what is "original sin"?

[BethelArsonist]

Contra,
I certainly never said everyone is to be taught of G-d. This is the case in the kingdom to come, of course. But maybe you misunderstood me. In post #68 I described several points in time when Messianic leadership was the mode, which is the only exception to all other times, when man follows man. I agree with you entirely, except for saying I said everone should be taught by G-d (now) and when you said this will never change.

Who taught Moses?
Who taught Samuel?
Who taught Joseph?
Who taught David?
Who taught Jesus ?
Who taught Paul (the second time)?
And who taught the Middle age reformers, for that matter. We have virtually the freedom of the entire Western World to credit to their leadership.

At any times other than these, you are right, hierarchy is appropriate. But to refuse to understand these exceptions, when the leadership of God genuinely intervened, as well as that it should yet happen again, as prophecied, is to be willfully confused on this and many other scriptural matters.

Orginal sin is, again, that man refuses to accept there is one thing, one place, one sacred distinction He must resist. Today this same resistance is found in unreasonable refusal to accept simple doctrine that does not submit itself completely and utterly to personal values. And this fact remains today to show us that G-d's work in man is not yet complete.

I am only going by scripture.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Bethel, you are way off topic. Please start your own thread. Also, please be aware that your views are highly ideosyncratic. I quite honestly don't personally know in real life any Messianics that share your views. It's just not a focus.

Most of the Messianics at my synagogue accept Rabbinical interpretation as authoritative, as per Deuteronomy 17, and Matthew 23. I know of ONE who is "Bible only," and for him it's just not the overarching issue that it is for you.

You should be prepare for the fact that while you are welcome to post your views here (so long as you don't start attacking any churches that disagree with you, or messianic groups that are rabbinical) you won't exactly have a flock of disciples either.

 

[visionary]

Contra,
I certainly never said everyone is to be taught of God. This is the case in the kingdom to come, of course. But maybe you misunderstood me. In post #68 I described several points in time when Messianic leadership was the mode, which is the only exception to all other times, when man follows man. I agree with you entirely, except for saying I said everond should be taught by God (now) and when yoyu said this will never change.

Who taught Moses?
Who taught Samuel?
Who taught Joseph?
Who taught David?
Who taught Jesus ?
Who taught Paul (the second time)?
And who taught the Middle age reformers, for that matter. We have virtually the freedom of the entire Western World to credit to their leadership.

At any times other than these, you are right, hierarchy is appropriate. But to refuse to understand these exceptions, when the leadership of God genuinely intervened, as well as that it sould yet happen again, as prophecied, is to be willfully confused, or worse.

I am only going by scripture.

Not everyone.... there are some here who know that even God wishes that we were all prophets.

 

[GeratTzedek]

The version you are using is not KJV, and certainly reflects a profound rearangement of the phrases as they are positioned in the Greek. This is why the difference. The farther you get from the KJV the more the distortion.

And how could they be hypocritical without it showing in their doctrine?

Jesus provided here for the wise ans discerning not to be fooled - he who seeks diligently and listens very carefully, who would realize there is sacred and hidden meaning here reserved for them for the proper time, and by the only master of such teaching art ever to be so clever and sacred in His methods.

KING JAMES VERSION:
Matthew 23:
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

My dear, the "observe" of King James English in this context is not a "look" kind of observe, but a "do" kind of observe, as in "he is an observant Jew" meaning "He keeps all the laws."

Notice definition #5 of OBSERVE:

ob·serve (b-zûrv)
v. ob·served, ob·serv·ing, ob·serves
v.tr.
1. To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice.
2. To watch attentively: observe a child's behavior.
3. To make a systematic or scientific observation of: observe the orbit of the moon.
4. To say casually; remark.
5. To adhere to or abide by: observe the terms of a contract.
6. To keep or celebrate (a holiday, for example): observe an anniversary.

 

[GeratTzedek]

The version you are using is not KJV, and certainly reflects a profound rearangement of the phrases as they are positioned in the Greek. This is why the difference. The farther you get from the KJV the more the distortion.

Oy veh. Another KJV enthusiast. I already quoted you above in KJV. My point stands.

And how could they be hypocritical without it showing in their doctrine?

I guess you don't quite understand the definition of hypocricy. Hypocrisy is when you say one thing and do another. It has NOTHING to do with wrong doctrine. Wrong doctrine is called HERESY. It's quite a different offense. If they had been teaching wrong ideas, he would not have called them hypocrites, but false prophets.

Jesus provided here for the wise ans discerning not to be fooled - he who seeks diligently and listens very carefully, who would realize there is sacred and hidden meaning here reserved for them for the proper time, and by the only master of such teaching art ever to be so clever and sacred in His methods.

Secret and hidden meaning? LOL, oh my goodness! We are saved if we have the secret knowledge! Would you care to explain how your views are in any way different from that of the Gnostics?

 

[BethelArsonist]

Thanks for your time, Gertzedek. I have attempted to focus on what makes Messianic leadership truly Messianic, and on the relevance of sin and original sin to teaching.

And with all due respect, I am not seeking disciples with complicity either. That is also not a focus of Christian/Messianic intent.

 

[BethelArsonist]

The proper term is "sacred." The meaning of it is "secret."

Refusal to accept there are things we do not and cannot have is, again, as I said...

... Original Sin.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Thanks for your time, Gertzedek. I have attempted to focus on what makes Messianic leadership truly Messianic, and on the relevance of sin and original sin to teaching.

And with all due respect, I am not seeking disciples with complicity either. That is also not a focus of Christian/Messianic intent.

You are a Christian. Why would you even presume to know what makes Messianic Jewish leadership truly Messianic Jewish? With all respect, because I like gentile churches, what you basically did was to take the particular teaching of YOUR gentile church, your PARTICULAR non-denominational (meaning independent, evangelical, protestant) gentile church, and try to stick in on Messianic Judaism.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[neunown]

what is "original sin"?

original sin is the first time that you do it

 

[ContraMundum]

Contra,
I certainly never said everyone is to be taught of G-d. This is the case in the kingdom to come, of course. But maybe you misunderstood me. In post #68 I described several points in time when Messianic leadership was the mode, which is the only exception to all other times, when man follows man. I agree with you entirely, except for saying I said everone should be taught by G-d (now) and when you said this will never change.

Who taught Moses?
Who taught Samuel?
Who taught Joseph?
Who taught David?
Who taught Jesus ?
Who taught Paul (the second time)?
And who taught the Middle age reformers, for that matter. We have virtually the freedom of the entire Western World to credit to their leadership.

At any times other than these, you are right, hierarchy is appropriate. But to refuse to understand these exceptions, when the leadership of God genuinely intervened, as well as that it should yet happen again, as prophecied, is to be willfully confused on this and many other scriptural matters.

Orginal sin is, again, that man refuses to accept there is one thing, one place, one sacred distinction He must resist. Today this same resistance is found in unreasonable refusal to accept simple doctrine that does not submit itself completely and utterly to personal values. And this fact remains today to show us that G-d's work in man is not yet complete.

I am only going by scripture.

We kinda agree then. Just different lingo.

 

[ContraMundum]

Not everyone.... there are some here who know that even God wishes that we were all prophets.

Depends what you mean by prophecy, I guess.

 

[Bananna]

Original sin is not a biblical concept I can find.

The first fall was Lucifer who was above all angels and set himself up to be like God. I call him the bent one a hang over from CS Lewis.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa014.html#12

here is my favorite part:
Isa 14:1¶For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

 

[visionary]

Depends what you mean by prophecy, I guess.

What ever God meant by prophets..

Nu 11:29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!

 

[GeratTzedek]

In the London Baptist Confession of 1644, the Baptists claim they are unjustly accused of not believing in Original Sin
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bc1644.htm

From "Beliefs about Salvation by Southern Baptists and other Fundamentalists"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savs.htm

"The long-term result of "the fall" was that all of their descendants were born in a state of "original sin". One consequence of original sin is that every person's normal destination at death is Hell, where they will be eternally punished without any hope of mercy or relief. Another result had been an unbridgeable chasm between God and humanity; reconciliation and avoidance of Hell can only be achieved through the individual becoming "saved."

 

[visionary]

I wonder if they also think original sin means that they think aborted babies, or babies who die are destined for hell also... since they also are conceived in sin and therefore have original sin also.

 

[TheRabbi]

My sins are usually pretty unoriginal.

 

[Lulav]

Yes, I don't think anyone can even think up an original sin. Torah shows us what sin it, can we think outside that?

Rabbi what did you think of this theory? http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38856555&postcount=70

 

[TheRabbi]

It's right on the money. This is the belief I hold.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I wonder if they also think original sin means that they think aborted babies, or babies who die are destined for hell also... since they also are conceived in sin and therefore have original sin also.

vis:

It depends on the "they." For example, a strict Reform Calvinist believes strongly in predestination by G-d to election. Those whom G-d did not preordain to election are of course going to hell no matter what, and yes, the stain of original sin is what puts them there even if they die in the womb.

But not every Christian takes that view. There are those Christians who believe original sin is a taint, an inclination to sin, but not something for which G-d holds us responsible. This camp of Christians would say that a child cannot really sin until they reach the age of responsibility, being able to know right from wrong and to choose between. Thus any child who dies before the age of responsibility would be assured a place in the world to come.

And yet OTHER Christians see good arguments on both sides, and are not sure what to say. They ultimately end up saying things like, "We trust that G-d knows what is best."

 

[GeratTzedek]

Yes, I don't think anyone can even think up an original sin. Torah shows us what sin it, can we think outside that?

Rabbi what did you think of this theory? http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38856555&postcount=70

Very funny. And of course, the phrase "original sin" has nothing to do with sins being original, but it was still cute.