Original Sin

Nick the Pilot said:
According to my belief system, Genesis has been re-written down through the centuries. I do not believe the version of Genesis we see today is the original version.
Click to expand...
I agree, and
Thomas said:
But then, I don't think Theosophy has any evidence to that end, has it? Nor, I presume, any idea of what the supposed 'original version' might have said?

Fragments of Genesis found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the first verses, match the current Biblical texts, so we can assume no-one's tinkered with the text after about 300BC – assuming the scrolls are that old, they might not be. But the point is the scrolls contain numerous Biblical texts, and no sign of difference, so personally I think the idea of a rewrite is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...
300BC is very late for a series of books written about an event Thousands of years before
 
BigJoeNobody said:
I agree 100% as I don't believe the scribe meant to decieve or make it incorrect. He was working with his own knowledge of an account.
Click to expand...

It's sad to say, but, yes, I think there were times when the scribes intentionally altered Genesis with intent to deceive.
 
wil said:
I simply don't know any Jews (and I know quite a few Jews) who get wrapped up in original sin... and they wrote the book.
Click to expand...
I simply don't know many Christians who get wrapped up in it either... seems to me it's the people who don't like the idea are the ones getting wrapped up.
 
Last edited:
Oh my....I know plenty that do...of course I am in the US....where 'we are all sinners'....'we are all unworthy'....'have you accepted Jesus as your lord and saviour or are you going to hell?" folks knock door to door, leave chick tracks, and stomp the dust off their feet at your stoop.
 
wil said:
Oh my....I know plenty that do...of course I am in the US...
Click to expand...
So you tell me. I think that says more about the American character, actually. There are a number of Christian and pseudo-Christian phenomena that are unique to the US.

You need to broaden your horizons, and not let 'the nutters' shape your opinions.
 
You have broadened my horizons.... our nutters however are loud and obnoxious...they run for public office, they are running for President, they are on our Supreme court... they are making laws and decisions that affect a good chunk of the population on this planet...a chunk of population that spends more time, effort and dollars on controlling the worlds affairs than I believe any other....

The spread of this thought through the empire this island controls is not dissimilar to another island and the control it had a few hundred years ago...the repercussions of the work of that empire still impacts the world...as I imagine the residuals of our nutters actions will a few hundred years from now.
 
Okay me and windows 10 :eek: are back. Seems I missed too much to interject at this point. Good thread y'all...
 
Thanks for the link Nick. Found it useful.

Now, speaking of OSin, lets get Lilith into this conversation. Always heard she was first and wanted to be tops. Now that is original! Reminds me of a joke but that would be a different thread - no that would be a different forum...;)
 
I think I roughly grasp what you are saying Thomas and Wil. I'm also concerned about the way this topic is handled in USA, and from here come many missionaries who influence Christians elsewhere. The majority seem to have no interest in understanding mystical subjects and even show outright fear of mystical topics. This is by design, by evil people who contrived to incorporate the fear of the mystical into Christians.

I think that a valid discussion of original sin could come from another angle, 'From the side'. It might open up the possibility of discussion about Christian history and eastern tradition for hard-boiled western protestants. It could begin by explaining that some sins are purposeful and some are not, and these are two different classes of sins not a single class of equivalent sins. Additionally there is not only one kind of Christian, but there are many who compose a larger group. However, its clear that no progress would be made through insisting upon anything. That would be backsliding.
 
slightly offtopic here but what's your understanding of Gnosis....called marifah in islam?
ie the idea is that our mind can be made to reflect whatever we choose to focus on
to a lesser degree, we can callit imitation, but to a higher degree as with gnosis...you become that thing you seek or at least your mind reflects it's qualities.

from this you get sufi concepts of fana fi sheikh, fana fi rasul and fana fi Allah.
I personally believe the Gospels openly show us this concept of Gnosis

ie

Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness.

referring to the minds eye.


there's a lot of themes used by Jesus Christ AS which match the sufi concept of marifah aswell as tariqah.
When he said
"you are in me and i am in you"
"I am in the Father and the Father is in me"
etc
it's obviously not literal but a reference to Gnosis.

I also believe Christianity was a tariqah for example
"you are a priest forever after the ORDER of Melkezidek" (who is a vague figure in the bible, similar to Khidr AS)
the way this order was set up ie similar to a sufi tariqa

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you

basically if this is all understood correctly then you can see why the life of Jesus Christ....serves as a symbol for those who wish to be free of sin....
it's not enough to merely accept him with your tongue or to be physically baptised. You have to become him.....

like he said
He that abideth in me, and I in him


The nature of sin and accountability of sin are 2 seperate things. We all have the nature of sin in us, our carnality. What Jesus Christ AS clearly represents is the ultimately struggle and conquest against the nafs.

However...it's easy to talk, it's another thing to walk the walk. I don't think im strong enough or ready to leave everything and live that life you know? Al Ghazali did...true sufis often did.
 
aspiringsoul said:
slightly offtopic here but what's your understanding of Gnosis....called marifah in islam?
ie the idea is that our mind can be made to reflect whatever we choose to focus on
to a lesser degree, we can callit imitation, but to a higher degree as with gnosis...you become that thing you seek or at least your mind reflects it's qualities.

from this you get sufi concepts of fana fi sheikh, fana fi rasul and fana fi Allah.
I personally believe the Gospels openly show us this concept of Gnosis

ie

Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness.

referring to the minds eye.


there's a lot of themes used by Jesus Christ AS which match the sufi concept of marifah aswell as tariqah.
When he said
"you are in me and i am in you"
"I am in the Father and the Father is in me"
etc
it's obviously not literal but a reference to Gnosis.

I also believe Christianity was a tariqah for example
"you are a priest forever after the ORDER of Melkezidek" (who is a vague figure in the bible, similar to Khidr AS)
the way this order was set up ie similar to a sufi tariqa

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you

basically if this is all understood correctly then you can see why the life of Jesus Christ....serves as a symbol for those who wish to be free of sin....
it's not enough to merely accept him with your tongue or to be physically baptised. You have to become him.....

like he said
He that abideth in me, and I in him


The nature of sin and accountability of sin are 2 seperate things. We all have the nature of sin in us, our carnality. What Jesus Christ AS clearly represents is the ultimately struggle and conquest against the nafs.

However...it's easy to talk, it's another thing to walk the walk. I don't think im strong enough or ready to leave everything and live that life you know? Al Ghazali did...true sufis often did.
Click to expand...
My knowedge of Sufism is quite low, probably just below my knowledge of Gnostic teachings. I know that Gnostics (at least some segments) believe all Holy books included or not into the Abrahamic religions are valid, at least to a point.

Sufis are I know a bit more complicated in that Sufi means different things to different people. There are the Mystical loving Sufis that think if you wish for something correctly, it will happen (fire, creation, etc.). Then there are the Sufis that say the best form of worship is to know nothing other than the teachings of Allah. This leads to issues from the Sunnah, but I am not versed enough in either to warrant any judgement.

I think your analysis is pointed to the Gnostic/Sufi mystical view. Of all the examples, of which I use in explaining issues with Christian viewpoints in my personal life, I find I am agreeing that the average Christian is misinterpreting it, but not to the level as you describe. "He who abides in me, and I in him..." IMO doesn't suggest an idea of becoming Isa (PBUH) but rather believing and trusting his words and actions are from Allah. I do agree that if you truly admire and imitate a Prophet of Allah (PBUTA) you will become a greater person. If you do what they instructed, your afterlife will be great. That being said you will never become Isa, Mouhammed, Nu, Musa, Lut, Adam, Isaiah, Isaac, Ismail, Ibrahim, Jonah, YahYah, Suleimon, David, etc. (PBUTA); nor will you ever achieve as great a reward as any of them. No matter how much you wish and try, these Prophets of Allah (PBUTA) will always be greater.

This of course is my opinion. You are free to disagree.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
I am sure we are all aware the Islam does not agree with the original sin theory. And I actually thought the idea was long past in most Christian scholarship. But recently when discussing with a friend of mine's mother some of the ideas of Islam I was confronted with the question of how do we atone for the sins of Adam and Eve without Jesus's (PBUTA) sacrifice.
Click to expand...
I've often herd this argument about Adam and Eve and original sin. Only, I was always taught that the original sin occurred in the 1st earth age, long before Adam and Eve and had to do with Satan and a third of the angels rebelling against God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
Aussie,

I see the Fall of the Angels, and the disastrous events which befell the earliest individual human beings (the meaning behind the symbolic story of Adam and Eve) as two quite separate events. I see the term Original Sin as only pertaining to the events which are symbolized in the Adam and Eve story.
 
I was never taught that, but if you think about it and if [Original] really means original, than who was the original sinner? Satan, when he rebelled against God and that was certainly before Adam and Eve.
 
In a general sense of the notion of "original sin," not necessarily a biblical one, I have no problem with the notion in that I believe for the vast bulk of humanity born into this worldly plane we can only "see through a glass darkly" as to the full and true Reality and that all religio-spiritual paths are developed with the intent of helping to at least catch glimpses of it. But, in a sense, we wouldn't be here if we could. Earl
 
Namaste Jesus said:
I was never taught that, but if you think about it and if [Original] really means original, than who was the original sinner? Satan, when he rebelled against God and that was certainly before Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking the biggest reason Satan's Fall (regardless of the new age Biblical style or Islamic style) isn't called the "Original Sin" is because Satan's fall wasn't of a human nature. He nor anyone involved was human. his sin only was original for his kind.
 
Hi Earl –
earl said:
... I have no problem with the notion in that I believe for the vast bulk of humanity born into this worldly plane we can only "see through a glass darkly" as to the full and true Reality and that all religio-spiritual paths are developed with the intent of helping to at least catch glimpses of it...
Click to expand...
I think – in terms of interfaith – a fruitful area of dialogue could be in the contemplation of the implication of the Scriptural passage "And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold..." (Genesis 3:6) from the standpoint of the Sacred Scribe who knows that this was a monstrous deception, that the fruit might well be 'good', 'fair' and 'delightful' on the surface, but in essence it is nothing of the sort.

Here I see a correlation with the First Noble Truth of Buddhism, in that 'all conditional phenomena and experiences are not ultimately satisfying', and this is precisely what the sacred scribe is alluding to. And that is what the dialogue in the Garden is all about, and indeed, everything in the garden was lovely until man fell under the illusion of the superficially satisfying...

Human nature seems inescapably inclined to the contingent, and "that craving for and clinging to what is pleasurable..." which inevitably results "...in becoming, rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath" to quote the Second Noble Truth, which is comparable to the warning Adam was given when he was told why the fruit was forbidden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top