"Original Sin Doctrine" (Need a Perspective)

[Manji2012]

Is it safe to say that, within most of Judaism from the cradle to the present, the concept of "Original Sin" does not exist in any shape or form? Although Judaism has the story of Adam and Eve, the interpretation or concept of "Original Sin" was never considered within most of Judaism?

Is it safe to say that, in some form of Catholicism, it is left up to Catholics to accept or reject this doctrine, and that, you can be Catholic weather you accept or reject this doctrine?

Is it safe to say that, Some Christian Sects debate and reject this doctrine?

Is it safe to say that, during Jesus' time this doctrine did not exist nor after?

Is it safe to say that the Original Sin Doctrine did not appear until Saint Augustine produced this doctrine about 350 years after Jesus?

If I consider the above to be true, then I start to conclude that the "Original Sin" doctrine is false, unfounded, Anti Christian, and that any religion is valid and not in serious conflict with one another.

If Saint Augustine produced this doctrine then it holds no weight. Jesus did not die for the atonement of Humanitie's sin. Jesus' teachings contradict this doctrine, and Jesus and his teachings are more compatible with other traditions like Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism. The Christians who hold to this dogma are wrong and no longer have to evangelize people. Spirituality is about a way or path one journeys to discover, find, and experience God or the "Sacred" if ya like to call it. The "Godhead", rather than belief in Jesus to attain salvation.

The whole dogma and everything people do because of it, is just plain old none sense.

Well, what do you think? Please share your knowledge, expertise, and opinions.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

original sin is a concept that entails our willful disobedience to god. we chose it and we separate ourselves from god. from adam and eve to you and i--that is everyone. nothing has changed other than god providing a means of salvation because we cannot accomplish salvation on our own--that is the grace of god.

 

[Thomas]

Is it safe to say that, within most of Judaism from the cradle to the present, the concept of "Original Sin" does not exist in any shape or form? Although Judaism has the story of Adam and Eve, the interpretation or concept of "Original Sin" was never considered within most of Judaism?

I'll leave that for someone else

Is it safe to say that, in some form of Catholicism, it is left up to Catholics to accept or reject this doctrine, and that, you can be Catholic weather you accept or reject this doctrine?

No.

Is it safe to say that, Some Christian Sects debate and reject this doctrine?

Yes

Is it safe to say that, during Jesus' time this doctrine did not exist nor after?

No. Original Sin is tied to the Sacrament of Baptism — otherwise why baptise? We know John the Baptist was proclaiming the baptismal mission before Christ began His public ministry.

Is it safe to say that the Original Sin Doctrine did not appear until Saint Augustine produced this doctrine about 350 years after Jesus?

No. It is evident in the Gospels, the Epistles, the Liturgy, the Rites and the practices of the Church.

John 3:3
"Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

1 Peter 1:22-3
"Purifying your souls in the obedience of charity, with a brotherly love, from a sincere heart love one another earnestly: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God who liveth and remaineth for ever."

Acts 1:5
"For John indeed baptized with water: but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence."

Acts 2:38
"But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

1 Corinthians 12:13
"For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink."

And there are more ...

If Saint Augustine produced this doctrine then it holds no weight. Jesus did not die for the atonement of Humanitie's sin. Jesus' teachings contradict this doctrine, and Jesus and his teachings are more compatible with other traditions like Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism. The Christians who hold to this dogma are wrong and no longer have to evangelize people. Spirituality is about a way or path one journeys to discover, find, and experience God or the "Sacred" if ya like to call it. The "Godhead", rather than belief in Jesus to attain salvation.

But he didn't, as is clearly evident, so your argument falls.

Thomas

 

[Manji2012]

Question: Is it safe to say that, within most of Judaism from the cradle to the present, the concept of "Original Sin" does not exist in any shape or form? Although Judaism has the story of Adam and Eve, the interpretation or concept of "Original Sin" was never considered within most of Judaism?

Answer: Jews do not believe in the doctrine of original sin. This is a Christian belief based on Paul's statement, "Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). The doctrine was fully developed by the church father, Augustine of Hippo (354-430). According to this doctrine, hereditary sinfulness is inescapably transmitted to human beings by their parents, starting with Adam and Eve. It is alleged that only acceptance of Jesus as savior from sin can redeem a person from sin. All those who do not accept Jesus as their savior from sin are condemned to eternal suffering in hell.


Whether man is a sinner by nature or not is immaterial. Judaism teaches the biblical way to repentance and reconciliation with God. Sincere repentance in which the sinner pledges to rectify his sinful ways and lead a righteous life is one means that is open at all times to all of humanity (Jonah 3:5-10, Daniel 4:27). God counsels Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do good [that is, change your ways], will it not be lifted up [that is, you will be forgiven]. But if you do not do good, sin rests at the door; and it desires you, but you may rule over it" (Genesis 4:6-7). God informs Cain that repentance and subsequent forgiveness are always open to him. The remedy for sin is clear. Biblically, God's loving-kindness depends on right conduct and extends to all humanity.

Jews for Judaism FAQ

"No. Original Sin is tied to the Sacrament of Baptism — otherwise why baptise? We know John the Baptist was proclaiming the baptismal mission before Christ began His public ministry."

Does Baptism save a person from original sin? How does it work? Simply by reciting some words and submerging in water?

The Jews practiced it to wash themselves of sin, Jesus does it to transform the spirit within. Then the holy spirit descended unto Jesus and went out in he wilderness to cultivate that even more.

John 3:3
"Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

When Jesus is saying be born again, he means waking up to a new way of seeing and being. Spiritual transformation from within. This is wisdom. You have to walk a spiritual journey to realize the kingdom of God.

 

[Manji2012]

If you accept the doctrine of Original sin then why practice the teachings of Jesus? Seems no point in that.

In the New Testament is Jesus quoted to having said something to the effect, "What I can do, you can do, and more."

Or, "You pharisees appear rightious upon men, but on the inside you are lawless, clean the cup on the inside so the outside is clean."

Clean the cup on the "Inside". Other words, spiritual life is not about doing the right thing because you have to. It is about doing the right thing because your nature and character is that way. So, we practice to attain that wisdom of being and seeing.

So, if salvation is just belief, I can not see why Jesus would waste his time teaching this as well as anything else. I mean, all you have to do is believe in him, why should I try to practice Jesus' teachings.

So, salvation is not belief, it is spiritual journey. The original sin doctrine is false. Jesus contradicted it. Jews and Muslims rejects it. It is not Christian, but man made mind manipulation.

 

[wil]

Original Sin is tied to the Sacrament of Baptism — otherwise why baptise? We know John the Baptist was proclaiming the baptismal mission before Christ began His public ministry.


No. It is evident in the Gospels, the Epistles, the Liturgy, the Rites and the practices of the Church.

John 3:3
"Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

1 Peter 1:22-3
"Purifying your souls in the obedience of charity, with a brotherly love, from a sincere heart love one another earnestly: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God who liveth and remaineth for ever."

Acts 1:5
"For John indeed baptized with water: but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence."

Acts 2:38
"But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

1 Corinthians 12:13
"For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink."

Namaste Thomas,

I'm gonna need more...none of these makes specific references to original sin. Jews who wrote the books don't believe in original sin.

In your reference Baptism washes away sin and they mention corruptible seed, but not originally corrupted seed.

While I believe the doctrine was interpreted from scripture...scripture is open for other interpretation...and that would separate those that believe the 'universal' doctrine from those that don't.

All being said, there is no way I'd take the doctrine or the belief away from those that do...just would like all to appreciate there exist different valid points of view.

 

[Manji2012]

Speaking of interpretations of the Adam and Eve story, I would like to share my understanding of Michael Tsarion's interpretation of that document.

Basically, Michael Tsarion explains that the Genesis document is simply about the genetic manipulation of human DNA by mixing it with Alien DNA in Atlantis. The Eves and the Adams were two races of beings. The Snake and the tree of life represent the double helix.

The Eves left Atlantis by disobeying their masters, and created their civilization we call lemuria. The Aliens were angry and tried again, but this time they made sure the new creature they built would be one that would nourish and sustain them. Thus, they made Adam in a dumb down state. Adom can mean divided or something like that.

The Eves freed the Adams from their masters which angered the Aliens made war on the eves. AS a result both Atlantis and Lemuria were destroyed.

Evidence:

There seems to be much evidence for this when we consider Zacharia sitchin's work on the Anunnaki of the Sumerian civilization six thousand years ago in Iraq. It appears that the Genesis document is a simple document of a complex document about aliens building humans. The Anunnaki came from a different planet and taught the Sumerians math and science. We attain things like, sixty seconds in a minute, sixty minutes in an hour from the Sumerians.

The Sumerians knew that the earth was round, orbited the sun, is the third rock from the sun, all the other planets in the solar system, even ones that cannot be seen and were unknown in the ancient world, and even knew what they looked like. The Sumerians explain that the Anunnaki, (those from heaven to earth came), taught them these things.

Are the Nephilims aliens??? Is the war in heaven about the destruction of Atlantis and Lemuria? We can find this story told all over the world. The Palpul Vu has scripture of spaceships fighting in the air. The Mahabharata in India also has spaceships engaging in combat in the air.

So, when we read the Bible, perhaps we should consider that the books in the Bible are collected data of actual true history and events. From them, we can start to understand are origins, where is are current situation, and where we are going.

I think religions have just been built off of documents that are of true history. People are just misinterpreting. I guess we will not know the truth until the truth about Aliens is revealed for all to know.

 

[Thomas]

In your reference Baptism washes away sin and they mention corruptible seed, but not originally corrupted seed.

Hi Wil —

I think St Paul in Romans explains this doctrine, in a sense 'the ontology of sin' — another way at it is the fact that God created man 'very good', so why does he suffer? Either God got it wrong, or we did. The Jews came down on the side of a human failing, whilst the theisms of their peers and contemporaries invariably show their gods as being riddled with moral faults.

5:12
"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

5:14
"But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come."

15:22
"And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

So, when we read the Bible, perhaps we should consider that the books in the Bible are collected data of actual true history and events. From them, we can start to understand are origins, where is are current situation, and where we are going.

I think that misses the true genius of the Bible by miles. Scripture, like all sacra doctrina, is an illumined and revealed meditation on the human condition, both as in regards to itself, and to its Creator.

It is a work of the most sublime metaphysics.

By the account you offer, we are nothing but something that crept out of a petrie dish ... and should have been flushed down to loo.

Thomas

 

[dauer]

Hi.

Judaism doesn't really use the mikveh to remove sin, more to remove a state of spiritual impurity, which is a bit like radiation exposure. If it was used to remove sin, then one could ask how sin can be removed from a set of dishes by immersing it in a mikveh. The same process, however, is happening whether it's a set of dishes or a human being. There are certain acts that might be viewed as sinful that can render a person tamei, but there are also others that aren't really sinful at all. Currently all of the Jewish people are considered to be tamei, because of the destruction of the beit hamikdash, and the mikveh is primarily only used for taharat hamispachah, family purity, by the woman after she is no longer niddah. There are also some men who will use the mikveh before Shabbos, and nowadays some women too. And in more progressive circles it's being retooled as a therapeutic environment for people who've dealt with trauma, and for people dealing with other major types of change or transition, both positive and negative.

Rabbinic Judaism afaik has never accepted the doctrine of original sin and I don't think it's something that can be drawn from the pshat (plain meaning) of the Torah. But I find a much better resource for basic info than jewfaq is Relocate simply because jewfaq is written by one individual who gives a very one-sided perspective of Judaism while mjl is written by a whole score of people from different backgrounds.

... aliens from atlantis...?

Dauer


Thomas,

I think that misses the true genius of the Bible by miles. Scripture, like all sacra doctrina, is an illumined and revealed meditation on the human condition, both as in regards to itself, and to its Creator.

Amen.

 

[Manji2012]

By the account you offer, we are nothing but something that crept out of a petrie dish ... and should have been flushed down to loo.

Thomas

Hey, hold it just right there. With that line you over stepped your bounds. I am no way saying the human being and all of existance is just some freak accident. I am just saying that Genesis is not about that, but about genetic manipulation. That is all that I am saying. Where did humanoids come from before the ALiens got here, I dunno, I just agree that Genesis is not at all about the origins of existence but about the genetic manipulation of human kind that got misinterpreted as the creation story. Genesis to me is not about the creation of human beings but about the manipulation of our DNA.

Now, do you understand where I am coming from? If not, please explain your confusion and I will make it crystal clear for you because, your statement was so way off from what I was saying that I just have to it clear what I really do mean.

It is not that I am saying the Bible is not about Wisdom and a way or journey in life, a path one walks to become one with God. Jesus' teachings are not different from the Buddha's teachings.

However, the Bible is more than just about "the way". Rather, there are documents that are about Atlantis, about aliens interacting with humans, and their our interaction with their space ships.

I think someone once said that the old testament is about Atlantis.

 

[Manji2012]

I also want to say again that, I find it exceedingly intriguing that, for as long as the Jews have had the Genesis document, which they copied from the Sumerians along with the story of Noah which they also copied from the Sumerians, that they still did not decide to interpret that story as "Original Sin"

Don't all the the Abrahamic traditions use the Genesis document to explain where everything came from? How about the Kabbalah? I bet the Kabbalah probably would sound more Buddhist or Eastern in nature.

I am saying that I think the Genesis document is collected data about ancient history going back tens of thousands of years ago when aliens came down here and interfered with the indinginous humanoids. Where the human beings came from before the ALiens I dunno. Where the ALiens came from I dunno either. I am just saying that Genesis is not about explaining that question. All genesis is, is about the injustice human kind has had done unto us by our Satan, the Aliens.

At first, we were happy beings that lived in harmony with nature, then when are DNA got blended with a highly technological race, but very cold spiritual nature, we became schitzophrenic. We became interfered at a genetic level.

What is really under the Atlantic? What is really under the sphinx? How come we cannot just access the chamber underneath the sphinx and see if their is a time capsule that would explain what we are about? How come all the forbidden archeology is hidden? If Egyptian Hieroglyphs show a helicopter let us accept that it does. If I find an artifact that goes before civilization was thought to ever existed, don't hide it.

Someone behind the scenes is controlling what we get to know about ourselves. They want to continue to enforce false concepts and ideas like, we are just products of evolution by accident, and we are just chemicals, and that the material world exists. So that, we run around buying things all the time, be materialistic, and buy into economic slavery.

All of that is a bunch of lies to me. To me, matter does not even exist. There are only frequencies and dimensions that we can devolve or evolve to, depending on the quality of our minds. Wood is made of molecules, the molecules are made of atoms, and the atoms are made of protons electrons and nuetrons, and beyond that is only energy. Living energy. Where is the matter? And we are not taught that, although scientists like Albert Einstein has discovered that matter does not even exist.

Apparently, thought, light, energy, and DNA, are some how interconnected, and that we can transform our dna. Some think that is what the practice of yoga is for.

 

[dauer]

Manji,

It's a little inaccurate to say that Genesis was copied from those other civilizations. Some parts of Genesis certainly seem to borrow some themes, but the stories themselves are still different.

Don't all the the Abrahamic traditions use the Genesis document to explain where everything came from?

Not in a literal sense. For Judaism it's usually regarded as a mystical text.

How about the Kabbalah? I bet the Kabbalah probably would sound more Buddhist or Eastern in nature.

Well, the kabbalah really isn't that old. While some of its roots are very early, it doesn't really start to look like what we'd call kabbalah today until you get to around the 12th century, and we don't get lurianic kabbalah until the 16th century.

While some of the concepts in kabbalah do have parallels in other traditions (imo it's more evident in hasidism) it really has more in common with Western esoteric traditions like Gnosticism, for example, which probably influenced it.

If you're curious about what the kabbalah actually is I would suggest this link:

LearnKabbalah.com

The author, Jay Michaelson, does make use of other traditions to show similarities, but not to say that they're the same, just to help get some of the concept across. For example when he compares shechinah and HKB"H to mother earth and father sky, it's not to say that they're the same concept but that they share some common themes. imo kabbalah has more in common with earth centered religions like Wicca than it has in common with buddhism, but being so vast and being neither, it does share similarities to a lot of things. And I also think it's closer to the sanatana dharma than to the buddha dharma, not only because of its focus theistic bent.

am saying that I think the Genesis document is collected data about ancient history going back tens of thousands of years ago when aliens came down here and interfered with the indinginous humanoids.

The historical record doesn't seem to support the claim that aliens came to earth and had fun with human DNA.

At first, we were happy beings that lived in harmony with nature, then when are DNA got blended with a highly technological race, but very cold spiritual nature, we became schitzophrenic. We became interfered at a genetic level.

This sounds like a mix of a few things. First you've got a paradisical past, a common theme in myth. Then you've got mankind walking with the gods, as it were, which is often a part of that motif. Then you have the gods blamed for mankind's current state of duality, like in gnosticism where YHWH is the bad guy.

Someone behind the scenes is controlling what we get to know about ourselves. They want to continue to enforce false concepts and ideas like, we are just products of evolution by accident, and we are just chemicals, and that the material world exists. So that, we run around buying things all the time, be materialistic, and buy into economic slavery.

Have you been reading David Icke? If you haven't, please don't.

In all seriousness though, if there's a conspiracy to continue to enforce belief in accidental evolution, it's not a very effective one and there seem to be powerful leaders in some governments trying to fight it as well, in favor of different versions of creationism. I don't think there's a need to aggressively fight the alien manipulation story of creation because, while like the biblical story of creation it is a myth, it's not one that many people hold to.

 

[Manji2012]

David Icke:

Yeah, I know a bit about him but, not too much.

Michael Tsarion:

Michael Tsarion is where I am coming from. I am getting my perspective from his perspective and what not.

Gnosticism:

Yeah, I find it alot like Buddhism. So...

Oh and ahh, the genetic manipulation:

Sumerians texts explain that aliens has come down and manipulated are dna. It is just that simple. The Niphilims and the Anunnaki are for real. We just have to reconsider what they actually are.

UFOs were real in our ancient past as they are today.

Look up Michael Tsarion and let me know what ya think.

Peace.

 

[Manji2012]

I have the same thread on the Buddhist forum and in the thread someone posted the following:

"the reason why original sin is not jewish is that the story quite clearly says that Adam died of old age and not from sin. it says that God prevented ARTIFICIAL extension of his life-- by preventing him from eating of the tree of LIFE... so the notion that we die because of Adam's sin is false, we don't life forever would be more accurate, but Adam was not made immortal and need EXTERNAL help to continue living, just like us."

So, have the Jews had this document at the beginning of their religion four thousand years ago, and have never to this day, widely accept the original sin doctrine?

The God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, the God of Isaac, all are absent this doctrine.

Hmm, I consider that a hardcore blow to the credibility of this doctrine. I think it is absurd and people should consider it false sin Judaism doesn't have it.

Basically, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, have much in common with one another, and I think Jesus does too, minus the original sin concept.

That doctrine, just plain don't got any credibility for existing.

 

[Thomas]

Now, do you understand where I am coming from? If not, please explain your confusion and I will make it crystal clear for you because, your statement was so way off from what I was saying that I just have to it clear what I really do mean.

You posit a thesis about the doctrine of original sin, and asked for a perspective.

I answered it, with evidence supporting my answers, to show your thesis is inaccurate, and fundamentally wrong.

You have not addressed the evidence I have presented, you simply choose to ignore it, so even though your original thesis is proven to be false, you are now building an extended thesis on top of it.

So it seems to me you don't want a perspective at all.

You introduce aliens, sace ships, DNA manipulation, and Atlantis, with less supporting material than the original thesis, and make generalised and largely inaccurate statements about the nature of Christianity and Buddhism.

This is what we call 'building castles in the air'.

What you actually want is people to agree with you.

You want people to understand Scripture as a technomyth.

Have I got that right?

Thomas

 

[dauer]

Manji,

I'm not really very interested in books on New Age mythology. If there's something relevant that he's said, please do share in your own words. You might, as a counterpoint to his ideas, try looking into how critical scholars understand Sumerian mythology. Or, if you'd like to delve further into New Age myth, this book is pretty good into tying a great deal of them together:

Amazon.com: Nothing in This Book Is True, but It's Exactly How Things Are: The Esoteric Meaning of the Monuments on Mars: Books: Bob Frissell,Brett Lilly

It's got sacred geometry, area 51, the annunaki, atlantis, the ascended masters, the pyramids, etc.

I don't really think that type of mythology gets us closer to understanding absolute truths about the material world but instead repackages ancient mythical themes in shiny contemporary language. There may be truth in it, but I don't think there's more truth to it than in other sacred literature, and I don't think the significant truth to any of that myth is going to be found by taking it in a literal sense, although it may be one element of a more dynamic relationship with the text.

Dauer

 

[Neemai]

Is it safe to say that, within most of Judaism from the cradle to the present, the concept of "Original Sin" does not exist in any shape or form? Although Judaism has the story of Adam and Eve, the interpretation or concept of "Original Sin" was never considered within most of Judaism?

Does this concept have much of a bearing on one's practical application of spiritual values, be he/she a follower of Christs teachings, or that of Judaism? I'm trying to see the relevancy on a day-to-day level? How would it be different with or without the doctrine?


... Neemai

 

[dauer]

Neemai,

I don't think that one detail is something that might make a huge difference, but I think the worldviews that generate the two divergent interpretations can have somewhat of an impact. imo the reason Original Sin is found in a Christian context is because there's a focus on sin and on our inability to clear ourselves of our sinfulness ourselves. In Judaism there's a built-in mechanism that places the responsibility (and possibility) for clearing oneself of any sin in the hands of the individual, and the focus is on right-action instead of on sin.

The story itself, from a Jewish perspective, isn't really so terribly negative. Sometimes Jewish interpretations of it are even a bit positive.

But I think that the interpretation of this story is a bit more of a bi-product in both cases of different perspectives instead of a generator of those perspectives.

Dauer