Original Sin

[ChristianGuy1000]

Hi folks

 

I've a question.  It is well known by Christians that Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself and that he led a blameless life.  My question is that why did Jesus no grow up with original sin? I mean the reason none of us can go to heaven is because of original sin but why was Jesus not born in this state?

 

Secondly for Jesus to accept he sins of the world he would tis would imply that he died a sinner.  Which if his own teachings are anything to go by e would be punished by god for all eternity. So why is Jesus not punished?

 

We go on about eternal hell but how can hell be fair?? Jesus died with the universe of all sins and didn't goto hell apparently his punishment was earthly not eternal? So is it one rule for Jesus another for everyone else?

 

On Jesus logic a child who died in the womb would be sunless meaning if that child was old enough and taught nothing just that thy would die saying forgive them father technically we could goto heaven??

 

P.s what happened with Enoch and Elijah Jesus said no one has yet been to heaven yet the OT says otherwise??

 

Cheers

[mymistake]

Well the whole thing is a load of B.S. but the way my church explained it was that original sin is passed down through the father and since Jesus didn't have a human father . . . presto magic - no original sin.

 

 

 

On a side note Paul of Tarsus was being stupid when he tied his theology to the myth of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden.  None of that happened and it makes Christianity stupid.

[Deva]

It just doesn't make any sense from the get-go. Its a false, man-made idea that just falls apart upon thinking about it for a solid five minutes.

 

Supposedly God put all the sins of the world upon Jesus as he was dying on the cross. At least that is what I was taught.  But its all BS.

[centauri]

 

Hi folks

 

I've a question.  It is well known by Christians that Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself and that he led a blameless life.

Well, lots of things are known by Christians and many of them contradict the Bible.

There is no provision in God's law for a human to be a vicarious sin sacrifice.

Jesus did not have a sinless life because he undermined parts of God's law by teaching contrary to it.

 

My question is that why did Jesus no grow up with original sin? I mean the reason none of us can go to heaven is because of original sin but why was Jesus not born in this state?

The virgin birth is usually employed to get around this problem.

If original sin even exists, which in itself is dubious even according to the Old Testament, then Jesus got it from Mary.

Of course, many believers will simply claim that Jesus is exempt from anything sinful.

 

Secondly for Jesus to accept he sins of the world he would tis would imply that he died a sinner.  Which if his own teachings are anything to go by e would be punished by god for all eternity. So why is Jesus not punished?

The question is moot, it only has meaning if one completely disregards the Old Testament.

There is no provision in the law of God for a human to serve as a vicarious sin sacrifice.

Each person will die for their own sin and saves themselves through proper behavior (Ezek 18:20-28).

 

P.s what happened with Enoch and Elijah Jesus said no one has yet been to heaven yet the OT says otherwise??

That's a problem for Jesus.

Apologists will often contend that Enoch and ELijah didn't go to exactly the same "heaven" that Jesus meant.

[midniterider]

 So why is Jesus not punished?

 

You can't punish something that doesnt exist.

[midniterider]

 

Hi folks

 

I've a question.  It is well known by Christians that Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself and that he led a blameless life.

Well, lots of things are known by Christians and many of them contradict the Bible.

There is no provision in God's law for a human to be a vicarious sin sacrifice.

Jesus did not have a sinless life because he undermined parts of God's law by teaching contrary to it.

 

My question is that why did Jesus no grow up with original sin? I mean the reason none of us can go to heaven is because of original sin but why was Jesus not born in this state?

The virgin birth is usually employed to get around this problem.

If original sin even exists, which in itself is dubious even according to the Old Testament, then Jesus got it from Mary.

Of course, many believers will simply claim that Jesus is exempt from anything sinful.

 

Secondly for Jesus to accept he sins of the world he would tis would imply that he died a sinner.  Which if his own teachings are anything to go by e would be punished by god for all eternity. So why is Jesus not punished?

The question is moot, it only has meaning if one completely disregards the Old Testament.

There is no provision in the law of God for a human to serve as a vicarious sin sacrifice.

Each person will die for their own sin and saves themselves through proper behavior (Ezek 18:20-28).

 

P.s what happened with Enoch and Elijah Jesus said no one has yet been to heaven yet the OT says otherwise??

That's a problem for Jesus.

Apologists will often contend that Enoch and ELijah didn't go to exactly the same "heaven" that Jesus meant.

 

 

i wonder if there is a book that is a collection of all the bizarre apologetics people have ever come up with to explain contradictory bible stuff. :-)

[duderonomy]

 

 

Hi folks

 

I've a question.  It is well known by Christians that Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself and that he led a blameless life.

Well, lots of things are known by Christians and many of them contradict the Bible.

There is no provision in God's law for a human to be a vicarious sin sacrifice.

Jesus did not have a sinless life because he undermined parts of God's law by teaching contrary to it.

 

My question is that why did Jesus no grow up with original sin? I mean the reason none of us can go to heaven is because of original sin but why was Jesus not born in this state?

The virgin birth is usually employed to get around this problem.

If original sin even exists, which in itself is dubious even according to the Old Testament, then Jesus got it from Mary.

Of course, many believers will simply claim that Jesus is exempt from anything sinful.

 

Secondly for Jesus to accept he sins of the world he would tis would imply that he died a sinner.  Which if his own teachings are anything to go by e would be punished by god for all eternity. So why is Jesus not punished?

The question is moot, it only has meaning if one completely disregards the Old Testament.

There is no provision in the law of God for a human to serve as a vicarious sin sacrifice.

Each person will die for their own sin and saves themselves through proper behavior (Ezek 18:20-28).

 

P.s what happened with Enoch and Elijah Jesus said no one has yet been to heaven yet the OT says otherwise??

That's a problem for Jesus.

Apologists will often contend that Enoch and ELijah didn't go to exactly the same "heaven" that Jesus meant.

 

 

i wonder if there is a book that is a collection of all the bizarre apologetics people have ever come up with to explain contradictory bible stuff. :-)

 

 

There might be such a book somewhere. I'd read it. In the meantime, we have Ex-C.

[miekko]

Funny enough, original sin is not even part of all old versions of Christianity - Eastern Orthodoxy to this day doesn't have it.

[Geezer]

CG1000, I assume you are still in transition, so I'm going to cut you some slack. The bible isn't true, but until you can accept that you will continue to wrestle with all sorts of doctrinal issues and teachings. When your mind finally accepts the fact that the bible simply isn't true the questions you are asking now will cease.

 

The stuff you read in the bible didn't really happen. The people you read about in the bible didn't really exist. The bible isn't an accurate record of anything. The bible is a collection of fictional stories about the religious beliefs and practices of a few ancient cultures.

 

You do realize that all the bible stories only existed in oral form for untold decades before anyone began writing them down. I assume you also realize when oral stories are retold countless times over decades, that often encompassed hundreds and hundreds of years, they change and in the end probably don’t even resemble the original story.

 

Additionally, Christianity has evolved and its doctrines and teaching have changed with each passing generation. It took nearly a thousand years for the idea of Substitutionary Atonement to be accepted as doctrine. It took a couple of hundred years for Jesus to be accepted as God incarnate.

 

In order for a religion to survive they had to develop a system of rewards and punishment. They have to offer something in order to attract people. And they also have to have a way of controlling them and extorting money from them to pay the bills and enrich the leadership. Thus the concepts of sin, forgiveness, heaven, and hell were invented to solve those problems.

 

The bible is pure fiction CG1000, and Christianity, along with all of its dogma, is also man made.

[Fernweh]

CG1000, you are obviously at a point where you can seriously call into question all the implausible scenarios of the Bible. That's one of the first steps of de-conversion. Think of it this way, you are trying to take myths and make them work with the reality in which we really live. This is like trying to explain how a fairly tail such as "Jack and the Beanstalk" really happened. You can't do it because it's fiction. A lot of people in the world happen to believe this particular fiction but that still doesn't make it real.

 

The questions you pose in your OP are all legitimate to a theologian who takes these things seriously. The rest of us not so much. The concept of Original Sin starts with Genesis and the Garden of Eden. To take any part of Jesus vicarious atonement seriously you must first believe in talking serpents, forbidden fruits, and the Earth as a flat disk with a dome over it. To get a good perspective on the absurdity of Genesis I suggest the great agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll's excellent reductio ad absurdum of the entire Pentateuch "Mistakes of Moses". His works are all long out of copy write and exist in the public domain at the Project Gutenberg's website.

[par4dcourse]

Genetics has proven that the Adam/Eve story couldn't be true. No original sin, whole convoluted story falls apart.

[centauri]

 

i wonder if there is a book that is a collection of all the bizarre apologetics people have ever come up with to explain contradictory bible stuff. :-)

Sometimes I tune in to the "Bible Answer Man " show on the radio.

"Exploring The Word" is another show that posits all sorts of amusing rationalizations.

Apologetics is a great profession because there's always a demand for more excuses to prop up a bankrupt theology.

[Lerk]

My church didn't even believe in original sin. A child is born sinless, but becomes guilty of sin when they reach some variable "age of accountability". There are various verses quoted to support this.

 

As far as Jesus not winding up in Hell because of all of these sins, since Hell is supposedly bad because God isn't there, then when it says God turned his back and Jesus said "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me", perhaps he got enough of a taste of hell right there to be good.

 

I don't know why I'm bothering to speculate about that. It isn't real anyway! I suppose people have arguments about comic books and other fiction, though, so discussing the theory of hell is okay.

[Geezer]

That age of accountability thing always puzzled me. MisterTwo  notes some verses in scripture were manipulated and “interpreted” to endorse that idea, but scripture doesn’t really support that doctrine without some imaginative thinking and creative interpretations.

 

 I assumed the Church invented it because people would be outraged with any teaching that even suggested an innocent child or baby, who died, would go to hell.

 

An adult who has never been exposed to Christianity is destined for hell though.  That teaching didn’t make sense to me when I was a Christian and I don’t think I ever really bought into it. That kind of thinking was just too convoluted to be taken seriously.

 

 

[centauri]

Some support for the age of accountability can be found here:

Deut 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 

However, I've never seen the actual age defined in the Bible.
 

[RipVanWinkle]

I read somewhere that the belief that Jesus was sinless was based upon the erroneous belief by the church that the mother is merely a conduit for the baby to grow in and pass through. So the belief was that sins were inherited through the  father only. In other words this was another way for Xtians to put down women: 'they were a mere conduit. The idiots.   bill

[Fernweh]

So I wonder, can we ever find what gene is the sin gene? Maybe we could isolate it and remove it from the genome. But seriously, the doctrine of sin passing down the generations through the father is yet another Bronze Age idea rendered totally obsolete by modern understanding of genetics.

[Geezer]

Some support for the age of accountability can be found here:

Deut 1:39

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 

However, I've never seen the actual age defined in the Bible.

 

 

 

I was Church of Christ, when I was a Christian, so the OT didn't exist as far as we were concerned. The cross did away with the OT. As Christians we were only bound by the NT teaching especially the teaching of Paul. I think the c of C granted Paul Divine status too. At least we believed anything Paul said or wrote came directly from God. Paul and God were clearly very close buds but Paul was only considered "slightly" more important than Jesus.

[par4dcourse]

Isn't the "coming of age" thing the reason for Jewish bar mitzvah?

[sdelsolray]

Hi folks

 

I've a question.  It is well known by Christians that Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself and that he led a blameless life.  My question is that why did Jesus no grow up with original sin? I mean the reason none of us can go to heaven is because of original sin but why was Jesus not born in this state?

 

Secondly for Jesus to accept he sins of the world he would tis would imply that he died a sinner.  Which if his own teachings are anything to go by e would be punished by god for all eternity. So why is Jesus not punished?

 

We go on about eternal hell but how can hell be fair?? Jesus died with the universe of all sins and didn't goto hell apparently his punishment was earthly not eternal? So is it one rule for Jesus another for everyone else?

 

On Jesus logic a child who died in the womb would be sunless meaning if that child was old enough and taught nothing just that thy would die saying forgive them father technically we could goto heaven??

 

P.s what happened with Enoch and Elijah Jesus said no one has yet been to heaven yet the OT says otherwise??

 

Cheers

It's good that you are asking questions.  However, the premise of your questions seems to assume that Christian religion dogma is factually correct.

 

Just as a thought experiment, presume the particular Christian religion dogma is factually incorrect, such as being a myth, a lie, an exaggeration, a fable, etc.  What happens to your questions when you change your premise?

[miekko]

 

Hi folks

 

I've a question.  It is well known by Christians that Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself and that he led a blameless life.  My question is that why did Jesus no grow up with original sin? I mean the reason none of us can go to heaven is because of original sin but why was Jesus not born in this state?

 

Secondly for Jesus to accept he sins of the world he would tis would imply that he died a sinner.  Which if his own teachings are anything to go by e would be punished by god for all eternity. So why is Jesus not punished?

 

We go on about eternal hell but how can hell be fair?? Jesus died with the universe of all sins and didn't goto hell apparently his punishment was earthly not eternal? So is it one rule for Jesus another for everyone else?

 

On Jesus logic a child who died in the womb would be sunless meaning if that child was old enough and taught nothing just that thy would die saying forgive them father technically we could goto heaven??

 

P.s what happened with Enoch and Elijah Jesus said no one has yet been to heaven yet the OT says otherwise??

 

Cheers

It's good that you are asking questions.  However, the premise of your questions seems to assume that Christian religion dogma is factually correct.

 

Just as a thought experiment, presume the particular Christian religion dogma is factually incorrect, such as being a myth, a lie, an exaggeration, a fable, etc.  What happens to your questions when you change your premise?

 

You ever heard of reductio ad absurdum? This is a way of showing something wrong by pretending it is correct and then seeing that the conclusions one will have to draw from that are absurd, and thus the thing we pretend to be correct must be faulty somehow. It seems to me that it is better to let ChristianGuy go on asking these questions and not tell him beforehand he should change the premise - by maintaining the premise, the flaws may very well become apparent. (It's funny though, on some fora along these lines, anyone trying a reductio ad absurdum will be accused of believing in the premise, even when they explicitly use the reductio to show the premise wrong. That's a bit too much of a knee-jerk reaction against anything that even is remotely similar to religion.)

[HolyShit]

Isn't the concept of "sin" just made up by the Biblical authors? I don't even know

what "sin" is. I think it's just made up to control people and make them feel guilty.

[Gamecock1973]

I read somewhere that the belief that Jesus was sinless was based upon the erroneous belief by the church that the mother is merely a conduit for the baby to grow in and pass through. So the belief was that sins were inherited through the  father only. In other words this was another way for Xtians to put down women: 'they were a mere conduit. The idiots.   bill

 

I always assumed that the virgin birth got Jesus around original sin...because SEX IS DIRTY AND SINFUL!

[hereticzero]

Hi folks

 

I've a question.  It is well known by Christians that Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself and that he led a blameless life.  My question is that why did Jesus no grow up with original sin? I mean the reason none of us can go to heaven is because of original sin but why was Jesus not born in this state?

 

Secondly for Jesus to accept he sins of the world he would tis would imply that he died a sinner.  Which if his own teachings are anything to go by e would be punished by god for all eternity. So why is Jesus not punished?

 

We go on about eternal hell but how can hell be fair?? Jesus died with the universe of all sins and didn't goto hell apparently his punishment was earthly not eternal? So is it one rule for Jesus another for everyone else?

 

On Jesus logic a child who died in the womb would be sunless meaning if that child was old enough and taught nothing just that thy would die saying forgive them father technically we could goto heaven??

 

P.s what happened with Enoch and Elijah Jesus said no one has yet been to heaven yet the OT says otherwise??

 

Cheers

This is the scripture Christians enjoy reading to nonbelievers, which is supposed to be the prophecy of the coming of Jesus' birth"

 

Isaiah (Isa) 7:14-16 KJV  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

Then Christians cannot bring themselves to read the next verse concerning that same passage:

 

Isa 7:15-16 KJV   (15)  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.  (16)  For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

 

 (15)  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.  (16)  For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

 

Little Jesus was not without sin.

 

Jesus was also NOT a sacrifice:

 

Jer 7:22  For I did not speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. 

 

And the prophet Hosea claimed: Hos 6:6 MKJV  For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

 

and this was also echoed in the New Testament of Matthew: Mat 12:7 MKJV  But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty."

 

The bible is written as a book that denies the acceptance of sacrifice to god. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah said so. He claimed the law of sacrifice was never given to Moses which makes the whole bible a collection of mythological stories. Man never fell from grace, there was no talking snake, woman did not cause the fall of man and Jesus is no sacrifice that is acceptable to god. Hower, god does desire mercy which come from the ability to forgive that every person has. Not just the religious can forgive. Forgiveness is a human attribute. So what is written and taught as law are nothing other than the traditional teachings. It is not law it is fraud perpetrated upon the Jew by their priests who know the law was never given to Moses. Tradition is being taught as the commandments of god. Therefore, Christianity cannot exist because the whole argument concerning Jesus as the sacrifice for sins just went out the window because of the prophet Jeremiah. Sacrifice does not take away the sins or conceal them. Let the Christian go and hang their own head for bringing shame and guilt where there is none. For even Jeremiah claimed, 'Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do any good.' Why? Because there was no law ever given to Moses which makes any claim Moses had also a claim to fraud. Following the law does absolutely no good. Following Jesus as if he were a sacrifice for humanity will also do no good.

[centauri]

Jesus was also NOT a sacrifice:

I would concur but for a different reason than below.

 

Jer 7:22  For I did not speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. 

 

And the prophet Hosea claimed: Hos 6:6 MKJV  For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

 

and this was also echoed in the New Testament of Matthew: Mat 12:7 MKJV  But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty."

 

 

The bible is written as a book that denies the acceptance of sacrifice to god. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah said so. He claimed the law of sacrifice was never given to Moses which makes the whole bible a collection of mythological stories.

I would advise caution about using Jer 7:22 to assert that God never gave Moses laws on sacrifices.

The text can be interpreted in an different way.

It can be interpreted that God did not immediately give the people the regulations on sacrifices because he first wanted their promise to obey him, which they then made.

 

Exo 19:4-5,8

Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine:

And all the people answered together, and said, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do. And Moses reported the words of the people unto Jehovah.

 

This took place prior to Moses going up and receiving the Ten Commandments.

Technically, the regulations on sacrifices and offerings came after the people had sworn to obey God.

It did not occur in God's first communion with his people after they left Egypt.

 

Without sincere obedience, the rituals on sacrifice are impotent, when the intent of the law is ignored.

 

Hosea 4:6

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.

 

Hosea 6:6

For I desire goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.

 

The Jewish apologist Isaac Troki put it thusly:

"in 1 Samuel 15:22, obedience is enforced in preference to sacrifice, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold obedience is better than sacrifice, to attend unto Him is better than the fat of rams." We thus see that sacrifices were not ordained for their intrinsic value, but were intended to lead sinners into the temple, where they might contemplate on the mercy of God while performing the prescribed offering. Sacrifices consequently produced the same sanctifying effect on the mind, as healing medicines do on the body."

 

Topic-misuse of scripture in Heb 10:5:

http://faithstrengthened.org/FSpart1chapter45.html#JER00722_145

 

As I read it, the context of Jer 7 is that when sacrifices are made simply to go through the motions, or with little sincere intent, they are not acceptable to God.

 

Jer 7:22-24(ASV)

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:

but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.

But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

 

Offerings and sacrifices made without sincere intent and a contrite heart are meaningless to God, practically an affront.

Animal sin sacrifices are almost exclusively for unintentional sins.

Intentional sins are atoned for by repenting and pleading with God.

 

In Jer 33, it is shown that sacrifices and offerings would be going on in the messianic era:

 

Jer 33:18-21(ASV)

neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt-offerings, and to burn meal-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

And the word of Jehovah came unto Jeremiah, saying,

Thus saith Jehovah: If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, so that there shall not be day and night in their season;

then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he shall not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

 

If Jer 7 really means that no law on sacrifice was ever given to Moses, then Jer 33 is a lie.

It's certainly possible that the Book of Jeremiah was the work of more than one author and does blatantly contradict itself, but Jer 7 isn't a slam dunk conclusion for me as saying that God never gave the law on sacrifices to Moses.

I find Jer 8:8 to be better suited to cast doubt on the Old Testament.

 

Jer 8:8(ASV)

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.

 

The warning about false teachers who distort the law is found elsewhere in Jeremiah and this particular passage is rather damning due to the implications.

If false teachings made their way into to Bible, then it would indeed cast doubt on the foundation of Judaism.

 

Naturally, apologists will contend that such pollution is not found in the Bible but was rooted out or rejected in the past.

 

 

Man never fell from grace, there was no talking snake, woman did not cause the fall of man and Jesus is no sacrifice that is acceptable to god.

 

I would agree that Jesus is not acceptable as a sin sacrifice, but on the grounds that he didn't conform to the law regarding such sacrifices, or the law in general.

Hower, god does desire mercy which come from the ability to forgive that every person has. Not just the religious can forgive. Forgiveness is a human attribute. So what is written and taught as law are nothing other than the traditional teachings. It is not law it is fraud perpetrated upon the Jew by their priests who know the law was never given to Moses. Tradition is being taught as the commandments of god. Therefore, Christianity cannot exist because the whole argument concerning Jesus as the sacrifice for sins just went out the window because of the prophet Jeremiah. Sacrifice does not take away the sins or conceal them.

Atonement for unintentional sins does involve sacrifices, and that process does achieve forgiveness, but I realize you reject this premise.

I reject Jesus on different grounds.

He didn't conform to the regulations of the law, which for the sake of argument, I accept as being no less a part of the Jewish scripture than any other part (as found in the Hebrew Bible).

I would certainly agree that Christianity and Jesus do absolutely nothing to reconcile people to the Hebrew deity.