Original Sin

[BreezeWood]

.

It is prevalent that without the concept of The Original Sin there would be no need for crucifixion, salvation or atonement to take place.

or at least an alternative in reality.

their need for the crucifixion was to prove divinity ... not to dissuade their own beliefs.

what consensus are you talking about. the crucifixion by certain accounts and the resurrection were initiated by the prosecutors as a means to prove whether Jesus (according to christianities claim) was the son of divinity and would return to life after death - because there is no record from the prosecution of a return to life the proof is persuasive that Jesus indeed died on the cross satisfying their contemptuous, misguided minds.

it is simply coincidental christianity was able to use that occasion to further their religion, original sin by misconstruing a tragic death and especially egregious when not one of their members was willing to stand by the side of Jesus before his death.

.

 

[irosie91]

.

It is prevalent that without the concept of The Original Sin there would be no need for crucifixion, salvation or atonement to take place.

or at least an alternative in reality.

their need for the crucifixion was to prove divinity ... not to dissuade their own beliefs.

what consensus are you talking about. the crucifixion by certain accounts and the resurrection were initiated by the prosecutors as a means to prove whether Jesus (according to christianities claim) was the son of divinity and would return to life after death - because there is no record from the prosecution of a return to life the proof is persuasive that Jesus indeed died on the cross satisfying their contemptuous, misguided minds.

it is simply coincidental christianity was able to use that occasion to further their religion, original sin by misconstruing a tragic death and especially egregious when not one of their members was willing to stand by the side of Jesus before his death.

.

sheeesh Breezie------you have provided yet another spin. I read the NT-----it is quite clear-----Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule. Romans crucified tens of thousands of Pharisees and probably hundreds of thousands of people who rejected roman rule.
They got it from the GREEKS whom they admired inordinately------(remember SPARTICUS?) The concept of right to rule
the world ----that they got from Plato (read "the republic") ----and from ALEXANDER. "original sin" is a concept really screwed up in the minds of Islamic 'philsophers'. For a better discussion see Freud. I do agree what a few Christian theologians beat that idea ----to death-----in their writings.
Muslims exploit that over involvement with "original sin" in
Christian writings as a propaganda point. For the record---
muslims got their "right to rule the world"---ALSO from the
greeks----romans

 

[BreezeWood]

.

It is prevalent that without the concept of The Original Sin there would be no need for crucifixion, salvation or atonement to take place.

or at least an alternative in reality.

their need for the crucifixion was to prove divinity ... not to dissuade their own beliefs.

what consensus are you talking about. the crucifixion by certain accounts and the resurrection were initiated by the prosecutors as a means to prove whether Jesus (according to christianities claim) was the son of divinity and would return to life after death - because there is no record from the prosecution of a return to life the proof is persuasive that Jesus indeed died on the cross satisfying their contemptuous, misguided minds.

it is simply coincidental christianity was able to use that occasion to further their religion, original sin by misconstruing a tragic death and especially egregious when not one of their members was willing to stand by the side of Jesus before his death.

.

sheeesh Breezie------you have provided yet another spin. I read the NT-----it is quite clear-----Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule. Romans crucified tens of thousands of Pharisees and probably hundreds of thousands of people who rejected roman rule.
They got it from the GREEKS whom they admired inordinately------(remember SPARTICUS?) The concept of right to rule
the world ----that they got from Plato (read "the republic") ----and from ALEXANDER. "original sin" is a concept really screwed up in the minds of Islamic 'philsophers'. For a better discussion see Freud. I do agree what a few Christian theologians beat that idea ----to death-----in their writings.
Muslims exploit that over involvement with "original sin" in
Christian writings as a propaganda point. For the record---
muslims got their "right to rule the world"---ALSO from the
greeks----romans

.

Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"


well, I only read part of the first page or maybe into the second before the first disparaging passage of the bible that I realized my Spirit would be in danger to read further ... your a brave gal, hope all is well.

the spoken religion simply places Jesus death as his own fault but not by a deliberate act.

.

 

[irosie91]

.

It is prevalent that without the concept of The Original Sin there would be no need for crucifixion, salvation or atonement to take place.

or at least an alternative in reality.

their need for the crucifixion was to prove divinity ... not to dissuade their own beliefs.

what consensus are you talking about. the crucifixion by certain accounts and the resurrection were initiated by the prosecutors as a means to prove whether Jesus (according to christianities claim) was the son of divinity and would return to life after death - because there is no record from the prosecution of a return to life the proof is persuasive that Jesus indeed died on the cross satisfying their contemptuous, misguided minds.

it is simply coincidental christianity was able to use that occasion to further their religion, original sin by misconstruing a tragic death and especially egregious when not one of their members was willing to stand by the side of Jesus before his death.

.

sheeesh Breezie------you have provided yet another spin. I read the NT-----it is quite clear-----Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule. Romans crucified tens of thousands of Pharisees and probably hundreds of thousands of people who rejected roman rule.
They got it from the GREEKS whom they admired inordinately------(remember SPARTICUS?) The concept of right to rule
the world ----that they got from Plato (read "the republic") ----and from ALEXANDER. "original sin" is a concept really screwed up in the minds of Islamic 'philsophers'. For a better discussion see Freud. I do agree what a few Christian theologians beat that idea ----to death-----in their writings.
Muslims exploit that over involvement with "original sin" in
Christian writings as a propaganda point. For the record---
muslims got their "right to rule the world"---ALSO from the
greeks----romans

.

Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"


well, I only read part of the first page or maybe into the second before the first disparaging passage of the bible that I realized my Spirit would be in danger to read further ... your a brave gal, hope all is well.

the spoken religion simply places Jesus death as his own fault but not by a deliberate act.

.

the Handwashing line in the NT----intrigues me. I wonder if
"washing ones hands" was symbolic to ROMANS -------you probably know that it is for jews. Someone should check
ancient references to the SYMBOLIC WASHING OF HANDS-----------a good subject for a DISSERTATION

 

[aris2chat]

Islam grants a divine right to any muslim to rape, murder and pillage any person who either refuses to convert to islam or---
who refuses to become enslaved to muslims. The "legal system" of islam condones the killing of non muslims unless
the non-muslim is enslaved to muslims under the brutal conditions of Dhimmia. In the case of those enslaved under the brutal system of dhimmia----the murder of a "dhimmi" by a muslim is expiated by a small fine paid to the relatives of
the victom.------in general---even that "justice" is not imposed.
In the "justice" of islam---the value of the life of a dhimmi --is
1/4 that of muslim.

It is definitely time to burn all Qurans and make Islam illegal in every nation.

Maybe the U.N. can orchestrate this.

mutual consent, not rape

>>Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.<< Quran 4:24

Slaves during that time and till the last century could be used for sex. Not other women.
Slaves captured in war should fist be offered for ransom, only if there is no ransom paid can be slaves.

Officially slaver has ended, so does the right of having sex with slaves.

No different than other faiths, including christianity at the time....except the respect for married women and the offer first for ransom.

 

[RWNJ]

A lot of misinformation here. Regarding original sin, the Bible says...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: In other words, a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

There is only one cure for this sinful condition...For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

The faith it speaks of is faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ..."For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

There you have it. Straight from the word of God. End of discussion.

 

[Ancient lion]

1 min. response by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat to a Christ-worshipper asking about alleged Jesus sacrifice:

 

[HaShev]

.

It is prevalent that without the concept of The Original Sin there would be no need for crucifixion, salvation or atonement to take place.

or at least an alternative in reality.

their need for the crucifixion was to prove divinity ... not to dissuade their own beliefs.

what consensus are you talking about. the crucifixion by certain accounts and the resurrection were initiated by the prosecutors as a means to prove whether Jesus (according to christianities claim) was the son of divinity and would return to life after death - because there is no record from the prosecution of a return to life the proof is persuasive that Jesus indeed died on the cross satisfying their contemptuous, misguided minds.

it is simply coincidental christianity was able to use that occasion to further their religion, original sin by misconstruing a tragic death and especially egregious when not one of their members was willing to stand by the side of Jesus before his death.

.

sheeesh Breezie------you have provided yet another spin. I read the NT-----it is quite clear-----Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule. Romans crucified tens of thousands of Pharisees and probably hundreds of thousands of people who rejected roman rule.
They got it from the GREEKS whom they admired inordinately------(remember SPARTICUS?) The concept of right to rule
the world ----that they got from Plato (read "the republic") ----and from ALEXANDER. "original sin" is a concept really screwed up in the minds of Islamic 'philsophers'. For a better discussion see Freud. I do agree what a few Christian theologians beat that idea ----to death-----in their writings.
Muslims exploit that over involvement with "original sin" in
Christian writings as a propaganda point. For the record---
muslims got their "right to rule the world"---ALSO from the
greeks----romans

.

Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"


well, I only read part of the first page or maybe into the second before the first disparaging passage of the bible that I realized my Spirit would be in danger to read further ... your a brave gal, hope all is well.

the spoken religion simply places Jesus death as his own fault but not by a deliberate act.

Problem is you can't have a christ figure in 100bc, and 35bc and AD era of Pilate and still be referring to the same singular historical figure in any Pilate account.
Being Politically correct the Christ by the Jordan who died 45ad in the Pilate era is Theudas, who's apostles were martyred.
That is not the same as Yeshu son of Mary of 100bc, nor the (died in 6bc)Galilean christ Yehuda of the King Herod (died 4bc)and Lysanias(died 35bc) era.
Thete is at least a trinity of figures used to make the Jesus mythology which is why Ezekiel 28 warns that this son of perdition is a Created(by man) "image" of a man, one made as a fallacious perfect(sinless) image.

 

[irosie91]

1 min. response by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat to a Christ-worshipper asking about alleged Jesus sacrifice:

childish nonsense

 

[BreezeWood]

.

It is prevalent that without the concept of The Original Sin there would be no need for crucifixion, salvation or atonement to take place.

or at least an alternative in reality.

their need for the crucifixion was to prove divinity ... not to dissuade their own beliefs.

what consensus are you talking about. the crucifixion by certain accounts and the resurrection were initiated by the prosecutors as a means to prove whether Jesus (according to christianities claim) was the son of divinity and would return to life after death - because there is no record from the prosecution of a return to life the proof is persuasive that Jesus indeed died on the cross satisfying their contemptuous, misguided minds.

it is simply coincidental christianity was able to use that occasion to further their religion, original sin by misconstruing a tragic death and especially egregious when not one of their members was willing to stand by the side of Jesus before his death.

.

sheeesh Breezie------you have provided yet another spin. I read the NT-----it is quite clear-----Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule. Romans crucified tens of thousands of Pharisees and probably hundreds of thousands of people who rejected roman rule.
They got it from the GREEKS whom they admired inordinately------(remember SPARTICUS?) The concept of right to rule
the world ----that they got from Plato (read "the republic") ----and from ALEXANDER. "original sin" is a concept really screwed up in the minds of Islamic 'philsophers'. For a better discussion see Freud. I do agree what a few Christian theologians beat that idea ----to death-----in their writings.
Muslims exploit that over involvement with "original sin" in
Christian writings as a propaganda point. For the record---
muslims got their "right to rule the world"---ALSO from the
greeks----romans

.

Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"


well, I only read part of the first page or maybe into the second before the first disparaging passage of the bible that I realized my Spirit would be in danger to read further ... your a brave gal, hope all is well.

the spoken religion simply places Jesus death as his own fault but not by a deliberate act.

Problem is you can't have a christ figure in 100bc, and 35bc and AD era of Pilate and still be referring to the same singular historical figure in any Pilate account.
Being Politically correct the Christ by the Jordan who died 45ad in the Pilate era is Theudas, who's apostles were martyred.
That is not the same as Yeshu son of Mary of 100bc, nor the (died in 6bc)Galilean christ Yehuda of the King Herod (died 4bc)and Lysanias(died 35bc) era.
Thete is at least a trinity of figures used to make the Jesus mythology which is why Ezekiel 28 warns that this son of perdition is a Created(by man) "image" of a man, one made as a fallacious perfect(sinless) image.

.

Problem is you can't have a christ figure in 100bc, and 35bc and AD era of Pilate and still be referring to the same singular historical figure in any Pilate account.

I can agree there may be a composite personage for their book and still maintain there was a Jesus crucified as depicted. where there is disagreement is whether Jesus claimed the reasons for his crucifixion taken by the jews as the facts indicate from Pilate they were made fools of by him with their death and there was no resurrection not claimed or the jewish religion would have ceased to exist.

.

 

[HaShev]

Funny how they play both sides of the ideology coin by teaching life after death in death, but also the opposite idea, the Judaic resurrection back into this one life.
The resurrection teachings comes from plagiarising the Baal death scene prerecorded and exactly mimicked, but also they give the created character the teachings on resurrection from a predated Rabbi who's in the OT called Yohoshua ben Channiah. The NT character however, is teaching a kingdom in death and a
kingdom to come in his day and age which was a false prophecy. Unless they admit death was their kingdom 'cause they all died without experiencing a kingdom as promised .

If the creator's creation is life then why do some faiths oppose and become opposition to the creator/creation by fantasizing a paradise in opposition to life with their kingdom in death?
The same faiths that shun the creation and inhibit it with notions that it's meant for suffering as if life was hell and death was some paradise (opposite twist snd opposition to creator/creation).
Deut. Declares to chose this life to live as a blessing and death not to be by choice cause it's the curse (and opposite farthest from God [aka that source and power of life]).
These death cults with promises of rewards in death are gonba be the curse of us all if we continue to let society covet death and spoil our creation of life. Food for thought.
Note not all Christians or sects are death kingdom followers, and not all Muslims believe their death is reward or that paradise awaits in death, just most are deceived in this ancient archaic belief used to get people to submit and fight for their kings/kingdoms.

Example of what they taught:
Death worship:
Colossians 2:12] and you were
buried with him in baptism Romans 6:4 We
were buried therefore with him by baptism
into death in John 18:33-37 :his kingdom is
not of the earth..
The mystery is you've been worshiping death and the gate keeper of death.
John 10 :9 {Jesus speaking} I am the
gate; whoever enters through me will be
saved. But his kingdom was not of this earth
it was in death so he claims to be the gate
keeper of Hades. Thus the whole world is
deceived.
Rev 9:1 the fallen star was given
the key to the shaft of the Abyss. remember
Jesus is the one admitting to having this
Key to the abyss in Revelation 1:18 He’s
also always saying salvation is in death and
we see his proud proclaimation of being the
gate keeper of death: -Apocryphon of
James- "become seekers for death, like the
dead who seek for life; for that which they
seek is revealed to them. And what is there
to trouble them? As for you, when you
examine death it will teach you election.
Verily I say unto you, none of those who fear
death will be saved; for the kingdom of
death belongs to those who put themselves
to death!" Rev 9:2 When he opened the
Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke
from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky
were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.
Luke 23:44-45 and there was a darkness
over all the earth until the ninth hour. And
the sun was darkened.Act’s 2:27 and 1 peter
3:19 he descended to hell means he opened
the abyss. this is when it darkened at his
opening of the abyss. G0D darkens the
heavens as he snuffs out his enemy,like in
Ezekiel 32:7-8.
Revelations 6:7 When the Lamb opened the
fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth
living creature say, "Come!" 8I looked, and
there before me was a pale horse! Its rider
was named Death, and Hades was following
close behind him. They were given power
over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword,
famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of
the earth.
He knew in dying he would draw people to
himself rather then to G-d the dying god
mythology was thus imitated where the son
(the morning star) surpasses his father Baal.
He wanted to raise himself high into the
heavens above the throne of G-d: Isaiah
14:12 the Morning Star Heb Helel; i.e.
shining one Is 34:4; Luke 10:18; Rev 8:10;
9:1 2 Pet 1:19; Rev 2:28; 22:16 . [See here
etymology of "Lucifer": "[ the morning star, a
fallen rebel archangel, THE Devil, fr. OE. fr.
Latin, the morning star, fr. Lucifer light-
bearing, fr. luc light + -fer -ferous--more at
LIGHT]" (Webster's, p.677) I Jesus am the
bright morning star (Lucifer) Rev 22:16
Isaiah 14:13-15 You said in your heart, "I
will ascend to heaven, above the stars of
God, and will set my throne on High... I will
ascend above the heights of the Clouds, I
will be as the Most High." Yet you will be
brought down to the grave, to the sides of
the pit! We noted that Jesus was indeed
brought down to the pit (the grave) by the
hands of his enemies for declaring himself
God as per Ezekiel 28:6 prophecy as per
accounts in Acts 2:27 and 1 Peter 3:19, he
claimed to be the most high, and holy king
(John 8:57, 10:25-36, Psalm 82:1-8). *Note
stars means angels, clouds means temple
priests (hosts in gethering were called
clouds)
In John 6:66 they stoped following Jesus
when he claimed himself most high like in
Isaiah 14.
Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with
him by baptism into death, so that as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the
Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
: Colossians 2:11-12 [11] In him also you
were circumcised with a circumcision made
without hands, by putting off the body of
flesh in the circumcision of Christ; :
[Colossians 2:12] and you were buried with
him in baptism Romans 6:4 We were buried
therefore with him by baptism into death
There is no man(that includes Hades /Osiris/
Jesus all deemed kings of the underworld)
over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither
hath he that hath power in the day of death;
and there is no discharge in that war; neither
shall the wicked deliver those that are given
to it. They had as king over them the angel
of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is
Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon. *Abaddon
and Apollyon mean Destroyer.
(Luke 9:27): "But I tell you truly, there are
some standing here who shall not taste
death till they see the Kingdom of God." Two
ways of seeing this; 1)either he was a false
prophet because they never saw the kingdom
before they died. 2)it proves his god was
"devil"=death=opposite of having "lived".
Because they will not taste death until they
see his god=of death Interesting eh?
Apocryphon of James".... become seekers for
death, like the dead who seek for life; for
that which they seek is revealed to them.
And what is there to trouble them? As for
you, when you examine death it will teach
you election. Verily I say unto you, none of
those who fear death will be saved; for the
kingdom of death belongs to those who put
themselves to death!"
Thus Jesus is the curse in chosing Death according to:
Deuteronomy\Devarim: 30:19 I call heaven
and earth to witness against you this
day,That I have set before you life and
death, the blessing and the curse;Therefore
choose life, that you may live, you and your
children. The Church teaches the curse when
they say:"solution for mankind's dilemma
lies in suffering, and through the portals of
death" "Suffering Is Also God's
Gift” - Pope John Paul II Angelus, October
13, 1996, Gemelli Hospital.
So once again why do people chose the Curse?
Galatians even says cursed is anyman
placed upon the tree. And states cursed
were the followers with him.

 

[irosie91]

.

It is prevalent that without the concept of The Original Sin there would be no need for crucifixion, salvation or atonement to take place.

or at least an alternative in reality.

their need for the crucifixion was to prove divinity ... not to dissuade their own beliefs.

what consensus are you talking about. the crucifixion by certain accounts and the resurrection were initiated by the prosecutors as a means to prove whether Jesus (according to christianities claim) was the son of divinity and would return to life after death - because there is no record from the prosecution of a return to life the proof is persuasive that Jesus indeed died on the cross satisfying their contemptuous, misguided minds.

it is simply coincidental christianity was able to use that occasion to further their religion, original sin by misconstruing a tragic death and especially egregious when not one of their members was willing to stand by the side of Jesus before his death.

.

sheeesh Breezie------you have provided yet another spin. I read the NT-----it is quite clear-----Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule. Romans crucified tens of thousands of Pharisees and probably hundreds of thousands of people who rejected roman rule.
They got it from the GREEKS whom they admired inordinately------(remember SPARTICUS?) The concept of right to rule
the world ----that they got from Plato (read "the republic") ----and from ALEXANDER. "original sin" is a concept really screwed up in the minds of Islamic 'philsophers'. For a better discussion see Freud. I do agree what a few Christian theologians beat that idea ----to death-----in their writings.
Muslims exploit that over involvement with "original sin" in
Christian writings as a propaganda point. For the record---
muslims got their "right to rule the world"---ALSO from the
greeks----romans

.

Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"


well, I only read part of the first page or maybe into the second before the first disparaging passage of the bible that I realized my Spirit would be in danger to read further ... your a brave gal, hope all is well.

the spoken religion simply places Jesus death as his own fault but not by a deliberate act.

Problem is you can't have a christ figure in 100bc, and 35bc and AD era of Pilate and still be referring to the same singular historical figure in any Pilate account.
Being Politically correct the Christ by the Jordan who died 45ad in the Pilate era is Theudas, who's apostles were martyred.
That is not the same as Yeshu son of Mary of 100bc, nor the (died in 6bc)Galilean christ Yehuda of the King Herod (died 4bc)and Lysanias(died 35bc) era.
Thete is at least a trinity of figures used to make the Jesus mythology which is why Ezekiel 28 warns that this son of perdition is a Created(by man) "image" of a man, one made as a fallacious perfect(sinless) image.

.

Problem is you can't have a christ figure in 100bc, and 35bc and AD era of Pilate and still be referring to the same singular historical figure in any Pilate account.

I can agree there may be a composite personage for their book and still maintain there was a Jesus crucified as depicted. where there is disagreement is whether Jesus claimed the reasons for his crucifixion taken by the jews as the facts indicate from Pilate they were made fools of by him with their death and there was no resurrection not claimed or the jewish religion would have ceased to exist.

.

'

could you rephrase that?. What did Jesus claim was the reason for his
crucifixtion? I read the NT---and do not recall Jesus giving a reason by in any of
the witnessed accounts recorded therein. Who was is "they" in
"were made fools of by him with their death" Pilate crucified an estimated
20,000 jews in his 10 year stint as prelate of Judea-----no doubt a whole bunch of
Yeshuas

 

[guno]

No such thing as original sin ,that's a christer concept

What Jews Believe: Essay #5: No Original Sin


Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. The basis of his belief is from the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19) where Adam is described as having disobeyed G-d by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. This, the first sin of man, became known as original sin.

Many Christians today, particularly members of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches, subscribe to this belief. They maintain that the sin of Adam was transferred to all future generations, tainting even the unborn. Substantiation for this view is found in the New Testament (Romans 5:12) where Paul says, "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. By one man's disobediance many were made sinners."

Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin | Jewish Virtual Library


Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin? | Outreach Judaism

 

[BreezeWood]

.
or at least an alternative in reality.

their need for the crucifixion was to prove divinity ... not to dissuade their own beliefs.

what consensus are you talking about. the crucifixion by certain accounts and the resurrection were initiated by the prosecutors as a means to prove whether Jesus (according to christianities claim) was the son of divinity and would return to life after death - because there is no record from the prosecution of a return to life the proof is persuasive that Jesus indeed died on the cross satisfying their contemptuous, misguided minds.

it is simply coincidental christianity was able to use that occasion to further their religion, original sin by misconstruing a tragic death and especially egregious when not one of their members was willing to stand by the side of Jesus before his death.

.

sheeesh Breezie------you have provided yet another spin. I read the NT-----it is quite clear-----Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule. Romans crucified tens of thousands of Pharisees and probably hundreds of thousands of people who rejected roman rule.
They got it from the GREEKS whom they admired inordinately------(remember SPARTICUS?) The concept of right to rule
the world ----that they got from Plato (read "the republic") ----and from ALEXANDER. "original sin" is a concept really screwed up in the minds of Islamic 'philsophers'. For a better discussion see Freud. I do agree what a few Christian theologians beat that idea ----to death-----in their writings.
Muslims exploit that over involvement with "original sin" in
Christian writings as a propaganda point. For the record---
muslims got their "right to rule the world"---ALSO from the
greeks----romans

.

Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"


well, I only read part of the first page or maybe into the second before the first disparaging passage of the bible that I realized my Spirit would be in danger to read further ... your a brave gal, hope all is well.

the spoken religion simply places Jesus death as his own fault but not by a deliberate act.

Problem is you can't have a christ figure in 100bc, and 35bc and AD era of Pilate and still be referring to the same singular historical figure in any Pilate account.
Being Politically correct the Christ by the Jordan who died 45ad in the Pilate era is Theudas, who's apostles were martyred.
That is not the same as Yeshu son of Mary of 100bc, nor the (died in 6bc)Galilean christ Yehuda of the King Herod (died 4bc)and Lysanias(died 35bc) era.
Thete is at least a trinity of figures used to make the Jesus mythology which is why Ezekiel 28 warns that this son of perdition is a Created(by man) "image" of a man, one made as a fallacious perfect(sinless) image.

.

Problem is you can't have a christ figure in 100bc, and 35bc and AD era of Pilate and still be referring to the same singular historical figure in any Pilate account.

I can agree there may be a composite personage for their book and still maintain there was a Jesus crucified as depicted. where there is disagreement is whether Jesus claimed the reasons for his crucifixion taken by the jews as the facts indicate from Pilate they were made fools of by him with their death and there was no resurrection not claimed or the jewish religion would have ceased to exist.

.

'

could you rephrase that?. What did Jesus claim was the reason for his
crucifixtion? I read the NT---and do not recall Jesus giving a reason by in any of
the witnessed accounts recorded therein. Who was is "they" in
"were made fools of by him with their death" Pilate crucified an estimated
20,000 jews in his 10 year stint as prelate of Judea-----no doubt a whole bunch of
Yeshuas

.

Jesus was crucified because he was a Pharisee and rejected Roman rule.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

What did Jesus claim was the reason for his
crucifixtion?

I have said all along no one knows for certain why Jesus was crucified ... my thoughts are he allowed the jews to make accusations against him he did not make and was reluctant to challenge their alegations and in the end was crucified for no reason at all as Pilate realized and gave the sentence simply to appease the jews. something christianity became extremely proficient with, persecution through accusation.

.

 

[aris2chat]

No such thing as original sin ,that's a christer concept

What Jews Believe: Essay #5: No Original Sin


Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. The basis of his belief is from the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19) where Adam is described as having disobeyed G-d by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. This, the first sin of man, became known as original sin.

Many Christians today, particularly members of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches, subscribe to this belief. They maintain that the sin of Adam was transferred to all future generations, tainting even the unborn. Substantiation for this view is found in the New Testament (Romans 5:12) where Paul says, "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. By one man's disobediance many were made sinners."

Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin | Jewish Virtual Library


Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin? | Outreach Judaism

eastern churches don't believe in original sin, no requirement for baptism

nor does judaism believe in original sin

 

[Ancient lion]

eastern churches don't believe in original sin, no requirement for baptism

nor does judaism believe in original sin

Which eastern churches ?

 

[irosie91]

No such thing as original sin ,that's a christer concept

What Jews Believe: Essay #5: No Original Sin


Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. The basis of his belief is from the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19) where Adam is described as having disobeyed G-d by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. This, the first sin of man, became known as original sin.

Many Christians today, particularly members of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches, subscribe to this belief. They maintain that the sin of Adam was transferred to all future generations, tainting even the unborn. Substantiation for this view is found in the New Testament (Romans 5:12) where Paul says, "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. By one man's disobediance many were made sinners."

Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin | Jewish Virtual Library


Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin? | Outreach Judaism

eastern churches don't believe in original sin, no requirement for baptism

nor does judaism believe in original sin

not true-----Freud BELIEVED whole heartedly------it has something
to do with 'mother' -----pleasure somehow related to body orifice
--------and father (aka 'god') demanding she return to bed (with 'god'
of course.} Hindus are just as fixated on their moms as are
jew boys----like Freud. Muslims do not need original sin-----
they got JINN sss Those jinns stick even to their dead bodies

 

[aris2chat]

eastern churches don't believe in original sin, no requirement for baptism

nor does judaism believe in original sin

Which eastern churches ?

russian, armenian, greek, maronite, coptic,

cathar and gnositic idea of original sin is somewhat different from the west also

does not exist in Islam either

It is a roman, western idea

Human nature is inherited from Adam, but people are not born with sin

 

[Ancient lion]

russian, armenian, greek, maronite, coptic,

cathar and gnositic idea of original sin is somewhat different from the west also

does not exist in Islam either

It is a roman, western idea

Human nature is inherited from Adam, but people are not born with sin

Original sin - OrthodoxWiki

 

[aris2chat]

No such thing as original sin ,that's a christer concept

What Jews Believe: Essay #5: No Original Sin


Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. The basis of his belief is from the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19) where Adam is described as having disobeyed G-d by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. This, the first sin of man, became known as original sin.

Many Christians today, particularly members of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches, subscribe to this belief. They maintain that the sin of Adam was transferred to all future generations, tainting even the unborn. Substantiation for this view is found in the New Testament (Romans 5:12) where Paul says, "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. By one man's disobediance many were made sinners."

Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin | Jewish Virtual Library


Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin? | Outreach Judaism

eastern churches don't believe in original sin, no requirement for baptism

nor does judaism believe in original sin

not true-----Freud BELIEVED whole heartedly------it has something
to do with 'mother' -----pleasure somehow related to body orifice
--------and father (aka 'god') demanding she return to bed (with 'god'
of course.} Hindus are just as fixated on their moms as are
jew boys----like Freud. Muslims do not need original sin-----
they got JINN sss Those jinns stick even to their dead bodies

>>Freud himself was not averse to using the traditional rhetoric of Judaeo-Christian moralism in order to express this aspect of his vision. Although his attitude towards sexual ‘perversion’ was benign in comparison to that of the most repressive Victorian commentators, he continued to employ the concept and sometimes came close to endorsing conventional views, as when he compared ‘perverts’ to ‘the grotesque monsters painted by Breughel for the temptation of St Anthony’, and characterised their sexual practices as ‘abominable’.[15]He used similar demonological imagery to describe the wishes behind dreams. These were, he once wrote, the ‘manifestations of an unbridled and ruthless egotism ... These censored wishes appear to rise up out of a positive Hell ...’[16] Elsewhere Freud sometimes actually employs the term ‘evil’ in order to describe the Unconscious. As we have already seen, he refers at one point to the contrast between the moral self and the ‘evil’ self – equating the latter with the Unconscious.[17]<<

Oedipus Complex was the basis for christian original sin, in their mind. It is an unconcious natural part of growing up.