what is Sin in Christianity ?

I think it is an error to consider the Trinity God of Christianity as an Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God was one single and undivided god. The branch that was expounded by Moses was a continuation of that Abrahamic God. The God of Moses was clearly single and undivided. The final religion based on the Abrahamic God is Islam. The God described by the prophet Muhammad dictated by a messenger angel was also a single and undivided Abrahamic God.

Jesus believed in the single and undivided God of Moses and Abraham. Muslims also accept the teachings of Jesus about that god. The Abrahamic God was called Allah. Yet it clearly is the same god of Abraham and Moses. Jesus did not claim to be a god and would have considered his own deification two centuries later to be blasphemy.

The Christian God is not single and not undivided. It is divided into a father, son, and Holy Spirit. In this, it is structurally related to Zoroastrianism, Roman Mithraism, Hinduism, and the Indo-European Paganisms.

The simplicity and order of Judaism and Islam explain the Islamic growth to the largest religion in the world. Judaism does not try to convert people.

Christianity, once it was amended and amended by philosophers in the first three centuries CE, was selected by Emperor Constantine for official status because he saw that it was Mithraism, Hinduism, Druidism, Olympianism, Sol Invictus, and Roman Paganism. Politically Constantine was clever. He picked a religion as Indo-European in structure as to merge easily (syncretion) with the Indo-European Cults making up the majority of Greco-Romans, Celtic Romans, and Latin Romans.

The argument I heard from one Christian trying to link Christianity to Moses, was the term Elohim. The Judaic single god was defined as one God. He was called JHWY or El. The comment in genesis, "man wants to become one of us," is cited to show a Trinity not a Monotheistic God.

So much else supports the strict Monotheism in the O.T. and N.T. gospels if one deletes the Divine impregnation of the virgin birth of a saviour separate from God. The Resurrection Myth says that Jesus WAS resurrected, not that Jesus resurrected himself. I suspect the plural Elohim may have been a figure of speech such as used by Kings and Emperors. A King would condemn rebellion saying, "We are appointed by God." The royal "we" and "us" is well known.

Amergin
 
Amergin said:
I think it is an error to consider the Trinity God of Christianity as an Abrahamic God.
Click to expand...
OK

Amergin said:
The Abrahamic God was one single and undivided god.
Click to expand...
OK

Amergin said:
The branch that was expounded by Moses was a continuation of that Abrahamic God.
Click to expand...
OK

Amergin said:
The God of Moses was clearly single and undivided.
Click to expand...
OK

Amergin said:
The final religion based on the Abrahamic God is Islam.
Click to expand...
OK

Amergin said:
The God described by the prophet Muhammad dictated by a messenger angel was also a single and undivided Abrahamic God.
Click to expand...
OK

Amergin said:
Jesus believed in the single and undivided God of Moses and Abraham.
Click to expand...
OK

Amergin said:
Jesus did not claim to be a god ...
Click to expand...
Yes He did. Matthew 9:2, 9:5; Mark 2:5, 2:9; Luke 5:20, 5:23, 7:47-48 ... the parables of the kingdom, the revision of the Decalogue, the 'I am' statements in John ... in fact in many, many places His words and deeds signify His claim and evidence the truth of it.

You need someone to explain the Scriptures to you.

Amergin said:
The Christian God is not single and not undivided.
Click to expand...
Actually it is. You misunderstand the doctrine.

Amergin said:
It is divided into a father, son, and Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
No, the word 'divided' is never used — in fact the opposite is affirmed emphatically — so again, this is your misunderstanding.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas, quite concise and quite correct. Amergin, while a lot (most here in the USA) of Christians do not understand the subtitles of the unity of the Trinity (homoousios) it has been the foundation of what I call Traditional Christianity (Oriental Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches) since the Council of Nicaea. Non-traditional Christianity (most Protestant groups with the clear exception of Anglicans and Episcopalians and others I am sure) have strayed from this foundation. For example, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) have no dogma, hence one could be unitarian, universalist, or non-theistic. Or the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (Mormons) believe in exactly what you are writing (three separate individuals).

If one accepts all of this spectrum of beliefs to be Christian, your argument is muddled. If you further constrict the definition to Traditional Christian denominations, like Thomas says, your argument is simply incorrect (it contradicts the Nicene Creed).
 
Both Good and evil go together. One cannot be without the other. But as humans, why can we let our good be more than the evils we commit?
 
I think sin is simply not living up to our potential. Whether we "miss the mark" intentionally or not, the end result is the same. The wages of sin are death. I think Hosea alludes to this also when it is stated that we are destroyed for lack of knowledge. As I understand it, ignorance leads to sin, sin then leads to death. Willful or not, when we sin there are natural consequences to be had.
 
I have a problem with this question. As a result of my studies of the NT, I would answer that sin according to Christianity is the transgression of the Law. But then again, Paul declared in Hebrews 7:12,22 that, with the change of the priesthood there was a change in the Law as Jesus became the guarantee of a better covenant. If the Law changed, how is it still good to say that sin is a transgression of the Law?
 
invite1 said:
The concept of original sin is completely foreign to Judaism and Eastern
Christianity, having achieved acceptance in only the Western Church. Furthermore,
Christian and Islamic concepts of sin are virtual opposites with respect to certain
nuances. For example, there is no concept of “sinning in the mind” in Islam; to a
Muslim, an evil thought becomes a good deed when a person refuses to act upon it.
Overcoming and dismissing the evil thoughts which forever assail our minds is
considered deserving of reward rather than punishment. Islamically speaking, an evil
thought only becomes sinful when fulfilled.

Conceiving good deeds is more contrary to the base nature of man. Since our
creation, if not bound by societal or religious restrictions, humankind has historically
dined on the banquet of life with lust and abandon. The orgies of self-indulgence that
have carpeted the corridors of history envelop not only individuals and small
communities, but even major world powers which ate their fill of deviancy to the
point ofself-destruction. Sodom and Gomorrah may top most lists, but the greatest
powers of the ancient world—to include the Greek, Roman and Persian empires, as
well as those of Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great—certainly bear dishonorable
mention. But while examples of communal decadence are innumerable, cases of
individual corruption are exponentially more common.

So, good thoughts are not always the first instinct of humankind. As such, the
Islamic understanding is that the very conception of good deeds is worthy of reward,
even if not acted upon. When a person actually commits a good deed, Allah multiplies
the reward even further.

The concept of original sin simply does not exist in Islam, and never has. For
the Christian readers, the question is not whether the concept of original sin exists in
present day, but whether it existed during the period of Christian origins. Specifically,
did Jesus teach it?

Apparently not. Whoever dreamt up the concept, it certainly wasn’t Jesus, for
he reportedly taught, “Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them, for
of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). We may well wonder how “for
of such” could be “the kingdom of heaven” if the unbaptized are hell-bound. Children
are either born with original sin or are bound for the kingdom of heaven. The church
can’t have it both ways. Ezekiel 18:20 records, “The son shall not bear the guilt of the
father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall
be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
Deuteronomy 24:16 repeats the point.
The objection may be raised that this is Old Testament, but it’s not older than Adam! If original sin dated from Adam and Eve, one wouldn’t find it disavowed in any scripture of any age!
Islam teaches that each person is born in a state ofspiritual purity, but
upbringing and the allure of worldly pleasures may corrupt us. Nonetheless, sins are
not inherited and, for that matter, not even Adam and Eve will be punished for their
sins, for God has forgiven them. And how can humankind inherit something that no
longer exists? No, Islamically speaking, all of us will be judged according to our
deeds, for “man can have nothing but what he strives for” (TMQ 53:38–39), and
“Who receives guidance, receives it for his own benefit: who goes astray does so to
his own loss: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another . . .” (TMQ 17:15).
Each person will bear responsibility for his or her actions, but no infant goes to hell
for being unbaptized and burdened with sin as a birthright—or should we say a birth wrong.
Click to expand...

nice cup and pasted job.

do you have a position on sin in Christianity thats your own >
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top