Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi Scott: No worries about any type of delay! I’m sure your time is limited, bro.
The subject verses (Rm 5:12-21) add a definite “twist” to the “all have sinned” idea established previously in Romans 3 (Rm3:23).
In Rm 5:12-19, Paul keeps mentioning SINGLE persons or events: “Adam”, “ONE man”, “ONE Judgment”, “of ONE” and “by ONE” . He does this 14 times in only 8 verses. To me, it is extremely clear that Paul is trying to establish a single point of entry and exit for the “problem” that he thinks “god” has with the first sin ever committed on Earth – that of Adam. Paul repeats this idea 3 times in verses 17, 18 and 19. In fact Rm 5:19 is the Central Thesis Statement of ALL Christian Theology.
Rm 5:19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were MADE sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be MADE righteous” .
This verse is perfectly symmetric in that a single “agent” does and then “undoes” something. The word translated “MADE” is an imputation or assignment of attributes and literally means that the sin of Adam was imputed to Mankind (many) and conversely, by the obedience of one (Jesus), righteousness was imputed to Mankind. Or in more vernacular terms…
Jesus undid for MANY what Adam did to MANY!
Based on these verses, I can definitely see why the concept of “Original Sin” exists. And there is no reasonable doubt in my mind that Orthodoxy has properly interpreted them. I don't think Paul was overtly Evil and the word "blame" is little too harsh for me. I think he likely had "issues" but was still convinced he was doing God's Will. If I blame anyone, it would probably be the Priesthood for making a Dogma out of this concept even if there was biblical support for it.
“Original Sin” goes beyond the idea that “we all sin” and contradicts the Biblical Principle that we are, and should be, responsible for our own sin (De:24:16, 2Ki:14:6, 2Ch:25:4).
Without the unjust and strange Dogma of Original Sin, I can reasonably conclude that…
Jesus undid for ME what I did to MYSELF! Yea, that Works!
In His Love, John
Hi John I still think you are looking at this through a lens of Augustine or Orthodox thinking.
Do you remember a few years ago on kept's board asking a question about the prophesy's concerning Christ and how not every prophesy seemed to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ. And I replied that is because Christ is a many membered body and we fill up that which is lacking in Christ. Thus some prophesy's concerning Christ have not yet come to pass because the feet have not yet been made perfect?
It is the same scenario spoken of here by Paul. This is so hard to put in words brother but I will endeavour to do so.
Rm 5:19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were MADE sinners, so by the obedienceof one shall many be MADE righteous” .
Disobedience here means failure to hear properly or amiss. Made primary meaning means to set down, it is used in classical Greek of bringing to a place. Vincent word studies
Through one man's failure to hear properly many were brought to a place of sinning, so by the obedience of one shall the many be brought to a place of righteousness.
Now just as Jesus is the HEAD of the body of Christ and Christ is a many membered body, so too is Adam deemed the HEAD of the body, which is also a many membered body of those that sin.
When Paul refers to one man's disobedience he is speaking of the collective body and not just Adam; Adam is only the head of the body. That is why Adam is said to be a figure of Him that was to come. And He that was to come was Jesus the HEAD of a many membered body of Christ.
Basically what Paul is stating here is that if you follow Adam has your HEAD you will come to a place of sin, but if your follow Jesus as your HEAD you will come to a place of righteousness.
Brother it is OUR CHOICE which HEAD WE will follow, and each man/woman is responsible for THEIR OWN CHOICE.
Simply put Paul did not teach original sin, Paul taught we are each responsible for the choice we make of which head to follow. We can either follow Adam as our head which will lead us to sin, or we can follow Jesus as our head which will lead us to righteousness. The CHOICE IS OURS TO MAKE.
Quote:
Based on these verses, I can definitely see why the concept of “Original Sin” exists. And there is no reasonable doubt in my mind that Orthodoxy has properly interpreted them.
Augustine or Orthodox thinking have simply missed the point of what Paul was saying and concluded Paul was speaking of original sin; and I hope I have given you some reasonable doubt as to whether Orthodoxy has properly interpreted those scriptures or not.
Hi John I still think you are looking at this through a lens of Augustine or Orthodox thinking.
Do you remember a few years ago on kept's board asking a question about the prophesy's concerning Christ and how not every prophesy seemed to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ. And I replied that is because Christ is a many membered body and we fill up that which is lacking in Christ. Thus some prophesy's concerning Christ have not yet come to pass because the feet have not yet been made perfect?
It is the same scenario spoken of here by Paul. This is so hard to put in words brother but I will endeavour to do so.
Rm 5:19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were MADE sinners, so by the obedienceof one shall many be MADE righteous” .
Disobedience here means failure to hear properly or amiss. Made primary meaning means to set down, it is used in classical Greek of bringing to a place. Vincent word studies
Through one man's failure to hear properly many were brought to a place of sinning, so by the obedience of one shall the many be brought to a place of righteousness.
Now just as Jesus is the HEAD of the body of Christ and Christ is a many membered body, so too is Adam deemed the HEAD of the body, which is also a many membered body of those that sin.
When Paul refers to one man's disobedience he is speaking of the collective body and not just Adam; Adam is only the head of the body. That is why Adam is said to be a figure of Him that was to come. And He that was to come was Jesus the HEAD of a many membered body of Christ.
Basically what Paul is stating here is that if you follow Adam has your HEAD you will come to a place of sin, but if your follow Jesus as your HEAD you will come to a place of righteousness.
Brother it is OUR CHOICE which HEAD WE will follow, and each man/woman is responsible for THEIR OWN CHOICE.
Simply put Paul did not teach original sin, Paul taught we are each responsible for the choice we make of which head to follow. We can either follow Adam as our head which will lead us to sin, or we can follow Jesus as our head which will lead us to righteousness. The CHOICE IS OURS TO MAKE.
Augustine or Orthodox thinking have simply missed the point of what Paul was saying and concluded Paul was speaking of original sin; and I hope I have given you some reasonable doubt as to whether Orthodoxy has properly interpreted those scriptures or not.
God bless
Hi John I still think you are looking at this through a lens of Augustine or Orthodox thinking.
Hi Paul: Yes, I am definitely doing this to see IF Augustine could have gotten this idea out of what is written. And I have concluded that he could have! I like your Lens, Scott - NO QUESTION! But, I'm simply trying to understand HOW this Dogma happened.
When Paul refers to one man's disobedience he is speaking of the collective body and not just Adam; Adam is only the head of the body. That is why Adam is said to be a figure of Him that was to come. And He that was to come was Jesus the HEAD of a many membered body of Christ.
I could accept your "collective body" theory if it wasn't for Paul's unusual use of SINGULAR nouns and Pronouns as I pointed out earlier.
Brother it is OUR CHOICE which HEAD WE will follow, and each man/woman is responsible for THEIR OWN CHOICE.
It's obvious that I've made my choice - Original Sin is BS!
Augustine or Orthodox thinking have simply missed the point of what Paul was saying and concluded Paul was speaking of original sin; and I hope I have given you some reasonable doubt as to whether Orthodoxy has properly interpreted those scriptures or not.
Interpretation. Augustine had his, you have yours and I have mine. But the Bottomline is that we BOTH agree that the Dogma of Original Sin is invalid, albeit through different paths. All Good, methinks!
Hi John I still think you are looking at this through a lens of Augustine or Orthodox thinking.
Hi Paul: Yes, I am definitely doing this to see IF Augustine could have gotten this idea out of what is written. And I have concluded that he could have! I like your Lens, Scott - NO QUESTION! But, I'm simply trying to understand HOW this Dogma happened.
When Paul refers to one man's disobedience he is speaking of the collective body and not just Adam; Adam is only the head of the body. That is why Adam is said to be a figure of Him that was to come. And He that was to come was Jesus the HEAD of a many membered body of Christ.
I could accept your "collective body" theory if it wasn't for Paul's unusual use of SINGULAR nouns and Pronouns as I pointed out earlier.
Brother it is OUR CHOICE which HEAD WE will follow, and each man/woman is responsible for THEIR OWN CHOICE.
It's obvious that I've made my choice - Original Sin is BS!
Augustine or Orthodox thinking have simply missed the point of what Paul was saying and concluded Paul was speaking of original sin; and I hope I have given you some reasonable doubt as to whether Orthodoxy has properly interpreted those scriptures or not.
Interpretation. Augustine had his, you have yours and I have mine. But the Bottomline is that we BOTH agree that the Dogma of Original Sin is invalid, albeit through different paths. All Good, methinks!
Is not Israel also used as a singular noun? is Israel always speaking of Jacob or is it sometimes (most times) in reference to the whole nation of Israel, a many membered body?
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Who is the firstborn son of God recorded in scripture?
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
If Paul wanted us to understand the one man's disobedience to mean one person aka Adams why did he not say because of Adam disobedience many were made sinners?
Paul to me is speaking of the collective "one" and not an individual "one"
Anyway we agree original sin is in error and the church got this wrong. Yes they got much of the idea of original sin from what Paul wrote, but like I said Paul is not responsible for what people have done with what he said.
I read the same scriptures and come away with a whole different view.
So did Paul really teach original sin? I say no, but you still seem to say yes Paul taught it but you don't believe Paul and Orthodoxy simple says yes Paul taught original sin.
The difference between my view and yours John is I can accept Paul's teaching, and you have to reject it.
One of the things you have stated brother was that you did not agree with Paul's view on certain subjects.
I asked could it be because you are looking at them through Augustine's view of what Paul was saying.
You indicated that it could be.
Well brother I gave you a different view of what Paul was saying that actually lines up with what you have come to believe so I ask. Did Paul actually teach original sin or not? Or is Paul being misunderstood mostly because of Augustine's views on what Paul said?
Is not Israel also used as a singular noun? is Israel always speaking of Jacob or is it sometimes (most times) in reference to the whole nation of Israel, a many membered body?
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Who is the firstborn son of God recorded in scripture?
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
If Paul wanted us to understand the one man's disobedience to mean one person aka Adams why did he not say because of Adam disobedience many were made sinners?
Paul to me is speaking of the collective "one" and not an individual "one"
Anyway we agree original sin is in error and the church got this wrong. Yes they got much of the idea of original sin from what Paul wrote, but like I said Paul is not responsible for what people have done with what he said.
I read the same scriptures and come away with a whole different view.
So did Paul really teach original sin? I say no, but you still seem to say yes Paul taught it but you don't believe Paul and Orthodoxy simple says yes Paul taught original sin.
The difference between my view and yours John is I can accept Paul's teaching, and you have to reject it.
One of the things you have stated brother was that you did not agree with Paul's view on certain subjects.
I asked could it be because you are looking at them through Augustine's view of what Paul was saying.
You indicated that it could be.
Well brother I gave you a different view of what Paul was saying that actually lines up with what you have come to believe so I ask. Did Paul actually teach original sin or not? Or is Paul being misunderstood mostly because of Augustine's views on what Paul said?
God bless,
Scott
Hi Scott:
Quote:
Is not Israel also used as a singular noun? is Israel always speaking of Jacob or is it sometimes (most times) in reference to the whole nation of Israel, a many membered body?
Scott, Israel is a singular collective noun, of course, but you can't apply this to the phrase, "One Man's disobedience" because of the "ONE" in front of "MAN". If you can, then the "one man's obedience" (Jesus) can be MANY "Jesuses". Do you, do Christians, believe in many "Jesuses" - NO!
Anyway, the above english debate notwithstanding, I understand your interpretation and you might be right. The biggest problem that I have is that this (I think Evil) Dogma is so subject to opinion. Dogma is supposed to be Absolute Truth and it's distributing that it's based on such tenuous information.
The Good News is that it CAN be dismissed via multiple methods and for this I am Grateful!
Morning John, I don't want to turn this into a debate but do want to point out a few things. You stated
Quote:
Scott, Israel is a singular collective noun, of course, but you can't apply this to the phrase, "One Man's disobedience" because of the "ONE" in front of "MAN". If you can, then the "one man's obedience" (Jesus) can be MANY "Jesuses". Do you, do Christians, believe in many "Jesuses" - NO!
This will likely get me into a lot of trouble but this Christian does. There is one Christ, yet Christ is a many membered body.
Israelite tradition was that when a son was born it was named after the name of the father. If the fathers name was John the sons name was John.
It is the same with the name of Jesus.
The Fathers true name is Jesus Christ and His Son Jesus Christ came in the NAME of His Father.
John 12:23-28
23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Who is it that was to be glorified? The Son
Yet whose name was glorified? The Father
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 28:19
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Jesus Christ is not only the name of the Son, it is also the name of the Father.
And every son when born of the Father bares the exact same name.
Ephesians 3:14-15
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one.
John 17:20-23
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
The one man Jesus Christ is a many membered body.
Jesus said greater things shall we do then He did because He goes to the Father.
Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but He sent out the members of His body to gather all people unto Him. Until the feet company of His body are manifested in the earth the whole world cannot be saved.
It is the collective Christ, that many membered body, that is the saviour of the whole world. The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet I have no need of you. Brother the WHOLE BODY must work together for the salvation of the world.
Anyway John hopefully you can see better where I am coming from.
So that issue is settled, unless you want to explore it further, did you want to look at other scriptures of Paul's that bug you? If so post away and I will respond when time allows.
Matthew 28:19
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
RESPONSE
Paul's Epistle (once) and the Acts of the Apostles (four times)written after the "Ascension" always refer to baptism in the name of Jesus alone. Never in the name of a Trinity. Do you think that because the Trinity hadn't been invented yet.
"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?????
Is there any evidence that this phrase was a later addition to the Gospel of Matthew added after the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?
Last edited by ancient warrior; 07-25-2012 at 09:58 AM..
Reason: addition
No, this Oneness idea of "Jesus' name only" drives a false wedge through a Trinitarian understanding, and furthermore, the application of this formula isn't even consistently followed.
I see no issue between Matthew 28 and Acts 2 (and 8, 10, and 19).
Matthew 28:19
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
RESPONSE
Paul's Epistle (once) and the Acts of the Apostles (four times)written after the "Ascension" always refer to baptism in the name of Jesus alone. Never in the name of a Trinity. Do you think that because the Trinity hadn't been invented yet.
"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?????
Is there any evidence that this phrase was a later addition to the Gospel of Matthew added after the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?
They seem to be parenthetical in the (YLT):
Mat 28:18 And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, `Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth;
Mat 28:19 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them--to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days--till the full end of the age.'
...As if there is a suspicion that it was interpolated...It was supposed to be Yeshua speaking, so why would He speak of Himself in the third person, would it be: 'to the name of the Father, and of Me, and of the Holy Spirit'?...
...As if there is a suspicion that it was interpolated...It was supposed to be Yeshua speaking, so why would He speak of Himself in the third person, would it be: 'to the name of the Father, and of Me, and of the Holy Spirit'?...
Really? Do you realize how often Jesus speaks of himself in the 3rd person throughout the gospels?
It is strange that, as I believe he was one of the greatest sinners as Saul, and that he was the equivalent James Bond of the Pharisees before he was converted, indicating then that he was larger than life, fully qualified in education and genealogy, of great power, authority and incredible intelligence, not withstanding, the annihilation of a great many believers including women and children, that the Lord at Saul's conversion renamed him Paul, which was the standard Roman name meaning SMALL. Just a gentle reminder to him that, besides being small in statues as many believe, his spiritual status was insignificant as far as the Lord was concerned. And all the pomp and ceremony that Saul had gained was now lost as Paul. And too, as if over night, he also became small in the eyes of the Pharisees.
Now, I quite like Paul. There is something very deep about his writings that surpasses other Gospels. And many have struggled to see and understand what Paul was talking about half the time. One section of writings alone can leave you gob-smacked for days. You sort of understand it because we have the Spirit of God, and then the next moment you haven't a clue.
With regards to corporate takeover of the Church, I think it is worth remembering that the Church then was very different. The culture was different and divinities were all over the place. You didn't just go down to MD's for a burger, you went to the Colosseum for some bloody action. The whole mind-set was different then and very pagan compared to our society today. Life was cheap and households had slaves, and you needed Roman citizenship to be legally represented and counted as free.
The Church of the New Testament was different, and many of us believers today would like it back, but it would cost us dearly. Paul builds, maintains and instructs several united Christian Churches that many would not even recognise today, guided by the Holy Spirit. He has seen Jesus at his conversion, later in prison, later directed by angels either in prison or aboard ship. At no time (in my opinion) did God let small Paul out of his sight or allow him to do anything other than what was Heavenly planned. And if that wasn't enough, of the 32 years of Paul's ministry of which 5 or so were in the dessert, at least 7 years were spent in prison locked up by the Romans, while the new town Churches were being formed. It takes a lot to overthrow the teachings of Jesus from prison, let alone take the glory for them. And judging by his epistles, he had to spend a lot time praying and admonishing a lot of Church members in order to get them into line and stop sinning. Therefore not much time for anything else. Certainly his helpers show no signs of a takeover.
If anything in the writings of Paul, you see and feel the drive to almost atone for his past, to partake in the sufferings of Christ and experience the power of Jesus's resurrection. There is a passionate and Fatherly love for the Churches that he has been allowed to establish. A violent protection against false teaching and being drawn away by heresies and pagan ways. I personally believe that after his conversion there was no room for Paul even to think about taking over or usurping the other Apostles, other than when Peter stepped out of line and attempted to reinstate Jewish customs (justifying by the law and not by grace). And it is clear that Peter repented of this and returned to the edicts of faith and grace through the Lord Jesus. And it is also clear that in the epistles of Peter that Peter speaks very highly of Paul and his teaching, although he does say that some of his writings are difficult to understand. But Peter at no time indicates that Paul is either against the other Apostles or discerns any evil intention from Paul other than to preach Christ to the gentiles. And frankly, probably Peter then, would have been the last word and a stickler for Christian correctness.
Possibly a more interesting approach would be to rediscover the exact nature of the new early Church and to focus on what Paul was achieving through the Holy Ghost. It must of been absolutely fantastic to be part of the Philippian or Thessalonian Church under Paul's mentoring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saul to Paul
