Was Jesus born with Original Sin?

Religion
29

Jesus also poked a badger with a spoon, which was pretty original back in the day.

30

The Greek text does not say "… so death spread to all men because all men sinned ( hoti pantes hamarton) . "

It actually says, “… so death spread to all men, upon which all sinned ( eph’ hO pantes hamarton).”

Show me somewhere else in the New Testament where eph’ hO must mean “because of”. Eph’ is a contraction of epi meaning upon. hO is the relative pronoun “which” in the dative case which is locative “upon”. i. e. Upon which [basis]…

31

Do you recall his forty days in the desert? Wanting to turn stones into bread, wanting to have fame and rule the world?

1 Like
32

Been a little while for me. Did it ever specifically mention that He wanted to sin, but never did?

33

Being hungry, I am guessing he wanted to turn stones to bread…but perhaps he just considered it without really wanting to? Jesus was pretty strong on saying sin comes from the heart/thoughts. He may have considered stones into bread, but dismissed the thought before it turned into a strong desire.

1 Like
34

He asked Father if it was what Father wanted, and Father said something like, “No. Don’t trust that snake.”

35

The Greek to English Interlinear doesn’t have the Greek word you translate for “which” in that text.

What translation are you using? This is from KJV

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)

ἐπί epí, ep-ee’; a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:—about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, × have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with.
Paul again…

Where you have “which” Strong’s has

g3739

ὅς hos

But does not reference a word from the text.

1 Corinthians 15:21 “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

36

The Greek has omega ‘O’ with hard breathing ‘h’ and iota subscript, which is the dative form of the nominative hOs, which.

Hence, ‘upon which’, ‘at which’.

Strong’s gives the nominative forms of nouns and pronouns. Greek inflects nouns and pronoun to indicate case.

Death came upon all humans at/upon which all sinned. Translators have superimposed their theology onto the Greek text here.

Luke 11:22 has a similar construction, but with the feminine relative pronoun, and says,
" But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he takes from him all his armour, upon which (eph’ hEi, dative feminine) he trusted, and divides his spoil.

He trusted on the basis of his armour, because of his armor. They did not translate this text as "… He takes from him all his armour, because he trusted in it.

He takes his armor on the basis of which he trusted", not, " He takes his armor because he trusted (in it).

Likewise, "all died, on the basis of which all (who sinned) sinned.
Not, " all died, because all sinned. "

37

If “upon which” is in italics in your translation, that means it has been added by the translators.

38

There is no such thing as “original sin”, so of course Christ was not born with it.

39

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Over - Strong’s - 1722
the Which -Strong’s - 3739

My Greek to English Interlinear doesn’t have – ὅς hos , in Romans 5:12.

Almost all of the translations have “because all sinned.”

40

The sense if epi/eph’ is determined by the case . You clearly do not know any biblical Greek. I gave you a second biblical example if epi + dative, which follows my interpretation of the sense (upon which, on the basis of which) , and does not follow the sense “because”. I also gave the Hebrews text which affirms that men are held in bondage by the fear of death, confirming that " all died, on the basis of which all sinned. "

I see nothing in scripture that teaches the concept of original sin".

41

Right. I know almost nothing about Koine Greek.

I’m stuck on this from your post #25

12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned–**

The Greek text does not say "… so death spread to all men because all men sinned ( hoti pantes hamarton) . "

It actually says, “… so death spread to all men, upon which all sinned ( eph’ hO pantes hamarton).”

42

What don’t you understand in that post? It seems clear enough to me.

53

I do not believe the Bible teaches the doctrine of original sin. It’s an invention of the mind of man.

54

That in itself is proof of an inherent ignorance and “sin” that is pre-Natal.

Why would innocent babies need saving, if the warnings against sin could not apply to babies.

The passing of generational sin is a very feeble explanation of how actual karma works. Of course it’s very questionable if taken literally. The truth is far more complicated to explain in words.

It was a failure in explanation, the controversy of 2000 years, is just human ignorance–the very meaning of pre-Natal sin.

People argue these things but it’s the stamp of authority that confuses things.

The only way to understand is with experiential awakening.

55

It is true and was taught in Buddhism, called the “Wonderful Secret of the Buddha’s Expedient Means of Death”. (“Hoben gen Nehan” in Japanese)

explained here in detail:

56

I believe “original sin” was a very unfortunate word choice. Over the centuries it has proven to be a problematic word choice, especially because it so easily implies the false idea that babies are “born convicted of a crime we did not commit” that we are somehow “guilty” of the sins of our ancestors.

In this case the Bible was better (more clear) in its original language. . . “slaves to sin,” “the flesh is carnal”. . . etc.

  • The Buddhists teach that we are born in hell (suffering), and that we have only one shot, (in a million lives), to free ourselves from hell and thus live in a state of permanent bliss.

  • The Bible teaches that we are born between heaven and hell, and that we have only one shot (ever), to free ourselves from hell thus live in a state of permanent bliss.

  • The Buddhists teach that what keeps us/destines us to live in hell (we are already there), is following our natural, in-born fleshly desires for food, sex, money etc…

  • The Bible teaches that what sends us to hell (we are not there yet) is is following our natural, in-born fleshly desires for food, sex, money etc…

The difference is that
In Christianity, IF we take the story of Eden literally then we believe that
“God has done this to us”
“We are born having already sinned,”
“He is punishing us for stuff we did not do.”
and we naturally wonder "If God is good, how could He have created a world where newborns, who have never done anything right or wrong, are born on God’s “guilty list.”

VS
Buddhists do not have these conundrums. They teach nothing about a human-like original creator.

  • Since there is no original creator, no person-like being has decided to punish us for the sins of our ancestors.
  • Since there is no original creator “He” is not guilty of ANYTHING.
57

Wow. What a thread!

1 Like
58

“This world,” is the “Saha World” (endurence)"–not only 'HELL"

The four lower realms of Hell (suffering), Hunger, Animality and Anger, are the lifestates of most beasts.

The next higher Lifestate is the human realm and then the Rapture realm {Heaven). This is called the “Six Lower Realms” or lLifestates.

Further, there are four more Lfestates, called Arhat and Pratyekabuddha called the two vehicles of Learning and Realization. The Lifestate of Bodhisattva and the Lifestate of Buddhood.

These ten interpenetrate each other, so even though “All is Suffering” is a basic maxim of the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha, It further explains, “Hell” and “Buddhahood” exists simultaneously in every moment.

This demonstrates the principle of “3000 Lifestates in a Single Moment”

The words of Jesus are the same, different land, different language, different audience.

the Nine realms exist in every other realm including the tenth and the tenth contains all nine. This is called “Mutual Possession of the Ten Lifestates.”

“Permanent Bliss” is revealed to be “expedient means” the true “Nirvana” is not just Bliss, it is the Buddha of Infinite Freedom and Absolute Happiness. In this world one would teach the Supreme Law.