Paul vs. Jesus

[Caledvwlch]

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

Hamartiology?

 

[Lovejoy]

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).

Christ was big on who could testify to who He was, and where His authority came from. That is why He appeared to Paul, had a believer cure Pauls blindess, perform miracles through Paul, etc. All to give credibility to Pauls word. Someone had to deliver the full Gospel after Jesus left. Paul is the only whose writings are discussed by another Apostle (Peter writes about them, and their authority). Why, then, would everything Paul said have to be a complete rehash of Christ's words?

 

[Caledvwlch]

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.

Unfortunately, from this point on is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe Paul was divinely inspired (he certainly never claimed to be). I think he was preaching Christ's message as well as he knew how, but added his own flavor to the mix, i.e. the doctrine of original sin.

 

[Lovejoy]

Hamartiology?

Theology of sin.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Theology of sin.

Gotcha. And no, I think the thread is about possible disagreements between Paul and Jesus. I happen to believe that original sin is one of those disagreements.

 

[Lovejoy]

Unfortunately, from this point on is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe Paul was divinely inspired (he certainly never claimed to be). I think he was preaching Christ's message as well as he knew how, but added his own flavor to the mix, i.e. the doctrine of original sin.

Peter refers to the letters of Paul as Scripture. As well, 1corinthians2:13 "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." The whole chapter reads that way.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Peter refers to the letters of Paul as Scripture. As well, 1corinthians2:13 "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." The whole chapter reads that way.

Ok, maybe he did claim to be inspired. I stand corrected. But that doesn't mean he was. At any rate. The discussion was good today, thanks for putting up with my curiosity, but from this point on, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Agape4Robin]

We are all responsible for our own sin. But, it is also in our nature to sin, that we inherited from Adam.
But it's not unusual for the New Testament writers to use quotes from the OT to back up their teachings. Jesus did it too, are you going to say that Jesus was simply parroting what the OT writers said?

 

[Caledvwlch]

We are all responsible for our own sin. But, it is also in our nature to sin, that we inherited from Adam.
But it's not unusual for the New Testament writers to use quotes from the OT to back up their teachings. Jesus did it too, are you going to say that Jesus was simply parroting what the OT writers said?

The old testement doesn't teach original sin either. It chronicals Adam's sin and God's curse upon him, but never says that every human is born evil, in need of redemption.

 

[Lovejoy]

Ok, maybe he did claim to be inspired. I stand corrected. But that doesn't mean he was. At any rate. The discussion was good today, thanks for putting up with my curiosity, but from this point on, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That's alright. This would have just gone in circles from here anyway, and that is purposeless. I hope you got what you wanted from the discussion.

 

[Agape4Robin]

The old testement doesn't teach original sin either. It chronicals Adam's sin and God's curse upon him, but never says that every human is born evil, in need of redemption.

Oh brother....... :doh:

 

[Caledvwlch]

That's alright. This would have just gone in circles from here anyway, and that is purposeless. I hope you got what you wanted from the discussion.

Absolutely. A little insight into the Christian psyche. There's hope for you guys yet.

Peace

 

[Caledvwlch]

Oh brother....... :doh:

Well, it doesn't... unless you know something I don't. Ask any practicing Jew if they believe in original sin and they'll say no.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Well, it doesn't... unless you know something I don't. Ask any practicing Jew if they believe in original sin and they'll say no.

I'm sorry... I didn't know you were jewish.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I'm sorry... I didn't know you were jewish.

What does my race have to do with it? And I'm not Jewish, but I'm just saying that original sin is not in the old testement. Adam's curse is there, but not original sin.

 

[Agape4Robin]

What does my race have to do with it? And I'm not Jewish, but I'm just saying that original sin is not in the old testement. Adam's curse is there, but not original sin.

You brought it up first about asking a jew.
Adam's curse is not original sin?
Hhhmmmmmm....... :think:

Then why did Jesus come? He had nothing better to do?

 

[Caledvwlch]

You brought it up first about asking a jew.
Adam's curse is not original sin?
Hhhmmmmmm....... :think:

Then why did Jesus come? He had nothing better to do?

You're missing the point. The fact is, that nothing in the old testement teaches original sin on its own. If we study it with the bias of the new testement, then we can find what ever meaning we want, just like Paul when he invented original sin.

 

[Agape4Robin]

You're missing the point. The fact is, that nothing in the old testement teaches original sin on its own. If we study it with the bias of the new testement, then we can find what ever meaning we want, just like Paul when he invented original sin.

How is the NT biased? Based on what? Your opinion?

 

[Agape4Robin]

If there is no sin...then there is no Jesus....

 

[Lighthouse]

Litehouse, I am not a vile, disgusting, putrid, waste of thought. I think you are very rude to say that.

:taoist::baby: