Romans 5:12-21 (American Standard Version)
"12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:-- "
a bit OT though…
monavis writes:
> The New Testament is not 2,000 years old but subtract about 300+ years from
> that.
The New Testament was all written by 140 A.D.:
That’s not about “Original Sin,” just death. The concept of physically inherited sin comes from Augustine. It is not in the Bible.
Yep. Which means it’s not necessary to Christian theology- as intended.
Well now…that’s a matter of interpretation, isn’t it? 
I’m not about to argue nutty ideas for them, but it’s a pretty common Christian scheme to tie that verse and a couple others back to the notion that there was an “orginal sin” which screwed things up downstream for what was at that point a perfect world. The assorted extensions of what happened next, including death, are relevant only to the extent that one wants to argue theology–and I certainly don’t want to take positions on Christian theology itself.
Actually, I think Irenaeus is credited with discussing Original Sin before Augustine. Augustine may be more famous for setting out what become more widely considered theology.
And see, Dio, here’s the problem and how it relates to this thread. Ultimately most doctrine needs to be tied back to Scripture (or at least some sort of writings of really early thinkers). Else Christianity becomes undefinable; it simply meanders along defining itself until Bozo Joe’s theology is as Christian a belief as anyone else.
So when they give the anchoring passages–God created the earth this way and in this timeline (and is therefore in charge of Everything)–the heave-ho, modern Christians may call themselves what they like but they have little in common with their entire history and the foundational beliefs upon which it rests.
The gathering of when the New Testament was called the Word of God took place at the council of Nicea,when Constantine asked the Bishop of Rome to call a council (or meeting) to unify Christianity. The Monks copied the writings down and of course probably added or subracted what they did or didn’t want the accepted Christian view to be.
Even 140 years is a long time from the begining of Christianity to write an accurate account, If they really had the word of God before that, they would have guarded it with their lives, Most people of that time could neither read or write.
One thing we can agree on is that it is all the work of humans, no divine intervention can be proved other wise.
One can say Christianity evolved from Judaism and many sects came from that most from the time of Luther. Many things said about Jesus were also claimed in the Osiris and the Egyptian Ressurection. Osiris (who was centuries ahead of Jesus) was also called God and, son of god, The good shepard etc. They even had a bread and wine ceremony which I understand there are some Egyptians who still adhere to this practice.
Monavis
monavis, please note that the only thing I claimed in my post is that all the books of the New Testament were written by the year 140 A.D. Of the other matters you address, I have nothing to say. Also, for what it’s worth, in general the books that weren’t accepted into the New Testament were written later than the books that were accepted into it. There was some overlap but not much.
The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England disagree with you. One may dispute their doctrines and interpretations, but it would be silly to argue that they aren’t real Christians, that they used to interpret the Bible literally, or that they abandon doctrine to meet modern sensibilities.
It seems most Biblical literalists do not consider Catholics to be Christian. :rolleyes:
Hey; they were against it before they were for it.
How is that not abandoning doctrine?
You need to be citing pre-Darwin vatican teaching if you think the Christian church hasn’t copped out on creation timelines only in recent times.
But not even Biblical literalists can literally believe that the events in Genesis occured exactly as written, because there’s Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Were animals created before man, or man before animals? Were men and women created at the same time, or man first and woman later? And so on.
To insist that every letter and comma of the Bible is perfectly accurate and completely literal is a 19th Century doctrine. Biblical literalists don’t worship Christ, they worship a graven image.
Of course early Christians–to the extent they thought about it at all–believed that the Genesis story was more or less true, that the earth was created ~10,000 years ago, that there really was a global flood, and so on. But they didn’t believe this because they were Bible worshippers, they believed it because they didn’t have any particular reason not to believe it.
While they’re changing their position on evolution, they aren’t giving up on creationism–they’re stating that evolution is compatible with it.
And even when the Roman Catholic church opposed evolution, it wasn’t because it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible, it was because evolution was (and still is by some) used to argue against the existence of God. As far as I know, the RCC has never used a strict literal interpretation (I’m not Catholic, so someone else will have to find a cite for that).
The game with this kind of thing - and I was referring to the Nitpickers Guides to the various Star Treks - is to assume that your fictional story is correct and thus invent ways to explain all the plot holes the authors introduce. I think the Sherlockians invented this genre. As a genre, I mean, since the theologians were masters of it.
Ah, okay. I didn’t get the book reference. Yes, apologetics is the glass foundation upon which modern religion stands.
I tend to take the ‘priesthood’ speaking to the flock route myself. You have this small specialized sect of people who are educated within a society. A very tiny minority that has some form of intellectual education. Then you have to somehow explain intellectual concepts to the poor mud people in a way they can understand. Genesis seems to me to be the Cliff’s Notes version of the story of creation. It doesn’t even attempt to describe mechanism. It’s just a series of events. Most of the ideas that state certain occurrences are wholly made up after the fact and appended to the story of Genesis. There isn’t even a single overriding interpretation of it.
One argument I have heard made a few times is the idea that the ancient Greeks didn’t necessarily think that the Gods were literally people. From their learned philosophy it’s seems pretty clear that there was an educated class and a working class that had little common engagement. Except for maybe in Athens.
The RCC considers the church as the only true interpreter of the Bible. They use the passage from the New Testament"I say you are Peter and upon this Rock I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven". They believe this is passed on in Peter’s successors(the Popes).
Monavis
The Church Of England are the most truly forgiving Christians. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24345772-5016574,00.html
Heh, heh, I’m more of a geek than you! 
I concede I’m no trekkie, but as for geek, does owning $3000 (estimated) of star wars legos count for anything?