Transmission of sin from Adam....

ArmyMatt said:

yes



yes, ours is longer and historically the one Christ used, and most importantly, we have the proper context.

Click to expand...

Interesting indeed.

You wouldn't happen to have books considered apocryphal in the Orthodox book, like Enoch, Jasper and/or the Archon and Principalities books?

And, why is it longer (in other words, what is meritorious about those extra canonical books in EO?)

tatteredsoul said:

You wouldn't happen to have books considered apocryphal in the Orthodox book, like Enoch, Jasper and/or the Archon and Principalities books?

Click to expand...

no, not those, but others like Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 151, etc are all in ours. Protestants generally consider them Apocryphal because of Martin Luther and Zwingli making historical boo boos

tatteredsoul said:

And, why is it longer (in other words, what is meritorious about those extra canonical books in EO?)

Click to expand...

well, what is meritorious is that those are the books that were read by Christ and the Apostles.

ArmyMatt said:

no, not those, but others like Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 151, etc are all in ours. Protestants generally consider them Apocryphal because of Martin Luther and Zwingli making historical boo boos



well, what is meritorious is that those are the books that were read by Christ and the Apostles.

Click to expand...

What does it take to be legitimately recognized as part of the EO denomination?

ArmyMatt said:

actually, Genesis never mentions anything about relations and childbearing prior to the Fall, aside that there was an increase in pain in a woman's childbearing. so we know they were to proceed, how they proceeded was what changed because our condition changed from an unfallen state to a fallen one.

Click to expand...

How do you imagine that they proceeded to propagate the species?

tatteredsoul said:

What does it take to be legitimately recognized as part of the EO denomination?

Click to expand...

for the OT, it was what was used by Christ, no more and no less.

Radrook said:

How do you imagine that they proceeded to propagate the species?

Click to expand...

virginally since they were in an unfallen state. no idea how that works since we all live post Fall

ArmyMatt said:

for the OT, it was what was used by Christ, no more and no less.virginally since they were in an unfallen state. no idea how that works since we all live post Fall

Click to expand...

So you imagine that Eve would have congress prior to the Fall without ever losing her hymen and that Adam would view each copulation as his first time because he would automatically be forced to forget his last conjugation because otherwise they would be both physically and spiritually tainted?

That is quite an acrobatic accomplishment!

Light of the East said:

As I understand it, the Western Church looks at sin as being transmitted from Adam by the act of sexual intercourse (yes? no?). I believe somewhere I read that Augustine was the one who really got this ball rolling.

It led to the concept of "Original Sin" (yes? no?)

In that context, it is understandable that the Theotokos had to be Immaculately Conceived. Have to break that line of Original Sin.

So how does the Orthodox faith view the sin of Adam as affecting the cosmos and how do they see it being transmitted to the rest of the human race? Something is deeply wrong with us. Orthodoxy looks at it as disease, and sees the Eucharist as "the medicine of immortality."

So how does Orthodoxy see the disease being transmitted?

Links to articles appreciated!

Click to expand...

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but seeing that I'm a Lutheran and therefore part of the broad Western theological tradition and have tried to study and understand historic theology I'll try to offer both the more broadly Western idea, as well official Catholic teaching (in the form of the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked to below) as well as the Lutheran perspective.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church's treatment on Original Sin can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

I only skimmed it, but I couldn't find anything speaking of OS being transmitted by sexual intercourse. I've heard that Augustine did argue that, but I don't know if that dimension of Augustine's thought ever made it into the official teaching of the Western Church. I suspect that this idea of sex being an integral part of Original Sin comes from, perhaps, in reading the idea of transmission--that from Adam, Adam's sinful human nature has been transmitted to us.

The closest I can think where sex itself would be an issue as a means to address why Christ was sinless, pointing to the Virgin Birth; since Christ was conceived without sexual intercourse then that is why--though I don't know to what end that would be "official" teaching.

The central thesis of Original Sin, however, is that we share in Adam's fallen nature; pointing to St. Paul who says that "through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners"; we therefore bear the consequences of Adam's sin even in ourselves, into which we are conceived.

From the above referenced portion of the CCC:

"How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act."

The central difference between the Roman Catholic view here and the Lutheran would be in the phrasing "...original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense", specifically Lutheranism holds that concupiscence--the disordered passions--is what we inherit from Adam and this isn't merely the propensity to individual sinful acts, but is itself sin. Lutherans speak of homo incurvatus in se, man bent or curved inward upon himself; this is what sin fundamentally is, man is misshapen, bent, inwardly curved toward himself upon himself and so the passions are disordered and oriented to serve himself and his lusts. This is what the concept of depravity means, "depravity" literally comes from the Latin de+pravus, "crookedly bent", man is misshapen; the concept of total depravity is often misunderstood. The "total" here means that human depravity permeates every dimension of our humanity, man is misshapen in all his members.

Official Lutheran teaching can be found here in the Augsburg Confession:

"Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost." - Augsburg Confession, Article II.1-2

This is perhaps the central difference between Roman Catholic and Lutheran thought: Whether or not concupiscence is itself sin, Catholics would argue it is not itself sin, Lutherans argue it is itself sin. Thus the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord reads,

"...[Original Sin] is called a nature-sin or person-sin, thereby to indicate that, even though a person would think, speak, or do nothing evil (which, however, is impossible in this life, since the fall of our first parents), his nature and person are nevertheless sinful, that is, thoroughly and utterly infected and corrupted before God by original sin, as by a spiritual leprosy; and on account of this corruption and because of the fall of the first man the nature or person is accused or condemned by God's Law, so that we are by nature the children of wrath, death, and damnation, unless we are delivered therefrom by the merit of Christ."

I suspect that this would be the most problematic from an Orthodox perspective.

-CryptoLutheran

Radrook said:

So you imagine that Eve would have congress prior to the Fall without ever losing her hymen and that Adam would view each copulation as his first time because he would automatically be forced to forget his last conjugation because otherwise they would be both physically and spiritually tainted?

Click to expand...

um, no. I don't imagine anything since there is no record of how humans would have been fruitful in an unfallen state, and it would not have tainted them.

Radrook said:

That is quite an acrobatic accomplishment!

Click to expand...

and that's quite an immature comment!

or that they grew sdexual organs after sinning

ArmyMatt said:

um, no. I don't imagine anything since there is no record of how humans would have been fruitful in an unfallen state, and it would not have tainted them.



and that's quite an immature comment!

Click to expand...

There is Nothing in the biblical account that indicates that having sex prior to the fall would have tainted them. Where do you derive this concept from? It tells us that they were made male and female. That means that she was physically female and he was physically male. They were given the command to procreate PRIOR to the fall.

So they had the ability to procreate prior to the Fall. In short, procreation prior to the Fall was not sinful. In short, the use of their male and female designed bodies were built to procreate.

Where do you derive the idea that they had no sexual organs or that sexual organs were omitted even though they were classified as male and female? It just doesn't add up.

If indeed sex is inherently sinful, then marriage is inherently sinful. Yet God uses marriage to illustrate the relationship between himself and Israel and between his Son and the Christian church.

Radrook said:

or that they grew sdexual organs after sinning

Click to expand...

I don't know that they grew anything after sinning, all I know is that how we have sex now is not how it was in the Garden. our bodies were not as carnal, to include our sexual organs.

Radrook said:

There is Nothing in the biblical account that indicates that having sex prior to the fall would have tainted them. Where do you derive this concept from?

Click to expand...

never said anything about tainting them. I derived this concept from you bringing it up.

Radrook said:

It tells us that they were made male and female. That means that she was physically female and he was physically male. They were given the command to procreate PRIOR to the fall.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Radrook said:

Where do you derive the idea that they had no sexual organs or that sexual organs were omitted even though they were classified as male and female? It just doesn't add up.

Click to expand...

while I never said this, I simply said that procreation prior to the Fall would be different than it is for us now after the Fall.

Radrook said:

If indeed sex is inherently sinful, then marriage is inherently sinful.

Click to expand...

never said sex is sinful.

Radrook said:

Yet God uses marriage to illustrate the relationship between himself and Israel and between his Son and the Christian church.

Click to expand...

I agree.

ArmyMatt said:

all I know is that how we have sex now is not how it was in the Garden.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I googled it and I'm pretty sure you are right *rotfl*

Petros, now, people don't mock people's beliefs, if that's his peace so be it. Consummation in the Eden was something like a shrine.

Petros2015 said:

Yeah, I googled it and I'm pretty sure you are right *rotfl*

Click to expand...

huh?

Linet Kihonge said:

Petros, now, people don't mock people's beliefs, if that's his peace so be it. Consummation in the Eden was something like a shrine.

Click to expand...

He's expressing the Orthodox position, not babbling a conjecture.

I wasn't mocking ArmyMatt, I was pretty happy with the way he had concluded the discussion and it seemed sensible to me. That was irreverant humor at the fact that a google search would quickly turn up less-than-shrinelike images to support his points.

had a feeling since you and I never had beef Petros, thanks!

No one even smirked at my post.
(Goes into a corner to sulk)

I don't even want to know what you googled ...

I'm off guys!!!

Linet Kihonge said:

I'm off guys!!!

Click to expand...

God be with you!