My Sordid Sins

[drfuzzy]

Wow.  I wanted to give a short, succinct answer from the xtian perspective, but then I did a little searching.  I didn't know how many different doctrines existed for original sin!  And, no surprise to many here, but the idea that Jesus' death provided the ultimate, perfect sacrifice for sin did not come from the gospels, but from Paul.    

---

=============================================
However, a summary that most xtians would agree with (I think!) is:

Adam and Eve were perfect and innocent.  They disobeyed god and had to be ejected from the garden of Eden.  Some xtians believe that death did not exist until this moment.  They lost the "perfect holiness" (whatever that means!) that they had received from god.  Their human nature is now wounded, and they transmit that to their descendents - this is "original sin".   Original sin is transmitted by lust.  Therefore, each successive generation inherits original sin.

The ancient Jews believed that animal sacrifice could take away specific sins.  The priest laid his hands on the animals' head and transferred the transgression into the animal - before they killed it.   

The Apostle Paul comes along after the crucifixion and begins to proclaim that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice:  the completely pure, holy, and sinless intentional sacrifice, who carried away original sin for anyone who believed in him.  Through this, the believer re-gained eternal life (eternal afterlife in heaven with Jesus).  Death was vanquished, and no believer needed to suffer eternal damnation in hell.  

Paul:  (Hebrews 9:22)  "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
(Hebrews 10:10)  "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
(Romans 5:8-11) "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
==============================================

Now, some of the things that really tie me up in knots about this are:  how people believed the poor animals' blood (or in some cases, human blood!) ever convinced a deity to forgive something like stealing your neighbor's bushel of corn.   (???)  I have heard all sorts of answers, from "it was a substitute for the real sacrifice that was coming" to "giving up a goat was giving up a large part of your livelihood, and showed real repentance".   (not convinced)
     And even more:  

waitaminnit . . . 

But we know there was no actual Adam and Eve.  No Adam and Eve, no original sin.  Priests are still teaching that "Jesus died for our sins".  Human beings do, obviously, commit transgressions against each other.  But but but . . . no original sin. No talking snake, no apple from the magic tree, no ejection from the Garden of Eden.  I didn't buy the blood sacrifice crap, or the idea that every human being on earth (yes, even the millions who have never heard the tale) are automatically eternally punished after death unless you thank Jesus daily for dying to take away that original sin.      

---

Thank you for  explaining that.  I've always thought that Paul was an egotist and a late coming interloper in the whole thing.

I have actually read a few articles that assert the Paul hijacked the whole "religion".  Some people believe that the followers of Jesus simply wanted a new type of Judaism . . . one not so limited by law.  The original followers of Jesus were still Jews.  And then Paul stepped in, claiming to have seen a vision, and started preaching a whole different take on the teachings of Jesus.  Many passages in his writings state clearly that he was at odds with the church leaders in Jerusalem.