Was Jesus born with Original Sin?

[Greatest I am]

do they not? i see no evident of your claim per Judaism.

Read on my friend.


http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/ ... -theodicy/

‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

not sure why you are assuming jewish views had any role in Jesus fate.

I am sure that Jesus, being a Jewish Rabbi, had a lot to do with what he taught and his fate.

Then again, it is just the fate of a literary construct that never lived.

Regards
DL

[HexHammer]

yes the Jews view Jesus as a phoney after the latter proclaimed he was God's Messiah. There is no evidence that Jesus thought he was God's Son - and yes the Jews would view the latter as heresy.

the Bible implies Jesus proclaimed both - that he was the Messiah and God's Son (two utterly different things - the former is not heresy per Judiasm). a careful reading of the bible shows that Jesus at first was playing the John the Baptist role (esp after the latter is killed).i,e, a messenger about the soon to arrive messiah, later - 2 yrs or so - jesus i think got a big head and started to think maybe i am the messiah and not one to proclaim him soon to come (he never said he though himself as his God's son), and Rome finally had enough.

oh BTW Roman's crucified Jesus, not the Jews.

There are evidence that he thought he was God's son, he specifically call God for father in heaven. When he goes rampant in the temple on the bankers he says it's his father's house!

Romans did the execution on the vote of the Jews, Pilot offered to free Barabbas or Jesus, so the Jews chose Barabbas, so it was the Jews.

[gaffo]

not sure why you are assuming jewish views had any role in Jesus fate.

I am sure that Jesus, being a Jewish Rabbi, had a lot to do with what he taught and his fate.

Then again, it is just the fate of a literary construct that never lived.

Regards
DL

??? in don't understand you above quote - welcome clarification.

per your prior, yes i know of Judasim's theology, so no need to preach to the chior(sp) - disslexic, to lazy to spell correctly via google.

[gaffo]

yes the Jews view Jesus as a phoney after the latter proclaimed he was God's Messiah. There is no evidence that Jesus thought he was God's Son - and yes the Jews would view the latter as heresy.

the Bible implies Jesus proclaimed both - that he was the Messiah and God's Son (two utterly different things - the former is not heresy per Judiasm). a careful reading of the bible shows that Jesus at first was playing the John the Baptist role (esp after the latter is killed).i,e, a messenger about the soon to arrive messiah, later - 2 yrs or so - jesus i think got a big head and started to think maybe i am the messiah and not one to proclaim him soon to come (he never said he though himself as his God's son), and Rome finally had enough.

oh BTW Roman's crucified Jesus, not the Jews.

There are evidence that he thought he was God's son,

Not so Sir, only Gospel of John makes such a claim - written by "john" 70 yrs after the death of Jesus.

Jesus either was illiterate, or anything he personally wrote no longer survives.

two other Gospels. Matt and Luke claim Jesus was born as the literally the Son of God - so not God himself in human form (so dissagrees with John's Gospel per the nature of Jesus).

Mark just claims Jesus being the most moral person was adopted as his Son upon his baptism via John the Baptist.

he specifically call God for father in heaven.

ya, and?

any and all Jews would to the same Sir.

When he goes rampant in the temple on the bankers he says it's his father's house! .

yep, your point?

Romans did the execution on the vote of the Jews, Pilot offered to free Barabbas or Jesus, so the Jews chose Barabbas, so it was the Jews.

I know the story Sir.

fact remains if "The Jews" demanded to free Jesus, the romans would have killed him anyway - for insurrection.

[HexHammer]

There is no evidence that Jesus thought he was God's Son - and yes the Jews would view the latter as heresy.

Matthew 24:36
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

You contradict yourself a lot.

[gaffo]

There is no evidence that Jesus thought he was God's Son - and yes the Jews would view the latter as heresy.

Matthew 24:36
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

You contradict yourself a lot.

????????? i've already clarified that where are 3 theologies (WRT to Christ)- in the four Gospels - Matt/Luke have the same theology - Jesus was born as God''s Son.

Mark is clear, Jesus was adopted as such when thirtish (so we can assume he as concieved my mary being fucked my a man - in the usual way)

John is also clear the an other way - so "my father" is anathma to that Gospel, since the Son and Father is the same! - John would say "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but ME only"

thanks for playing,

if you want to talk about the 3 theologies - per the nature of Christ - and how they do not agree, i'm all game (I love talking about Dogma).

but not too keen on trollmanship, and will not play that latter game.

thanks for reply, and lest talk about christianity and how the "bible" is not united per the nature of Christ (BTW though Matt and Luke share the same view about Christ, they differ upon the nature of Belial (i love talking about the Devil too).

so lets talk Sir!

[Greatest I am]

not sure why you are assuming jewish views had any role in Jesus fate.

I am sure that Jesus, being a Jewish Rabbi, had a lot to do with what he taught and his fate.

Then again, it is just the fate of a literary construct that never lived.

Regards
DL

??? in don't understand you above quote - welcome clarification.

per your prior, yes i know of Judasim's theology, so no need to preach to the chior(sp) - disslexic, to lazy to spell correctly via google.

Any knowledge of the Jewish past would have affected Jesu's' future decisions. He often asked, who do they say I am? That is how he chose to suicide by cop.

Should Jesus have existed at all, does not effect the cause and effect in all systems, heaven or earth.

Regards
DL

[Bakhita]

Was Jesus born with Original Sin?

If so, then he could not be the perfect sacrifice.

If not, then he had no human side and was pure god, and god cannot die which, makes the sacrifice a lie.

Could these facts be why the Jews have no Original Sin concept in their religion?

Is that also why Jews rejected Jesus as their messiah, or did they just recognize the immorality of anyone using a scapegoat and the abdication of one’s responsibility for their actions, which is against all moral legal systems?

Why have Christians embraced such an immoral and illegal concept?

Regards
DL

Your argument follows this form:

If Jesus did not have Original Sin, He wasn't human
Original Sin is a necessary condition for being human
Jesus did not have Original Sin
Therefore, Jesus was not human

Since we are considering the Christian religion to make the determination of whether Jesus had Original Sin, we must also use it to inform us of what it means to be human according to this tradition. For Christians, having Original Sin is not a necessary condition for being human. Just as there was a time before Moses allowed for divorce, there was a time before Original Sin infected the human race, and we can see this in the first chapters of Genesis with Adam and Eve. They were created sinless and became sinners, and though their characters changed, inasmuch as they were once sinless and have now become sinners, there is no suggestion that the man and woman of Genesis 1 and 2 were nonhuman only to gain a human nature in Genesis 3.

[Greatest I am]

Was Jesus born with Original Sin?

If so, then he could not be the perfect sacrifice.

If not, then he had no human side and was pure god, and god cannot die which, makes the sacrifice a lie.

Could these facts be why the Jews have no Original Sin concept in their religion?

Is that also why Jews rejected Jesus as their messiah, or did they just recognize the immorality of anyone using a scapegoat and the abdication of one’s responsibility for their actions, which is against all moral legal systems?

Why have Christians embraced such an immoral and illegal concept?

Regards
DL

Your argument follows this form:

If Jesus did not have Original Sin, He wasn't human
Original Sin is a necessary condition for being human
Jesus did not have Original Sin
Therefore, Jesus was not human

Since we are considering the Christian religion to make the determination of whether Jesus had Original Sin, we must also use it to inform us of what it means to be human according to this tradition. For Christians, having Original Sin is not a necessary condition for being human.

The tradition and dogma does not name exceptions. All humans after A E's sin have it.

Just as there was a time before Moses allowed for divorce, there was a time before Original Sin infected the human race, and we can see this in the first chapters of Genesis with Adam and Eve.

I see no relevance.
Do you follow the first creation where A & E are both made of clay or the other creation where the rib woman appears?

They were created sinless and became sinners,

Indeed, and as Christians sing in their Exsultet hymn sing, it was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan. Thank god A & E sinned eh?
Otherwise god's plan would have been derailed.

Personally, I would follow the Jewish tradition that pre-dated Christianity usurping their god and see it more as Original Virtue.

Christians can't seem to make up their minds about whether to curse Adam or idolize him for doing the right thing.

Without that sin, we would not exist as Adam would have never reproduced. Right?

and though their characters changed, inasmuch as they were once sinless and have now become sinners,

Yes, otherwise god's plan was dead and Satan would rule.

there is no suggestion that the man and woman of Genesis 1 and 2 were nonhuman only to gain a human nature in Genesis 3.

We might have to define human here. We are born as babies after intercourse. A & E do not fit that description and were not the same type of human we are.

Some as called jokers for asking if Adam had a belly button, but if he did not, he was not our kind of human. In fact, if you follow the rib woman creation of Eve, we are supposed to be androgynous, just the same as Yahweh is.

Regards
DL

[Bakhita]

We might have to define human here. We are born as babies after intercourse. A & E do not fit that description and were not the same type of human we are.

Some as called jokers for asking if Adam had a belly button, but if he did not, he was not our kind of human. In fact, if you follow the rib woman creation of Eve, we are supposed to be androgynous, just the same as Yahweh is.

Regards
DL

The new argument follows the form:

If Adam and Eve weren't born like us, they were not the type of human we are
They weren't born like us
Therefore, they are not the same type of human as us


We need to explain why it is that birth as we know it now, is what makes one our type of human and not another.

Adam and Eve have served their purpose for the discussion, however, as you surely recognize that Jesus was born like the rest of us (albeit a virgin birth). Jesus was not like Adam and Eve in their particular "births", but He did share the state of Original Justice- sinlessness- with them, and this is what the original premise suggested robbed Jesus of the possibility of humanity. And so, we still need to establish that sinfulness is a necessary prerequisite for humanity.

[Greatest I am]

We might have to define human here. We are born as babies after intercourse. A & E do not fit that description and were not the same type of human we are.

Some as called jokers for asking if Adam had a belly button, but if he did not, he was not our kind of human. In fact, if you follow the rib woman creation of Eve, we are supposed to be androgynous, just the same as Yahweh is.

Regards
DL

The new argument follows the form:

If Adam and Eve weren't born like us, they were not the type of human we are
They weren't born like us
Therefore, they are not the same type of human as us


We need to explain why it is that birth as we know it now, is what makes one our type of human and not another.

Adam and Eve have served their purpose for the discussion, however, as you surely recognize that Jesus was born like the rest of us (albeit a virgin birth). Jesus was not like Adam and Eve in their particular "births", but He did share the state of Original Justice- sinlessness- with them, and this is what the original premise suggested robbed Jesus of the possibility of humanity. And so, we still need to establish that sinfulness is a necessary prerequisite for humanity.

Yes, and Gnostic Christians have, I think. Here is a thing I give Christians. The progressives seem to basically get it but the fundies are to obtuse.

-----------


Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 66/?no-ist

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

I am not the best write but I hope you get it.

Regards
DL

[bahman]

Was Jesus born with Original Sin?

If so, then he could not be the perfect sacrifice.

If not, then he had no human side and was pure god, and god cannot die which, makes the sacrifice a lie.

Could these facts be why the Jews have no Original Sin concept in their religion?

Is that also why Jews rejected Jesus as their messiah, or did they just recognize the immorality of anyone using a scapegoat and the abdication of one’s responsibility for their actions, which is against all moral legal systems?

Why have Christians embraced such an immoral and illegal concept?

Regards
DL

Good question. How He could die if He was God?

[Greatest I am]

Yes. An obvious glitch in their weird thinking.

Regards
DL