Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Guess I'll drop this in here rather than continue in the other topic.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    
RE:Note 35.136 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson"                       

   Hi Collis,

>A newborn is not guilty of a personal sin of commission.  A newborn is 
>guilty corporately of Adam's sin.  In the same way that all are guilty
>because of Adam, all are forgiven because of Jesus.  If there was no
>such concept as "corporate sin", there could be no "corporate forgiveness".

   This has always been an area that I've never fully understood.

   Where does the Bible differentiate being sins of commission and 'corporate
   sin'? It seems that the Bible says, "..whereas in Adam all sin.." which
   seems to mean to me 'sins of commission' or deliberate acts as opposed
   to applying a corporate stance.   

   I understand the concept that man is predisposed to commit sin, yet how 
   can I be guilty of, and accused for, Adam's sin?

   Any help?

   -c.

Re:  .1

  >...how can I be guilty of...Adam's sin?

To get me off the hook  :-)  let me ask you a question first.  If you
answer my question, then I'll answer yours (didn't Jesus do this ):-) )

How can I be considered acceptable by Jesus' death?

Collis

    Elaine Pagels' excellent book "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent" discusses
    the development of the doctrine of Original Sin.  This doctrine is
    strictly Christian in origin, having originated with Augustine, and, as
    Elie Wiesel has pointed out, "the concept of original sin is alien to
    Jewish tradition.

    Matthew Fox discusses the concept of original sin in his book "Original
    Blessing".  He cites Herbert Haag, the former president of the Catholic
    Bible Association of Germany, who wrote

        The doctrine of original sin is not found in any of the writings of
        the Old Testament.  It is certainly not in chapters one to three of
        Genesis.  This ought to be recognized today, not only by Old
        Testament scholars, but also by dogmatic theologians.

    He also wrote:

        The idea that Adam's descendants are automatically sinners because
        of the sin of their ancestor, and that they are already sinners
        when they enter the world, is foreign to Holy Scripture.

    Fox points out that Augustine, who came up with this doctrine, actually
    mistranslated the Bible in order to prove this doctrine.  In the
    epistle to the Romans, Paul says, "Therefore, as sin came into the
    world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all
    men because all men sinned."  Augustine translated the last phrase to
    read, "in whom all men sinned", and he also left out the first instance
    of the word "death" in that passage.  As a result, his translation
    read, "Through one man sin entered into the world and through sin,
    death, and thus spread to all men, in whom all have sinned."  From this
    mistranslation he argued for the doctrine of original sin.

    Fox states that "Augustine mixed his doctrine of original sin up with
    his peculiar notions about sexuality.  Thus for him all begetting of
    children and all lovemaking were at least venially sinful because one
    "lost control."  Gnosticism also defined original sin as human
    sensuality.  Biblical spirituality cannot tolerate this put-down of the
    blessing that sexuality and lovemaking are by veiled references to
    original sin.  The sooner churches put distance between themselves and
    Augustine's bad scriptural exegesis and translation and Augustine's
    put-down of women and of sexuality, the sooner original sin will find
    its proper and very minor role in theology."
    
    -- Mike

    	Could someone remind me please ?  Was it Augustine or some other
    early (hmmm, saint?) who was quite worldly for most of his life, even
    most of his life after converting, but who adopted a celebate life
    style late in life and recommended it in the strongest possible terms
    to his followers ?  
    	Mike, I'd definitly say that, from what you've presented, the
    doctrine of Original Sin is not "Christian" in origin, but "Augustine"
    in origin. Not a teaching of Christ or even one he was familiar with, a
    perversion - at best. Hey, maybe the translation problem was an
    accident ...

    I'm pretty sure that was Augustine, Dave.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    It was Augustine who was famous for the prayer 'oh Lord, make me
    pure, but not yet.'
    
    BJ

    Thanks, "guys", thought so. 

Re:  64.3 

  >Elaine Pagels' excellent book "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent"...

"excellent" is up for discussion.

  >Elie Wiesel has pointed out, "the concept of original sin is alien to
  >Jewish tradition.

I'm not familiar with Jewish tradition on this point so I'll (somewhat
hesitantingly) accept what Elie says.

  >The doctrine of original sin is not found in any of the writings of
  >the Old Testament.  It is certainly not in chapters one to three of
  >Genesis.  This ought to be recognized today, not only by Old
  >Testament scholars, but also by dogmatic theologians.

Hmmm.  Paul seems to find it in Genesis.  Maybe he had some help from
God? :-)

  >Fox points out that Augustine, who came up with this doctrine, actually
  >mistranslated the Bible in order to prove this doctrine.  

Yes, this is true.  Augustine's translation on this point was very
poor.  However, the doctrine does *not* rest on this translation, despite
Augustine's argument.  The correct translation supports the concept of
original sin quite well.  The question to be answered is, "why do all
people sin?"  I think a good case can be made from the Bible that all 
people sin because Adam first sinned.  This, although admittedly simple,
is the main issue of original sin.

  >Thus for him [Augustine] all begetting of children and all lovemaking were 
  >at least venially sinful because one "lost control."  

Augustine had real problems in the area of sexuality.  This teaching that
sex is sinful is not supported by the Bible which teaches that sex, within
the lifelong marriage relationship of a male and woman is not only appropriate,
but is very good.

  >Gnosticism also defined original sin as human sensuality.  

Gnosticism is not Biblical teaching.  Gnosticism is, in fact, clearly
exposed as wrong by John's letters.

  >The sooner churches put distance between themselves and Augustine's bad 
  >scriptural exegesis and translation and Augustine's put-down of women 
  >and of sexuality, the sooner original sin will find its proper and very 
  >minor role in theology."

I agree that the doctrine of original sin has a minor role in theology.
I agree that we should refute Augustine's poor translation of Scripture.
I agree that we should acknowledge Augustine's problem with sex, women
and sexuality which influenced his writing.  However, I don't agree that
the concept of original sin is not in Scripture.  Jonathon Edwards, probably
the greatest theologian in the past 400 years, wrote an excellent treatise
on original sin which I essentially agree with.

Collis

    re: Original Sin
    
    The problem I have always had with the concept of original sin, is that
    it assumes that newborn infants arrive into life in a sinful state,
    and that they cannot enter into heaven until they are purged of that
    sin.  That concept is in direct contradiction to the concept of sin
    in general, that is, in order for a sin to have been committed, one
    must have committed/omitted an act that was known to be sinful in the
    first place.  That is, sin requires an act of conscious decision.  Free
    will, and all that.  How can an infant, who is completely incapable of 
    exercising any volition at all, be stained with sufficient sin to deny
    it entrance into heaven?   Never made any sense to me.
        
    Mike

    I also admit to not understanding the doctrine of original sin being
    that every human being "inherited" sin from Adam.  I have found the
    questions Carole and Collis have been sharing on this in another note
    to be very intriguing.  I hope they continue them here.
    
    Personally, I believe original sin as presented in the Adam story is
    that sin is the *knowledge of good and evil* (I think DR mentioned this
    somewhere before in this conference).   Humanity has had a propensity
    to use this "knowledge" to foster the notion that we are separate 
    from God.  This is the ultimate sin imho.  
    
    When we see ourselves separate, all other things appear separate 
    from God, and since we do not see our connection with God, we do 
    not see our connections to all other things, which gives rise to 
    feelings of fear, greed, hatred, bitterness, inadequacy, etc.  
    From this notion of separation, this dualistic way of thinking, 
    we form subject/object relationships and wind up in the mindset of 
    manipulation and control and seek to have "power over" rather than 
    "power with".  The current ecological state of the earth is a 
    poignant and sullen example of the devastating power of dualistic 
    thinking.  It has to stop.
    
    Karen

re Note 64.8 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> I think a good case can be made from the Bible that all 
> people sin because Adam first sinned.  This, although admittedly simple,
> is the main issue of original sin.

        Then why did Adam sin?  Wouldn't whatever reason he sinned be
        sufficient to explain our sin, without the need to resort to
        "inheritance"?

        Bob

Re:  64.9

Mike,
    
  >The problem I have always had with the concept of original sin, is that
  >it assumes that newborn infants arrive into life in a sinful state,
  >and that they cannot enter into heaven until they are purged of that
  >sin.  

This is one possible belief, but certainly not the only one.  Pastor
Clark of Grace Chapel argues that this, in fact, is not the case based
on Romans 5, an argument I'm inclined to accept.  Essentially he says
that Jesus paid the price for the sinful nature of all on the cross
(including the unsaved).  Jesus also paid for the sins we voluntarily
commit, but only those who voluntarily accept the payment (of his death)
receive it.  This understanding means that all those who have not reached
an age of "accountability" are found acceptable to God.  How does this
explanation strike you?

Collis

Re:  64.11

Bob,

  >Then why did Adam sin?  

It was a free choice.

  >Wouldn't whatever reason he sinned be sufficient to explain our sin, 
  >without the need to resort to "inheritance"?

Adam could freely choose one or the other without any preference for
one or the other.  If we could do the same, why aren't there any
sinless people around?

Collis

    re: .12 (Collis)

    Depending on the age of accountability, and if we must have original sin,
    then this seems like a far more reasonable approach.

    The idea of infants being born automatically being guilty of a sin they
    did not have anything to do with, and so being ineligible to go to
    heaven, in the event they died un-baptized, simply reflects my Catholic
    upbringing.  Of course, I have no idea if the Catholic Church still
    believes in those consequences of original sin.

    In my ideal "cosmos" I would prefer that people be born as complete
    innocents, and remain so until they are able distinguish between right
    and wrong.

    Mike

    re: .13 (Collis) 
    
    >   -< No sinless people around >-
    
    How do you know there aren't any?  :-)
    
    Actually, if you consider a sin to be a conscious act of
    commission/omission, then people who, for whatever reason, are
    incapable of conscious thought, cannot sin.
    
    Mike
                                               

    
    
    
    This is a very interesting discussion and one which obviously raises
    more questions than it probably answers.
    
    There is one simple question - the answer to which will be the starting
    point in what I understand 'original sin' to be, namely;
    
    Why am I (you) not in the Garden of Eden ? 
    
    Then;
    
    Considering that it was Adam's sin not mine, why am I still not there ?
    	
    Why is it that we are all punished for his sin ?
    
    	Then ask yourself if we are not all infected by Adam's sin (i.e.
    corporate man), why did Christ have to come ? 
    If it were as simple as forgiveness - why couldn't I just say sorry ?
    Why couldn't Adam just say sorry ?
    
    Just something to be going on with.
    
    To me this question should be part of the Trinitarian question because
    it inherently requires the theology behind it to come to part of the 
    answer.
    
    BTW; A big thanks for the Moderators in setting up this forum !
    
    peace,
    
    		Tom 
                                       
    
    

Re:  64.19
    
  >Original sin is a mistake,...

Hey, Mike, we almost agree.  The original sin *was* a mistake.  :-)

Collis

    re .18 (IRNBRU::FYFE)/Tom
    
>    To me this question should be part of the Trinitarian question because
>    it inherently requires the theology behind it to come to part of the 
>    answer.
    
    	How interesting ... I've come to the same conclusion myself, as of
    late.
    
    	I've forgotten the exact title and author, but I have a book at
    home which discusses the basis of what we now call Arianism, and which
    attempts to filter out the orthodox rhetoric regarding the teachings of
    Arius, to arrive at the basis underlying Arian theology, as the Arians
    themselves held.  The author's conclusion is that Arius and company
    rejected Trinitarianism primarily because of how they understood the
    mechanism of salvation, which in turn was dependant on their view of
    sin.
    
    	Mind you, I don't agree with everything the author says Arius
    really believed, but I agreed with his overall argument that our
    understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son is
    directly related to our understanding of how Jesus (by his death) could
    atone for Adam's sin, and be able to purge the human family of the
    effects of sin (which we're still waiting to see happen).
    
    								-mark.

    RE; Original Sin
    
    Greetings, brothers and sisters, I am Playtoe (Playing, but toeing the
    line, IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH).  I am delighted also that this
    conference has been opened, and only recently became aware of it.  I
    saw this topic title and was interested.  However, I see that you are
    having trouble resolving the matter.  I hope that I can shed some light
    for you.
    
    I do believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin, as spoken clearly of in
    the book of Genesis and by Paul in the New Testament.  I believe that
    the whole issue is perceived as a problem of the "FLESH".  Our sinful
    nature is a product of Adam and Eve's fall from Perfection in the
    garden, through there act of sin, and as a result their original
    nature, a spiritual-astral type body, became materialized.  And now
    because of the nature of our "flesh" and the "lusts" thereof, we are
    born "sinners" and with a propensity to sin.
    
    The "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil", also known as the "Tree
    of the Thought of Light", opened Adam and Eve's eyes and mind to the
    actual "Thought" that sustained them in the Perfect State, whereas they
    were created Perfect, they were but "babes" and without this knowledge. 
    Therefore, they "fell" from their perfect state as a result of having
    to go through an "educational" process, by which and for the purpose of
    restoring them to Perfection, but in full knowledge and truth, of their
    own effort.
    
    The Gnostics, and I'm in disagreeament with Collis regarding their
    credibility, as they were the first and true Christians, who were
    persecuted and virtually elliminated by the Roman Catholic Church. 
    Paul, John, Peter, and the apostles were all GNOSTICS, by definition. 
    I would like to see "John's letters" which refute them, Collis.
    
    Anyway, in regards to the Jewish tradition of denying "Original Sin",
    the Gnostics say this:
    
    God, the Most High, Supreme Creator, created the lessor Gods, or
    Agents, who inturn created all things and man.  We note that in the
    Bible, prior to the creation of man, Satan had already made is
    "rebellion", and was cast to earth, and is (according to Scripture) the
    Prince of the Earth.  This same Satan, the Gnostics say is
    "Jehovah/Yahweh" the God of the Jews (as Jesus told the Jews, "You do
    the work of your father the Devil") and is also called "Ialdabaoth". 
    He did not create the Original Man, but the Most High God did, the
    Father of Light.  Jehovah/Yahwah/Satan is, however, responsible for the
    "fall of man" into this crystalized fleshly body.  
    
    The Gnostics say, We know that Jevovah/Yahweh is not the Most High God
    because in Scripture it says "I am a JEALOUS GOD" and in this he
    acknowledges that there is another God, to wit "The Most High".  The
    Most High has no reason for jealousy, which according to scripture is
    itself "wrong".  
    
    Thus, the Jews, who deny "Original Sin", and remember also denied
    "Christ", worship the god of this world, Jehovah.  The Most High God's
    "name" is unutterable, incomprehensible, UNNAMEABLE.  The Most High God
    dwells in "silence" and in a "light" that no man can stand to look
    into, He doesn't speak but His "Thought" constitutes action, by which
    the Agents of Creation (those who do speak) were made.  
    
    So, "Original Sin" or the "Fall of Man" was/is a product/result of
    "living in the flesh", which Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High God
    (remember "After the order of Melchezedek" and not of the "Levites"),
    came to redeem us from.  This is also born witness to by the
    "Transfiguration on the mount", where Jesus' body translated back into
    the "Perfect and Original State" in the presence of his disciples.
    
    Playtoe, IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH

RE:Note 64.2 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson"                       
    
    Hi Collis,
    
    Sorry. I've been !extremely! busy of late and have only a few seconds 
    here and there.
    
    >>Re:  .1

    >>...how can I be guilty of...Adam's sin?

    >To get me off the hook  :-)  let me ask you a question first.  If you
    >answer my question, then I'll answer yours (didn't Jesus do this ):-) )

    >How can I be considered acceptable by Jesus' death?

    If I understand your question, you're asking how Jesus' death can cover
    (pay a ransom for) someone other than His own life. I.e. 'an eye for an
    eye'. We both know that because of His sinless nature, 'the free gift
    came upon all men unto justification'. Adam's sin, on the other hand,
    brought 'sin' and 'death' into the world.
    
    Yet, the Bible, as I understand it, does not support the concept that
    all are sinners upon entrance into this world but all references are
    to 'men', not 'babes'. Also, rather than being born that way, they 
    'are made' sinners.
    
    More later,
    -c.

The letter(s) I referred to is I John.

Gnostics believe that God has both good and evil.

I John claims that God is only good.

Gnostics believe that sin is from the physical.

Jesus clearly taught that sin is from the heart.

Collis

    Re: 23
    
>   Was Adam a creation of the Demiurge?
 
    Man was created by the Word (Jesus Christ), a Perfect Spiritual Being. 
    The Demiurge (the creator of this world) was "jealous" of the Man made
    by Christ (he was jealous of Christ, because Christ was "a begotten Son
    of the Most High God, the express emanation of His thought in the form
    of Word, the Demiurge being a "creation" and without the fullness of
    power of Christ), and therefore he proceeded to trap the Man in a body
    of flesh (Man being ignorant of the knowledge of the Thought of Light). 
    However, we know that we are of Christ and have power over this
    condition, as it is written "He that is in us is greater than he that
    is in the world."
    
 >  I've read that the Demiurge imprisioned light in bodies of flesh. Is
 >   this the fall?
  
    Yes, due to our ignorance of our true nature of light, the "Knowledge
    of the Thought of Light".  So we find the Bible is written
    allegorically, the knowledge of the Thought of Light is there but it
    is hidden from the "wise and revealed unto babes", a mysterious thing. 
    This is why I believe in Gnosticism or self-revelation as opposed to
    the guidance and counsel of men.  As it is written, "let every man be a
    liar but God true" and where is God but in every man's heart!  That is
    Gnostic!
      
>    What or who is the original man?
 
    This is a serious question and takes some deep reflection to
    understand.  The "Original Man" is who God, the Most High, created as a
    Perfect Spirit, an "astral/spiritual" man.  Now when the Demuirge
    caused the entrapment of Man in flesh, this is when things changed,
    such that we have the races, HUE-MANs.  The different hues of men,
    superfluously is said to be caused by the light the sun, but actually,
    it is caused by the efulgence of the "original" light of our nature
    within.  The light within causes the skin to blacken, the absence of
    light within or its reduction, fails to color to the skin.  Thus as
    people become more atoned with their true nature, the light within and
    cultivate it, they begin to get darker from the radiance of the light
    within.  
    
    This leads to a much deeper discussion, which is basically covered in
    scripture, if you eyes that see and ears that hear.  But, perhaps you
    can see somewhat the truth in what I'm saying from 1)Gehazi's curse of
    leprosy, making him "as white as snow", due to God removing the
    knowledge of the Thought of Light from him, 2)people with white skin
    are more cold and damp than black skinned people, due to the lack of
    inner heat.  Thus, skin color has this one significance, it tells you
    how radiant one is within with light!
    
    Playtoe, IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH

re Note 64.26 by SWAM3::DOTHARD_ST:

>     Re: 23
>     
> >   Was Adam a creation of the Demiurge?
>  
>     Man was created by the Word (Jesus Christ), a Perfect Spiritual Being. 
>     The Demiurge (the creator of this world) was "jealous" of the Man made
>     by Christ (he was jealous of Christ, 

        Playtoe,

        Where did you get this?

        First off, what's a "Demiurge"?  (A small urge? :-)

        You seem to be defining this Demiurge as the creator of this
        world -- yet you state that "Man was created by the Word
        (Jesus Christ)."  So you seem to be saying that Jesus did not
        create all things, but did create Man, right?

        Since this is non-scriptural, where did it come from?

        Bob

    Re: 25
    
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by "has" but the Bible clearly says
    that "I (God) create both good and evil".  Also, Jesus specifically and
    purposely chose Judas as a disciple because he knew Judas would assist
    him in his mission.  The Gnostics do not believe that God does both
    good and evil things, that would indeed be insane.  They don't,
    however, deceive themselves with a rosy colored picture of life of
    never having to experience the trials and tribulations and to fight the
    battles for their redemption.  God created the Devil and has
    commissioned the devil to do just what he does, read the first chapter
    of Job.
    
    Gnostics believe as Jesus believed that the "flesh" is sinful, thus sin
    has a physical origin.  Now, Jesus said "if you think it you've already
    done it" so by this one might say he means that sin has a spiritual
    origin, but this is not so.  It is because of the lust of the flesh
    that we think such things, our greed is physically oriented.  The verse
    "out of the heart cometh [evils and wickedness]", depends on the
    "carnalness" of your heart, because in another verse the scriptures say
    "out of the heart come the issues of life" and again "God dwells in the
    heart".  The Gnostics belief in the subduing of the fleshly/worldly
    passions/appetites, even as Christ did.  
    
    As a matter of fact, in regards to a previous comment you made, the
    Gnostics point to Johns' books, including the Gospel as being the most
    indicative of the Gnostic faith!  The information that I presented
    regarding Jehovah as the Demuirge of this world, comes from the book
    The Other Bible (a compilation of Gnostic, Judaica and early Christian
    writings around 0 - 300 A.D.), the particular book that it comes from
    is entitled "The Secret Book of John".
    
    So, from your comments, it is apparent that you haven't studied and
    prayed on the Gnostic perceptions.  I'll say this though, if you know
    that the Romans and the Catholic church were responsible for the
    suppression of the "first/apostolic" perceptions of Christianity, and
    instead replaced it with their own state-oriented version, why would
    you not lean towards the Gnostics, seeing they are the only real
    perceptual alternative available?  You owe it to yourself to
    investigate a little deeper into the Gnostic faith, you can't afford to
    leave a stone unturned as you seek the kingdom of God, CAN YOU? 

    RE: 27
    
>        Where did you get this?
    
    The information I presented is from the book "The Other Bible," a
    collection of the Nag Hamadi, Judaica, and early Gnostic christian
    writings.  The book in particular from which this information comes is
    entitled "The Secret Book of John", a Gnostic writing.
    

>        First off, what's a "Demiurge"?  (A small urge? :-)

 
    Basically, a "Demiurge" is another name for an "Agent/lessor god" said
    to be created by the Most High God to perform His will, acts of
    creation.  They are angels, but are of the higher echelon of sorts.  In
    Genesis where is reads "Let US make man in OUR image", the US and OUR
    is believed to refer to Demiurge and his consorts.  
    
    A little history and background.  Christianity took the gods of the
    so-called "polytheistic" Egyptian pantheon and made them angels,
    reference the Kabala, the secret doctrine upon which the Bible is
    based.  
    
    >       You seem to be defining this Demiurge as the creator of this
    >    world -- yet you state that "Man was created by the Word
    >    (Jesus Christ)."  So you seem to be saying that Jesus did not
    >    create all things, but did create Man, right?

    Understand that the Most High God is Thought/Spirit, that Jesus is His
    Thought "SPOKEN", or Divine Utterance, the Holy Spirit is the active
    force or power by which Thought and Utterance produce creation.  
    
    The Word, Jesus Christ created all MANIFEST LIFE, but the Most High God
    created the Word or Jesus.  Jesus is different from a Demuirge, is not
    a Demuirge, Demuirge are agents who "SPEAK", the Most High God doesn't
    speak, but is silent, His Thought sets matter into motion, and it forms
    a vehicle by which His Thought is made manifest, Jesus Christ "the Word
    of God made flesh".  
    
    Through Jesus came the Demuirges', as Agents (created Angels), who carry 
    out the work of God, God doesn't work Himself (and neither does he eat).  
    These Agents carry out their work through Divine Utterance as well.
    
    I can't tell you from A to Z how all this goes, you have to have come
    so far yourself, gained so much knowledge, through YOUR revelation from
    study, and then the rest will be made clear, "when the student is ready
    the master will appear" kind of thing.  That's how I learned.
    
    >    Since this is non-scriptural, where did it come from?

    Non-canonized, but scripture nevertheless!  Depends on where you're at!
    

    Re: The Utility and Necessity for Gnostic Life
    
    As you grow, through study of the Bible, in the knowledge of God, you
    will eventually come to a point of questions that the Bible doesn't
    answer.  Such questions that arise from reading between the lines, or
    from implied realities.  As a result your only recourse will be to ask
    either a man or to ask God for the revelation.  The Bible says that God
    will answer you, so that is really the best option!
    
    When we get to that point you have entered the realm of Gnosticism!  As
    it is written (Hebrews 6: 1-3?), "Now leaving the doctrine of Christ
    let us go on to perfection."  This, IMHO, is a call for Gnosticism.
    
    The question that has been asked, regarding "Original Sin" is not
    directly put in the Bible, and we can either trust our respective
    teachers to answer this question or we can search the documents of
    books like "The Other Bible" or "The Lost Books of the Bible" or the
    "Forgotten Books of Eden", and accept what those who lived closer to
    the times of Jesus' appearance in the flesh, or we can ask God.  
    
    No one can really argue with the answers, and that's where Gnosticism
    gets its credibility.  Who's to say for a particular person's
    perception or revelation that it's right or wrong, especially if they
    "SAY" it's from God, and are confessing Jesus as their savior, who can
    refute them?  It's a matter of faith, if it works for you receive it,
    if not be careful not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit!

re Note 64.29 by SWAM3::DOTHARD_ST:

>     Basically, a "Demiurge" is another name for an "Agent/lessor god" said
>     to be created by the Most High God to perform His will, acts of
>     creation.  They are angels, but are of the higher echelon of sorts.  

        Then why not just call them angels?  (Using the common
        language of this conference tends to aid understanding.)


>     A little history and background.  Christianity took the gods of the
>     so-called "polytheistic" Egyptian pantheon and made them angels,
>     reference the Kabala, the secret doctrine upon which the Bible is
>     based.  
  
        I can accept similarity, but similarity doesn't prove
        derivation (especially, it doesn't prove the direction of
        derivation).  Assuming, as I do, that the Bible is an
        authoritative description of aspects of reality, then even if
        the text of Scripture is newer than some similar
        non-scriptural text or doctrine, nothing can be inferred
        about derivation between the texts (since presumably both are
        trying to mirror the reality beyond them).


>     The Word, Jesus Christ created all MANIFEST LIFE, but the Most High God
>     created the Word or Jesus.  Jesus is different from a Demuirge, is not
>     a Demuirge, Demuirge are agents who "SPEAK", the Most High God doesn't

        John 1:3 says "Through him [the Word] all things came to be,
        not one thing had its being but through him."  This doesn't
        limit the Word to the creation of just "manifest life", but
        extends it equally to all things.

        Bob

    re: 31
    
    >    Then why not just call them angels?  (Using the common
    >    language of this conference tends to aid understanding.)
    
    Come on, let's expand our horizons alittle, and grow in the knowledge
    of the Lord!  "This conference" is Christian Perspectives, "common
    language" should not be relegated to the noters in the topic, but the
    topic mandates the language used by the noters.  I don't remember
    seeing a "glossary" of terms to be used, nor do I think that would be
    appropriate.  The term "Demuirge" is a very common term in some
    circles.  Furthermore, a Demuirge does not have the same job as an
    Angel.  Angels are most often "messengers", whereas a Demuirge is an
    Agent of God, like a Cheribim, though I imagine both could be
    considered Angels.
    
    >    I can accept similarity, but similarity doesn't prove
    >    derivation (especially, it doesn't prove the direction of
    >    derivation).  Assuming, as I do, that the Bible is an
    >    authoritative description of aspects of reality, then even if
    >    the text of Scripture is newer than some similar
    >    non-scriptural text or doctrine, nothing can be inferred
    >    about derivation between the texts (since presumably both are
    >    trying to mirror the reality beyond them).
    
    Why one would presume that God has revealed His Word in only one book
    and in one Church is beyond me, seeing that "the whole earth is the
    lords, the fullness and fatness thereof," and that God is active in all
    lands and nations, and visits people everywhere, throughout all time. 
    "Non-scriptural" bothers me, "Non-canonical" would probably serve
    better.  Just because certain books haven't been canonized in the Bible
    doesn't mean they are not scriptural, IMO.  Would you say the Koran is
    not scripture, or the Apocrypha is not scripture?
    
    The point of my mentioning the derivation of the Bible, is to
    facilitate ones research into advanced studies.  If you know that the
    Bible is derived from the Egyptians or other concerns, it helps you to
    find out the context and meaning of obscure and hard to perceive
    sayings in the Bible.  You couldn't comprehend the Bible without such
    helps.
    
    >    John 1:3 says "Through him [the Word] all things came to be,
    >    not one thing had its being but through him."  This doesn't
    >    limit the Word to the creation of just "manifest life", but
    >    extends it equally to all things.

    What does "BEING" mean?  Does it mean a "manifest life"?  John 1:4
    says, 'And in him (Word) was LIFE, and the LIFE was the light of all
    men.'  In the Word IS LIFE, everything that the Word creates, by
    necessity, must HAVE life.  God is the God of the living and not the
    dead.  "MADE" means manifest, else how would one know or perceive that
    which is MADE?  
    
    You make a big deal out of Words, perhaps, in an effort to reduce or
    change my wisdom and understanding to fit your mind.  But 'lean not to
    thine own understanding" and "grow". 

re Note 64.32 by SWAM3::DOTHARD_ST:

>     Why one would presume that God has revealed His Word in only one book
>     and in one Church is beyond me, 

        I didn't write that.


>     The point of my mentioning the derivation of the Bible, is to
>     facilitate ones research into advanced studies.  If you know that the
>     Bible is derived from the Egyptians or other concerns, it helps you to
>     find out the context and meaning of obscure and hard to perceive
>     sayings in the Bible.  

        You keep claiming this derivation, but you never prove it. 
        All you do is offer evidence that could be mere coincidence.


>     What does "BEING" mean?  Does it mean a "manifest life"?  

        No.


>     You make a big deal out of Words, perhaps, in an effort to reduce or
>     change my wisdom and understanding to fit your mind.  But 'lean not to
>     thine own understanding" and "grow". 

        My thoughts about what you have to offer, exactly!

        Bob

    Re:  33
    
    The subject is Original Sin, not Christian "Derivation Study".  As I
    said, if you "bring" something to the discussion it facilitates the
    progress of own knowledge.  I won't give you anything but information
    and evidences presented by others from old to recent offerings.  I
    couldn't "prove" anything, it's up to you to "receive" the knowledge. 
    No one has ever "proved" the existance and life of Jesus, you read a
    book, "The Bible" and you make the choice to "receive" it as the Word
    of God.  No man has ever seen God, so that cannot be "proven" to you
    either.  Only self revelation, "Gnostic" revelation can prove it, and
    again you've got to bring "self" to the altar.
    
    I have no doubts about what I speak in the Lord, because of the
    experiences I've had "personally" with His Word.  If you want to
    discuss the Egyptian connection with the Bible, open a topic an I'll
    indulge, but I only offered that information to indicate where my head
    is at when I say what I say.  You asked "Where did I get that from?" so
    I told you.   

    
    
    The last few notes have completely thrown me - I thought we were
    talking about orginal sin ?
    
    	Anyway, in an attempt to stray back onto the topic.
    
    Adam's sin.	
    
    Adam was given free will, he was given the chance to exercise this free
    will and to exhibit his love for God - otherwise of what good is free
    will if it is not exercised. It wasn't a very difficult choice out of
    all the trees in the Garden he was only prohibited from eating one by
    God. God asked him not to eat the fruit from this tree for his own
    good.
    However Adam submitted to temptation and ate - he disobeyed the will of
    God, and consequently subjected himself to separation from God.
    Adam's sin was self-inflicted, as is all moral sin - and as a result
    automatically barred himself from the vision of God and subjected
    himself to death. In him if you will were contained all mankind - he
    represented us all, thus all are subject to death - otherwise why
    should I be if I haven't committed any sin, for example say a mentally
    handicaped person who hasn't committed any sin - why should they be
    subjected to the same punishment for Adam's sin ?
    
    We are not misreading human nature - human nature itself is flawed, is
    this not obvious ?	God wants us to become whole again, to be the human
    beings he created - which is why He sent Christ - God-Man, "I have
    come, that you might have life, life to the full" - to redeem the sin
    of Adam and to show us the way to perfection by uniting our will to
    that of God as he showed us, and to seek his will in all things. He
    forgives our sins, our imperfections and helps us to grow in the
    knowledge and love of God to attain the wholeness and dignity we had
    with God in the beginning.
    
    To say that original sin is a mistake capitalised on by various bodies - 
    I think is to blind oneself to the truth and the reality of it's 
    consequences which are all around you.  
    
    	Peace,
    		
    		Tom
    
    
    
    

re Note 64.34 by SWAM3::DOTHARD_ST:

>     I couldn't "prove" anything, it's up to you to "receive" the knowledge. 
> ...
>     I have no doubts about what I speak in the Lord, because of the
>     experiences I've had "personally" with His Word.  

        So I am supposed to accept what you say on your own
        authority?

        Bob

    Re: 35
    
    I'll say AMEN to that, Tom.
    

    Re: 36
    
    No. No. NO.  You accept or receive, what I say or anybody else for that
    matter, on the strength of what YOU already know and believe to be
    true.  However, the difference between people is their foundation of
    knowledge, what they bring to the question.  I'm no different from you,
    I have no greater access, no mystery link to information and truth.  I
    live and learn and grow just like you.  You speak what you feel and I
    hear you and not on your authority, but upon my "unction" (if you will)
    I say "I'll accept that" or "I can't accept that".  
    
    It is not my place, however, to judge the speaker, but only that which
    is spoken.  When I read any book, even the Bible, I don't care who
    wrote it!  I seek to know if it works for me, does it give what it says
    it gives, can I see in reality what it says on the pages.  If so, the
    words are true, regardless of who wrote it.  And just because an author
    wrote one good book, doesn't mean that every book he writes will be
    so...each book must be examined and put to test.
    
    My credentials, nor yours are necessary!  Truth stands on its own legs,
    whether coming from man, woman or child, in the religious arena anyway. 
    What purpose does ones credentials serve, other than to put on resumes
    for the purpose of getting a job?  I'm not being ficitious about
    credentials, I believe there is merit and virtue in them, but it is by
    no means a guarantee to truth and right guidance, as highly qualified
    people have been known to make honest "fatal" or "misleading" mistakes.
    
    It would be more fruitful and intelligent for one to pursue questions
    regarding the perception rather than the credibility of the perceptor. 
    
    However, my "credentials" in this concern really aren't at question,
    because the information I entered I got from others, and can give you
    references.  Now, I don't need "credentials" to read several books and
    synthesis from those books, one perception of a matter.  Actually, we
    are taught that the more information we have on a matter the better we
    are able to make perceptions about it.  So on the strength of me merely
    having read several books on a subject, gives my opinions greater
    credibility than a person how as only read perhaps two.  Even though we
    both may have the same perception, my ability to elaborate and my
    confidence in the perception is necessarily greater, due to the level
    of knowledge.
    
    I'm rambling now, but I hope you see the point I'm making.  I mean we
    read books in the Bible and other doctrine and we don't know who wrote
    it, is that in and of itself enough to disqualify the information it
    contains?  I really doesn't matter who wrote it.  Furthermore, once we
    get past the matter of "credentials" it is still necessary to go on and
    read the information and it still may or may not be correct, what good
    or what does "credentials" mean if the Dr. is wrong?

   "There is no doctrine of 'original sin' in the Old Testament or in ancient
Judaism -- though the materials are present out of which in time the doctrine
was formed.  It is not man's nature that is defective, though the limitations
of his finitude and mortality are clearly recognized -- he, like the Egyptians'
horses, is 'flesh not spirit' (Isa. 31.3) and consequently must die; nor is it
the 'corrupt following of Adam' which accounts for human misery or wrongdoing;
instead it is the pragmatic and accountable fact of wrong thinking, wrong
desires, evil habit and wicked custom that explains the widespread extent of
sin and its terrible consequences (Gen. 6.5)"

	pg 62, _Ancient Judaism and the New Testament_, Frederick Grant (1959)

But Fred, Jack says our children are little sin factories (besides being little
poop factories) right from the outset!

Shalom,
Richard

 Ever notice a child when told not to touch a nicknack on the shelf, or
 a piece of fruit on the table, will keep attempting to do what you 
 don't want them to do?  Ever notice they have to be taught obedience?



 Jim

.40

> Ever notice a child when told not to touch a nicknack on the shelf, or
> a piece of fruit on the table, will keep attempting to do what you 
> don't want them to do?  Ever notice they have to be taught obedience?

Yes, I have, Jim.  But I don't doubt that both ancient and modern Jews
have observed similar behavior in children, yet did not and do not attribute
it to "original sin."

Conversely, I have noticed that full grown adults can be so conditioned
to obedience that they cannot disobey even the most unconscionable of
orders.

Which is the greater sin?

Shalom,
Richard

Z    he, like the Egyptians'
Z    horses, is 'flesh not spirit' (Isa. 31.3) and consequently must die; nor is it
Z    the 'corrupt following of Adam' which accounts for human misery or wrongdoing;
Z    instead it is the pragmatic and accountable fact of wrong thinking, wrong
Z    desires, evil habit and wicked custom that explains the widespread
Z    extent of sin and its terrible consequences (Gen. 6.5)"
    
 I was actually going to bring up the same point Jim did.  Sin is an
    intrinsic part of the human condition...something we are born with. 
    Unlike the horses of Pharoah, we are created in God's image.  We are
    spiritual beings but the fall of Adam has made us spiritually dead.  We
    are born into spiritual death.  Upon believing, it is not us who live
    but Christ who lives in us.  
    
    Disobedience is an act of free volition.  Regarless of the age or
    innocense of a youngster, disobedience is a fruit of the sin condition.
    
    -Jack

> Ever notice a child when told not to touch a nicknack on the shelf, or
> a piece of fruit on the table, will keep attempting to do what you 
> don't want them to do?  Ever notice they have to be taught obedience?

This seems to be simply a cultural phenomenom. I've seen plenty of video
of cultures and tribes within which this is not an issue.

Certainly, if you are brought up believing original sin and raised
accordingly, you will be imprinted with its effect. This is independent
of whether or not original sin exists or not. 

The question I have to this conference, does the belief in Jesus Christ
require original sin? Certainly, it would seem to me that if we are not
born into sin, then we wouldn't need to be saved from sin, true?

TTom

    Has Mr. Grant ever heard of Yom Kippur?  Sounds like he hasn't.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 64.44 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| Has Mr. Grant ever heard of Yom Kippur?  Sounds like he hasn't.

	Well, seeing he is running a newsroom, he should know. :-)

.44

>    Has Mr. Grant ever heard of Yom Kippur?  Sounds like he hasn't.

This is obtuse as saying, "Have the Jews ever heard of Yom Kippur?  Sounds like
they haven't."

Jews do not embrace the doctrine of "original sin."

Richard

    >Jews do not embrace the doctrine of "original sin."
    
    Messianic Jews do.
    
    Mike

    Messianic Jews are Christians not Jews!

    .47
    
    I do not know what the so-called Messianic Jews believe about the
    notion of "original sin."
    
    Richard
    

    Suggested reading:
    
    	Ezekiel, chapter 18.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Process Theology identifies Original Sin as sin that is passed along to
    a person.  In process theology, each moment of becoming is the process
    of synthesizing all past moments and making a creative choice toward
    the future.  Both our own personal past and the influences of others
    are all part of the past moments that must be integrated.
    
    No person is an island and every person is influenced by every part of
    their environment.  Original Sin are those environmental influences for
    which a person has no personal responsibility for and yet they can
    influence the persons decision toward the demonic.
    
    In a similiar vain, Feminist Theology identifies original sin with
    those systemic oppressive evils i.e. sexism, racism, bigotry, etc.
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    A messianic Jew I know identified himself as a completed Jew.  He
    proclaimed Jesus (Y'shua) as savior.
    
    -Jack

    >    Messianic Jews are Christians not Jews!

    As for the Orthodox Jews, they may not support "original" sin but they
    are fully aware of sin and its consequences.  The nature of man and
    what causes people to sin is another issue.  The Jews acknowledge that
    sin is a reality.
    
    In the Torah, "...there are 2 types of sin: sin of commission (committing 
    an unlawful act) and sin of omission (failing to obey God's decree).  
    Israel was charged by God to abhor both." (_The_Fall_Feasts_of_Israel_,
    Mitch & Zhava Glaser, p. 77, ISBN 0-8024-2539-9).  
    
    This is the reason for Yom Kippur.

"Jew" can mean a person who is of Jewish descent or a person who follows
the Jewish religion, Judaism.  Messianic Jews are of Jewish descent but
follow the Christian religion, so in a religious sense you could say that
Messianic Jews are not Jews.

				-- Bob

    I don't believe you can say that in any sense.  As Jack's friend said,
    they are complete Jews.

    .54
    
    This topic *and* the quote in 64.39 speak to the notion of "original
    sin," not whether sin is a reality.  Are you confused about this?
    
    Richard
    

    Richard, I'm not confused at all.  Sin is a reality.  How you explain
    it came into man's nature is your decision.  Just don't try to tell us
    it isn't Biblical - it is.  Genesis 3:6, Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12, and 
    their references are good starting places.
    
    Mike

>    Richard, I'm not confused at all.  Sin is a reality.  How you explain
>    it came into man's nature is your decision.  Just don't try to tell us
>    it isn't Biblical - it is.  Genesis 3:6, Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12, and 
>    their references are good starting places.

Well, I think you *are* confused.  Show me where I tried to tell you sin
isn't Biblical.

Richard

    Some in here state that "Sin is the fundemental condition of
    humankind".  That is what is not Biblical.  Humanities creation in the
    image of the Divine is what is the fundemental condition of humankind
    and in my opinion is the biblical position.
    
    sin is a reality.  Inherited sin is also a reality.  The fact that each
    of us is created in the image of the divine and capable of accepting
    the incarnation of the divine within ourselves and thereby overcoming the
    sin that is a part of human reality is biblical.
    
                                   Patricia

  ZZ     Some in here state that "Sin is the fundemental condition of
  ZZ     humankind".  That is what is not Biblical. 
    
  ZZ     sin is a reality.  Inherited sin is also a reality. 
    
    These two points contradict each other in my mind.  If John F. Kennedy
    Jr. is born into money, then he is rich.  Wealth is a fundamental
    condition of his life.  It is a condition through inheritance.
    
    -Jack

    
    > If John F. Kennedy Jr. is born into money, then he is rich.

    Does that make the child born to a rape victim a rapist? 

    Sin -- like love, hate, fear, and joy -- is a condition or state that
    all people will find themselves in at one point or another throughout
    their lives. There is original sin just as there is original
    compassion; we are born with the ability to sin, not in the state of
    sin. Through prayer, faith in the teachings of Christ and the aid of
    the holy Spirit, we can hope to avoid sin when confronted with
    temptation and forgiveness for sins when we inevitably fall short of the
    mark.                                                   

    	Eric

    Let me ponder that for a while!

>Well, I think you *are* confused.  Show me where I tried to tell you sin
>isn't Biblical.
    
    Right.  You didn't say it, Grant did.  You never say anything.  It's
    the other guys' fault that you quote.
    
    isn't original sin a type of "sin"?

| <<< Note 64.65 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| >Well, I think you *are* confused.  Show me where I tried to tell you sin
| >isn't Biblical.

| Right.  You didn't say it, Grant did.  You never say anything.  It's
| the other guys' fault that you quote.

	Mike, doesn't that mean you projected your thoughts into Richards
words? I mean, this is just an observation, but I see it all the time.... the
closer one is to the Right, the more they TELL you what you mean and not ASK.
Try asking, it works ya know.

>>Well, I think you *are* confused.  Show me where I tried to tell you sin
>>isn't Biblical.
    
>    Right.  You didn't say it, Grant did.  You never say anything.  It's
>    the other guys' fault that you quote.

Wrong again, Mike.  Grant didn't say it.  64.39 speaks of Judaism and the
doctrine of original sin.

Richard

.47

>    >Jews do not embrace the doctrine of "original sin."
    
>    Messianic Jews do.
    
I contacted Kehilat Sha'arit Yisrael, a local Messianic synagogue, this
morning.  What I was told does not generally support your assertion.

As is true among Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, and Orthodox Jews, there
is a broad spectrum of belief.  However, if there are any Messianic Jews
who embrace the doctrine of original sin as you assert they do, the rabbi
has not heard of them (which does not mean, of course, that they do not
exist).

Richard

My own .68

>As is true among Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, and Orthodox Jews, there
>is a broad spectrum of belief.

I could have easily included Christians in this statement and probably
should have.

Richard

>	Mike, doesn't that mean you projected your thoughts into Richards
>words? I mean, this is just an observation, but I see it all the time.... the
>closer one is to the Right, the more they TELL you what you mean and not ASK.
>Try asking, it works ya know.
    
    Glen, quoting a source in defense of an opinion (as made clear by the
    participant's surrounding text) usually makes one responsible to defend
    the quote.  If one has a habit of doing this without defending the
    quotes they enter, it is sort of deceiving - especially when they were
    asked for clarification a few times.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 64.70 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| Glen, quoting a source in defense of an opinion (as made clear by the
| participant's surrounding text) usually makes one responsible to defend
| the quote.  If one has a habit of doing this without defending the
| quotes they enter, it is sort of deceiving - especially when they were
| asked for clarification a few times.

	Mike, I see Richard addressing most people who ask. I do see that
certain people don't get answers, and I had always thought it was due to how
the people asking the questions are wording things, or their past history with
discussions. (again, that is a personal observation, does not mean it is fact)
But it comes down to one thing:

Person A makes a quote.

Person B asks what the quote means.

Person A does not answer.

Person B then tells Person A what they really meant.

	The last part should never happen. No one should tell another what they
mean, unless they have told us. It's pretty simple. If Person A does not tell
you what they mean, then you can not tell them what they mean. You CAN say that
this is how you took it, but never tell another that they meant this/that. Why
is that so hard for those closest to the Right to see? (again, personal
observance)


Glen

    	What you're saying, Glen, is that you are an expert on
    	communication and that you know how we should conduct
    	ourselves in notes.

    Person A should clarify their opinion when asked to avoid
    misinterpretation in the first place.  Person A also has the
    responsibility to clarify when they see their opinion misrepresented. 
    If Person A balks at both opportunities, then Person B can assume that
    they interpreted Person A correctly.
    
    Mike

>    If Person A balks at both opportunities, then Person B can assume that
>    they interpreted Person A correctly.
    
    If I were person B in the case above, I would assume that person A had
    their own reasons for not clarifying(and I would be suspicious of the
    reasons) and I would assume that  I could NOT interpret Person A correctly.
    
    It is called communication, and a point is being made!

| <<< Note 64.72 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| What you're saying, Glen, is that you are an expert on communication and that 
| you know how we should conduct ourselves in notes.

	Thanks for providing another example, Joe. You have told me what I
meant. You are wrong.


Glen

    	Thanks for falling for the chain-yank.  :^)

| <<< Note 64.73 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| Person A should clarify their opinion when asked to avoid misinterpretation in
| the first place.  

	Sometimes person A is never asked what they mean. They are told. Look
at note .72 for an example. 

	If Person B does not know for sure what Person A was talking about, why
should they be the ones telling Person A what they meant? Just because Person A
does not tell you what they meant, it doesn't give you, me, or anyone else the
right to tell person A what they meant. If we do, and we don't really know,
then we could be spreading falsehoods, which is wrong. If you don't know, ask.
If you don't get an answer, then don't tell them what they mean. Give your
opinion on the subject, but don't speak as if you were Person A.

| Person A also has the responsibility to clarify when they see their opinion 
| misrepresented.

	If you were to say, "From what I can gather, I think this is what you
might be saying...<insert view>..... is this true?", then I could see Person A
wanting to clear things up. But if you say, "What you mean is...<insert view>",
then that person is more likely going to be upset that you're telling them just
what they really mean. Ask, don't tell. This way people won't be misrepresented
as often. 

| If Person A balks at both opportunities, then Person B can assume that they 
| interpreted Person A correctly.

	Do you really believe that????? If someone came up to you and said they
thought you were a hateful person, and you did not feel like addressing it, but
just walked away, they should be able to assume, and tell people this lie? Come
on Mike. Be real. If you want to assume to yourself that this is the case, then
do it. If you tell others about it, and all you've done to prove what you're
saying is assume, then you might want to think twice about saying it. Cuz if
there is a possibility that you're spreading falsehoods, should you be doing
it?


Glen

    Please continue the tangental discussion in Note 9.
    
    Richard
    

64.70

>    Glen, quoting a source in defense of an opinion (as made clear by the
>    participant's surrounding text) usually makes one responsible to defend
>    the quote.  If one has a habit of doing this without defending the
>    quotes they enter, it is sort of deceiving - especially when they were
>    asked for clarification a few times.

	It is not beyond me to post a quotation which I find provocative, but
with which I don't necessarily agree.  This is not the case, however, in this
instance.

	I concur with Grant in 64.39.  Modern Jews do not embrace the doctrine
of original sin.  Neither did the ancient Jews.  I have no reason to believe
that Jesus, a Jew, did either.

Richard

    Glen, thanks for telling us how to communicate in notes.

| <<< Note 64.80 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, thanks for telling us how to communicate in notes.

	Gee Mike, you don't get it. It has to do with being able to
communicate, period. How can one communicate when someone else is
telling them what they really mean? 


Glen

    WE'RE NOT WORTHY!!! WE'RE NOT WORTHY!!! WE'RE NOT WORTHY!!! 

    Original sins the cause of all poor noting behavoir!
    
    Humankind is just born with a propensity for arguing, mudslinging, and
    backstabbing!
    
    It is better than physical violence isn't it!
    
                                         Patricia

    	re.81
    
    	I thought you were a red sox fan, Glen, not a yankee fan.

    *Please* continue the tangental discussion in Note 9.  This topic is
    for discussing the doctrine of original sin.  See 64.0.

    Richard

    Maybe Leslie can offer some input since she attends a Messianic church. 
    Leslie, what is your view on original sin?
    
    BTW - here's also an excerpt from a recent Messianic Vision newsletter
    article on Catholicism that seems to be saying they agree with
    Christianity on this doctrine.
    
"Mary is never referred to in Scripture as immaculate, sinless, or All-Holy.  As
a descendant of Adam, she was born in sin (Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12)."

{from the Mishpochah File 1:14, Messianic Vision, PO Box 1918, Brunswick, GA
31521; (912) 265-2500}

    The term original sin is one I've *never* heard in our synagogue.  Sin is 
    talked about, and the need for both repentence and forgiveness, but not 
    the words original sin.
  
    My own understanding is that the words original sin are really part
    of Catholic theology, and that although other Christian denominations and
    churches, etc. hold sin to be part of the human condition - "everyone 
    has fallen short of the mark set by God, and no one is without sin" the 
    Catholic/Anglican/Episcipalian concept of original sin is a bit different.
    I think I had said something about this in another note while discussing 
    the conception and birth of Yeshua (Jesus).

    Perhaps John C. or somebody could explain the RC position on the concept 
    of original sin.

    Leslie

Also see topic 133, "Original Sin," in HASTUR::CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY.

To add this conference to your notebook, type

ADD ENTRY HASTUR::CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY

at the Notes prompt, or press KP7.

Shalom,
Richard

    Maybe I'm missing something somewhere.  I interpreted original sin as
    the fallen nature of man due to Adam's trangression in the garden. 
    Paul wrote in Romans that as sin entered the world through one man, it
    is also delivered through one: Jesus Christ.
    
    I take it that some have a different meaning than what Paul wrote in
    Romans 5.
    
    Mike