they were permitted to serve as tempters of man, against gods will.

However, how does one ever tempt , truly, the human animal, when god in his omniscient omnipresence, would be aware of the effort?! And as such, again permit the game to proceed. Devil tempts man from the grace of his god, while man strives to attain grace, after life, bearing the burden of original sin all their life?!

My personal opinion is that the concept of sin, and original sin, are self-deprecating. And as such, makes those that accept the condition, feel, always, as less than and unworthy, in the eyes of their maker, that made the condition possible, as a consequence of the first mistake the first of our kind made. A mistake, that isn't really a mistake, when the first of our kind were not possessed of intelligence, so as to make a conscious decision to obey orders and not eat of the tree of knowledge.

However, what the station of sin or original sin, does afford is imparting a sense of low self-esteem and depraved self worth. So that everything in life falls into two categories. Either sinful or of god. But sin was born of god, as was the devil. So when one strives to survive and achieve grace, they're actually striving to please the one power that knows all, is everywhere present and is the only power in the universe. And in the realm of omniscience, while we believe we have a choice or free will, it's a fallacy. Because there is nothing omniscience can not know.

Complete fiction.

Peace,

RadicalGnostic

I agree with your conclusions. Original Sin as a concept that was the beginning of death in the Human Race is not biblical in my opinion. So much so that the Jews and chrsitans from the 1st and 2nd Centuries did not even see the verses in this way.

I found alot of evidence for this position not only in the bible but also in the early TExts of the Church Fathers.

The concept of man being created in the image of God is one of the starting points I found that started to change my opinion in regards to original sin. There is an essential contradiction between what is said in the scriptures and our modern perspective of what those relevant scriptures tell us.

The words of God at the moment of Adam and Eves expulsion are key to solving the contradiction which exposes the fallacy of original sin.

Genesis 3:22

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

If man was really immortal before, why would he need the Tree of life to live forever, according to God himself?

Yet nowhere in the bible does it ever say or even imply that God created man perfect. As a matter of course, it doesn't even say we were created immortal and last but not least it doesn't ever say that death came into existence because of the fall of man.



But is the loss of innocence implicit in the knowledge of right and wrong or as the bible puts it "The Knowledge of Good and Evil"?

Was it Gods wish for us to really have the knowledge of Good and Evil or was it that he was giving us the possibility of choice?

In my opinion, fall from grace means, seperation from the presence of God. It was caused by disobedience and had the result of making humanity suffer the effects of that disobedience forever more but it doesn't mean that we are carriers of a sinful nature. What it does mean is that without the ruling presence of God, our spirits and egos are led by our own base desires which lead to sin. More a situation of cause and effect rather than an inherent nature of human beings.



But what is the essential difference between "Original Sin" as believed by 99% of christians and normal sin?

can't say whether it is a biblical reality or started with St Augustine as I am not a scholar of theology. However i do believe it is a lie perpetrated by the Catholic church predominantly to put fear into people and get them to join the church and give lots of their money to it.

none of it matters if you do not act on what you know is right and wrong....if you do not stand up for what you believe is right, if you do not acknowledge in your own heart and mind what is right or wrong, then there is no difference....even when all us believers know what is right and we can not get the blind to open their eyes, then they may be very intelligent but they are still blind....(i was just kidding y'all...just threw this in to get some action going)...

randomhit10

Of course it is biblical! They did not pull these doctrines out of a hat. However, it depends on ones view of the bible. 90 % of the replies here do not believe in the scriprures and I understand there view. Those that do believe will have variance on opinions like this doctrine. I see this doctrine as being scriptural and being one that threads through out the OT and NT. The doctrine explains much of what is wrong with the world today, so it has logic to it. Even though it is supernatural logic, it is logic none the less.

If we were not created immortal we could not complete the lofty task assigned us.

1 Corinthians 6:3, 'Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, matters of this life?'

Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Genesis 5:5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

These verses tell us that death is the result of disobedience. Prior to this he must have been created immortal.




There is a big difference between right and wrong (obedience and disobedience). And the Knowledge of good and evil. An example would be a parent telling a young child “you may not play in the park after dark” the child has a simple choice to obey or not. When the child realizes and understands the horror and evil the parent is protecting them from kidnappers/molesters, wild animals or whatever there is now a loss of innocents that results in real fear. (The knowledge of good and evil).




Tough one to explain in just a few words but here go’s. Animals can only kill for food or to protect itself or it offspring from perceived danger. Because it has no concept of good and evil it is innocent in its actions. Man however has not only the knowledge of good and evil but also the ability to apply both as a conscious choice; he can kill for food or protection as well as for malice and sport.

As well, in my opinion God does not create imperfection. However to create perfect He must allow for the measure of its opposite.


Irish

Indeed. What I've always found fascinating about that passage, is the plural usage for deity. "The man has now become like one of us." Possessed with knowledge of good and evil. Because in the beginning, man was made in the image of god. So then, eating of the tree of knowledge, make them like unto god and as it stood, eating of the tree of life, would then make them knowledgeable and eternal and as such , fully like god.

It's also interesting that that old snake opted to curl itself around the boughs of that particular tree, and not the tree of life, so as to tempt Eve to it's fruits. And being the first angel, it's intriguing that old scratch would decide that knowledge was more important for man, than was eternal life. And if that devil were the enemy of god, which I don't believe, he would know everything there was to know about that power called god, because he was his first and most beautiful angel in creation. So it's intriguing then, that he would choose to tempt Eve to eat of the tree that possessed the fruit of intelligence, rather than eternal life. When eating of the fruit of both tree's or either one, would make humankind like unto god. Knowing, it would seem, that intellect was superior to eternity as an ignorant.

So then, as many of my friends and I discuss about such matters in our little gatherings, it would appear the devil is perhaps the best friend man ever had. Because he tempted the first of us to find knowledge. Light out of the darkness of the ignorance of our condition. While living for eternity as ignorants, being kept souls , as it were, would serve to make us little more than a slave to the will of the master that commands us with it's superior knowledge, eternally. And for that, it is said woman and man were cursed by their maker. But still, according to the faith, that's all according to plan.

I think that while the story of Eden is heavily symbolized and with a bit of fiction, that it shows some essential truths, though I see a different meaning to the story from what most people find.

It is silly to suppose that an actual piece of fruit would bestow a conscience. Just as silly to suppose that a simple act of disobediance would corrupt human genetics and make future generations inferior.

I would interpet "do not eat of that fruit" not as an arbitrary command that required obediance for obediance's sake, but as an advisory given out of general concern. Sort of like, "do not eat poison ivy leaves". Because the fruit itself is not good.

Most people interpet "the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" to mean "the recognition of whether something is good or evil". But I sense that the other older, more medieval meaning of the word "knowledge" should be used here. That knowledge of evil refers to evil-memories, evil-thoughts, evil-wisdom&cunning, regardless of whether that evil results in evil deeds.

What's the first thing Eve and Adam did after eating the fruit? They decided it was wrong to be naked, but that's only a false pseudo-evil compared to clothing-optional depending on need. Nudity became evil when the people involved became lust driven animals who needed to hide their bodies from each other. If they were pure of heart, they would only need to dress for the weather and for circumstance. The fruit gave them dark desires, made their minds slaves to (new?) chemicals in their brains. And the only knowledge of good it bestowed is in reaction to the evil, relative "good". We haven't been given consciences, we've had our sensitivities warped and addled. Of course, no fruit from a tree would do that, but no fruit would give them consciences either. Trees and fruit are symbols of something much deeper that transpired.

God said, "now they are like us". Many readers might suppose that removing "eternal life" was an arbitrary punishment for disobediance. But what if God was disappointed by the outcome, because we were supposed to turn out better than them? Why all the folklore of humans having an entire world created for our living, with the prospective future that we might be so holy that one day the angels really would bow before us, if it were not intended that the creation be better than it's creators? What importance is it that we should lack "eternal life" if our spirits survive it anyways? Perhaps death is not a punishment but the only way to save the conciousness from the darkness it becomes enslaved to in life.

But as for original sin, I see all around me that while a continuing punishment may or may not be meted out on people everywhere, the "sin" itself it perpetuated in almost everyone down through the generations. People are slaves to the darkness they carry within them, religion and philosopy not seeming to help much. The vast majority could not exist in "heaven", because no place could be paradise with them in it. "where's the beer? where's the smokes? I want sex ... let's fight, it's fun ..."

So yes, I think there was sort of an "original sin", in a different way.

From what I've seen of your posts, Moondoggy, you're the type of person that likes to study new things, especially when it comes to Theology. So I would like to extend a challange to you, with the best of intentions naturally. I would propse that you give us a defense of what you consider to be original sin as accepted by the majority of christians in the world. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches all agree with you, but why do you agree with them? A few supporting verses would be welcome, since we are speaking of biblical interpretation here.

I look foreward to seeing what you have to say...

But where does it say that Adam and Eve were immortal before their sin?

The bible is quite clear as to their immortality and it wasn't inherent to them as human beings. They needed an outside source for immortality, that source was the Tree of Life. It wouldn't have been necessary otherwise, now would it?



Yes, Igree with this, but it much more profound. This knowledge of Good and Evil goes beyond right and wrong, good and evil. It is the realization by human beings that they can rule their lives and their decisions based on their own counsel and their own desires. Wheras before mans inocence or lack of knowledge gave him by default a sinless perception of the world, (Romans 5:13 - But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.) the realization that by free choice they could disobey God gave them the ability to do so from there onward. In other words, God stopped being the King in their lives and they put their own ego and personality on that throne.



Sin on a personal level is any action by intent of heart that directly opposes the will of God or his moral law.

Original sin States that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God and ate from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, all of their descendants became infected with the stain of their transgression. Moreover, as a consequence of this first iniquity, man is hopelessly lost in a state of sin in which he has been held captive since this fall. As a result, he is powerless to follow the path of obedience and righteousness by his own free will. Rather, because all are born with an innate and uncontrollable lust for sin, humanity can do nothing to merit its own salvation. In essence, man is totally depraved and true free will is far beyond his grasp. "Totally depraved" may seem to be a harsh way for a Christian doctrine to depict mankind's dire condition, yet this is precisely the term used by the church to describe man's desperate, sinful predicament. It is only through faith in Jesus, that hopeless man can be saved.

In a nutshell this is what Original sin contends. A doctrine that is not biblical and only came about due to St. Augustine. The church of the time embraced this doctrine because it gave the clergy and the state a way to centralize their power base. Remember that we are talking about the time when christianity suddenly found itself in favour and was the official state religion.

But God did not create humans perfect, that was never his intention. God is perfect but all of creation, especially in the physical universe is and has always been imperfect. There was death before the fall of man and there was sin before the fall of man. Humans were the exception to the natural world and its rule of nature. Hence the Tree of Life, of which Adam and Eve partook as much as they wanted before their sin.

That is exactly it. The two possibilities were before them but it was their choice as to what they did with those two possibilities. Although I personally believe that they did infact eat from the tree of life on a regular basis (the source of their apparent immortality) it was only necessary to eat from the tree of knowlege once for their perception of the universe to be permanently changed. They did in fact become godlike for the short time that they remained in the garden of Eden before their expulsion. Also the plural usage is difficult to explain away unless one assumes that the God in question is somehow pluralistic nature. Very disconcerting for those who refuse the Trinity as an explanation or at the very least a multifaceted God.



This was the tree of contention after all, the serpent would not have tempted Adam and Eve to do Gods will if his purpose was to destroy their status as Gods special creation set above all others including himself, whether he was Satan or not is irrelevant to the issue, which was humanities destruction by disobedience.




It is a quite commonly held belief in egards to the serpent. Most of the gnostic outlooks hold to it. I actually found out recently that Freemasons hold to this principle as well. It is an old belief actually, probably older than the bible itself. The serpent is many times likened to EN.KI, the Mesopotamian God of the Earth and as EA God of the Waters. It is especially interesting that the name for our planet is actually derived from this Gods name, and that is no joke.



The caduceus, (above) is one of the most ancient of symbols in the world. You might best know this symbol as the DNA structure and healing used by the medical profession. In ancient Mesopotamia the caduceus presented two serpents intertwined around a staff with the wings of a "swan" on either side.

Num 21:8-9

And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

It is significant that this symbol is reminiscent of and an allusion to the Staff of Moses. Which is actually fairly common. The World Medical Association's logo features a serpent wrapped around a staff, the symbol of the ancient Greek god Asklepios.



Aesculapius, worshipped by the Greeks as the god of healing, who originated in ancient Egypt as Imhotep, high-priest, sage and minister to the pharaoh, Zoser. The World Health Organisation's logo also contains the ancient religious symbol of the serpent and staff, which is superimposed over the United Nations emblem.



Purely for interests sake I'll include the following interesting links that are relevant to the this symbology issue about EN.KI and EA (one and the same individual).

See: Ancient Symbols in Modern Medicine and The Serpent who Walked in the Garden