[Agape4Robin]

Originally Posted by Caledvwlch

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]

Originally Posted by Agape4Robin

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]

Originally Posted by Caledvwlch

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]

Originally Posted by Agape4Robin

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]

Originally Posted by Caledvwlch

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]

Originally Posted by Agape4Robin

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

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]

Originally Posted by Chileice

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]

Originally Posted by Agape4Robin

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]

Originally Posted by Caledvwlch

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]

Originally Posted by Agape4Robin

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

[Caledvwlch]

Originally Posted by Agape4Robin

I think Lovejoy said it well!

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]

Originally Posted by Caledvwlch

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"...... (pun intended)