Paul vs. Jesus

[Agape4Robin]

Debate is fun, but more often than not, it doesn't lead to much resolution, but if it's debate you want, than I will repost a previous post, which I don't believe anyone has really touched on:

Are we talking about "original sin" or church dogma......if dogma, then which church's teaching are you questioning?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Are we talking about "original sin" or church dogma......if dogma, then which church's teaching are you questioning?

Any and all. Pick one if you need a frame of reference, but I was speaking in a broad sense.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Any and all. Pick one if you need a frame of reference, but I was speaking in a broad sense.

Ok, let's go with dogma.
Who's dogma do you wish to discuss?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Ok, let's go with dogma.
Who's dogma do you wish to discuss?

A few pages back we were on the topic of "original sin" and how Paul taught it in Romans, specifically chapter 3, but that Jesus did not specifically mention original sin (unless I'm missing something).

 

[Agape4Robin]

A few pages back we were on the topic of "original sin" and how Paul taught it in Romans, specifically chapter 3, but that Jesus did not specifically mention original sin (unless I'm missing something).

Jesus didn't "specifically" address a number of things. Only through prayer and bible study can we gain wisdom and insight into the teaching of scripture.
So, what church's dogma seems to be bothering you?
If you want to discuss Romans Chapter 3, you will have to be specific. There are 31 verses. Also, which translation are we using?

 

[Chileice]

Then why even debate? :doh:
How boring..... :yawn:
"I'm always wrong, I don't have any answers, so neither does anyone else." :blabla:

Not as boring as you think. I guess we all base what we KNOW on what we know. And sometimes in debate someone teaches us something new, or proves us wrong or reinforces the knowledge we had thereby solidifying it. Actually debate is much more fun if there is at least a slim chance of convincing someone else or of being convinced of something new. If we really did KNOW everything then debate would be 100% pointless except to prove to everyone how smart we are, which would be pompous and extremely irritating as well as just plain childish.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Not as boring as you think. I guess we all base what we KNOW on what we know. And sometimes in debate someone teaches us something new, or proves us wrong or reinforces the knowledge we had thereby solidifying it. Actually debate is much more fun if there is at least a slim chance of convincing someone else or of being convinced of something new. If we really did KNOW everything then debate would be 100% pointless except to prove to everyone how smart we are, which would be pompous and extremely irritating as well as just plain childish.

I was being facetious.....

 

[Caledvwlch]

Jesus didn't "specifically" address a number of things. Only through prayer and bible study can we gain wisdom and insight into the teaching of scripture.
So, what church's dogma seems to be bothering you?
If you want to discuss Romans Chapter 3, you will have to be specific. There are 31 verses. Also, which translation are we using?

Ok, cool, so we're on the right track. (We're both talking about the same thing, I think).

So, my whole point was, if Jesus didn't specifically speak about original sin, but we read Jesus' teachings with a presupposed original sin doctrine (i.e. a dogma) then we could easily find teachings that back up our original sin doctrine. But if, hypothetically, original sin had never been adopted as a church dogma, then Jesus' teachings would just as easily be used to back up whatever doctrine we had to replace original sin.

Did that make any sense? I have a tendency to make one mean run-on sentence.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Ok, cool, so we're on the right track. (We're both talking about the same thing, I think).

So, my whole point was, if Jesus didn't specifically speak about original sin, but we read Jesus' teachings with a presupposed original sin doctrine (i.e. a dogma) then we could easily find teachings that back up our original sin doctrine. But if, hypothetically, original sin had never been adopted as a church dogma, then Jesus' teachings would just as easily be used to back up whatever doctrine we had to replace original sin.

Did that make any sense? I have a tendency to make one mean run-on sentence.

But you asked about Paul's teaching in Romans, chapter 3. What exactly did you want to know?

 

[Lovejoy]

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). Genesis clearly shows the fall of man, Jesus calls all men sinners, Paul sets up original sin and its cure with the Adam/Jesus concept, and all under the mediation of the Holy Spirit. That is how I see it.

 

[Caledvwlch]

But you asked about Paul's teaching in Romans, chapter 3. What exactly did you want to know?

I want to know what you think about my hypothesis. If church dogmas had panned out differently, do you or do you not think, we could use the exact same scriptures to back them up (as far as the teachings of Jesus are concerned)?

 

[Caledvwlch]

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). Genesis clearly shows the fall of man, Jesus calls all men sinners, Paul sets up original sin and its cure with the Adam/Jesus concept, and all under the mediation of the Holy Spirit. That is how I see it.

And I certainly understand why, but I'm not trying to argue the validity of the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just trying to have an exercise in thinking out of the box, if you will. If the church had never adopted the doctrine of original sin, don't you think that all of the scriptures you use to support it could be just as easily used to support some other theory (for the sake of this discussion, I'm not including Paul's teachings, only those of Jesus, as related in the gospels specifically).

 

[Agape4Robin]

I think Lovejoy said it well! :thumb:

 

[Caledvwlch]

I think Lovejoy said it well! :thumb:

Again, I'm not arguing the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just using it as a backdrop in an argument that will eventually tie in with the topic of this thread.

 

[Agape4Robin]

And I certainly understand why, but I'm not trying to argue the validity of the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just trying to have an exercise in thinking out of the box, if you will. If the church had never adopted the doctrine of original sin, don't you think that all of the scriptures you use to support it could be just as easily used to support some other theory (for the sake of this discussion, I'm not including Paul's teachings, only those of Jesus, as related in the gospels specifically).

I think that any scripture can be used to support any dogma that is desired (see "can anyone answer yes..." thread) but as I stated earlier in another post somewhere, that scripture is used to prove scripture, anything else is heresy.
Or "hear say"...... :chuckle: (pun intended)

 

[Lovejoy]

And I certainly understand why, but I'm not trying to argue the validity of the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just trying to have an exercise in thinking out of the box, if you will. If the church had never adopted the doctrine of original sin, don't you think that all of the scriptures you use to support it could be just as easily used to support some other theory (for the sake of this discussion, I'm not including Paul's teachings, only those of Jesus, as related in the gospels specifically).

I understand, but original sin falls under the doctrines of reconciliation, which were Paul's to give. Trying to find it in the words of Christ would be very difficult. Truly, the whole chapter of Romans 5 sets this up quite nicely. However, I do see what you are trying to accomplish. The interpretion (by man) of Scripture can by twisted by preconcieved notions. That is why there is Biblical theology, Church tradition Theology, Systematic theology, etc. I don't use the theology of Church tradition, rather, I edge between Biblical and Systematic. Sometimes, however, a doctrine like "original sin" fits nicely with what I get from Scripture.

 

[Agape4Robin]

I understand, but original sin falls under the doctrines of reconciliation, which were Paul's to give. Trying to find it in the words of Christ would be very difficult. Truly, the whole chapter of Romans 5 sets this up quite nicely. However, I do see what you are trying to accomplish. The interpretion (by man) of Scripture can by twisted by preconcieved notions. That is why there is Biblical theology, Church tradition Theology, Systematic theology, etc. I don't use the theology of Church tradition, rather, I edge between Biblical and Systematic. Sometimes, however, a doctrine like "original sin" fits nicely with what I get from Scripture.

Rep points for you!!!! :bannana: :BRAVO:

 

[Lovejoy]

Again, I'm not arguing the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just using it as a backdrop in an argument that will eventually tie in with the topic of this thread.

I assume, then, that we are not really here to discuss Hamartiology?

 

[Caledvwlch]

I think that any scripture can be used to support any dogma that is desired (see "can anyone answer yes..." thread) but as I stated earlier in another post somewhere, that scripture is used to prove scripture, anything else is heresy.
Or "hear say"...... :chuckle: (pun intended)

And since scripture is the only thing that does prove scripture, where does that leave us?

Anyway, there is a possibility that Paul simply invented the original sin doctrine, using Genesis, and certain teachings of Jesus to back himself up. This is why one might say Jesus and Paul disagree, because until someone can show me an instance where Jesus specifically said, all men are born sinful, then I'm going to have to assume that Paul invented it. (Whether it was just a mistake, or an outright deception is immaterial).

 

[Agape4Robin]

dang it!!!!
I already gave you some.......
but it's the thought that counts!! :chuckle: