# What is "Original Sin"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109 "2013-10-01T17:10:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![ruben4ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@ruben4ruben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruben4ruben)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/301 "2013-10-27T01:08:02Z")
> [@](#): > > There have all through human history wars and rumors of war, there have been Earth QUAKES EVEN BEFORE HUMANS LIVED ON EARTH. I for one, feel the previous century was something very different, or at least an undeniable start of a big change. \* > [@](#): > > The 20th century was the period between January 1, 1901[1] and December 31, 2000, inclusive. > > The century had the first global-scale wars between several world powers across multiple continents in World War I and World War II. \*\*Nationalism \*\*became a major political issue in the world in the 20th century that was acknowledged in international law with the acknowledgement of the right of nations to self-determination, official decolonization in the mid-century, and many \*\*nationalist-influenced \*\*armed conflicts - including both World Wars. - Source: [20th century - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century) \*… > [@](#): > > The much greater slaughter of the 20th Century occurred because of two a-historical socio-political experiments, one fascism (especially in Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, Japan, and China), and the other, communism. These absolutist, unrestricted, uninhibited ideologies murdered people in war and democide without compunction, without the inhibition of tradition, culture, or religion … \* Source: [Why The 20th Century Was The Bloodiest Of All | DemocraticPeace Blog](http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/why-the-20th-century-was-the-bloodiest-of-all/) Source:[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WAR.DEAD.16TO20C.JPG](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WAR.DEAD.16TO20C.JPG) Source: [All wars in the 20th century, since 1900 | the Polynational War Memorial](http://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp) QUAKE … > [@](#): > > Apart from the “long-term” trends shown above, which show an ongoing persistent increase, it is perhaps more stark to record that earthquakes across the planet show a marked increase in activity since 1997. There are more major earthquakes occurring now, and this on an ever more frequent basis. > > Trends since 1986 > > For example, between 1986 and 1996 (incl), a period of 11 years, there were “just” 15 earthquakes listed by USGS of magnitude 7.0 or greater. This is not markedly different (albeit a slight decrease) from previous (similar periods) of 20th century, where an average of about 18 might be expected. > > But between 1997 and 2007 (incl), a period of only 11 years, there were 99 earthquakes with magnitude 7.0 or greater : This is more than a six-fold increase on the previous similar period - and is a stark increase on any earlier decades in 20th century too … Source: [http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/](http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/) Viewing the facts i deduct there’s a bit more going on than the usual butchery and earth shaking at the moment. I don’t care that the advance in technology and greater population help boost frequency and casualties… …who cares about the reasons or factors? It’s about if it’s happening or not. (To be or not to be if you will) I always wonder how some people view Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the systematic killing of the Nazi death camps as business as usual. Today in 2013, children are still born deformed from the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam and the depleted uranium shells used in Iraq. (twice) Never mind the lasting effects of land mines, cluster bombs and white phosphorus bombs. (Did i mention Hiroshima?) Just killing is not enough anymore, the maiming \*\*continues \*\*way after the soldiers have left. This is our age. The most casualties are now civilians, not just by direct force but because civilian infrastructure and facilities have become targets as well. (think water supplies, food and medicine storage and power plants) Since the Nazis started bombing cities and the British followed their example we never really went back. Direct or indirect, [civilians pay the prize.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/naming-the-dead-pakistan-drone-strike-victims_n_3976505.html) Even with the latest smart bombs or [21st century drones](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/journalists-website-breaks-silence-victims-drone). Even the most vile dictators and oppressive regimes get access to regular arms, technology and [means of genocide](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html) from…_the free and [peace loving governments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war)_. And when asked on TV about half a million children dying, they give the [L’oreal Answer](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE). They don’t even try faking emotion anymore. This is your age. Business as usual? I don’t think so. Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 and 2Timothy 3… It doesn’t even seem slightly off the mark to me. Especially 2Timothy because i keep running into people that think everything is quite normal. Scary. PS The number of UK/US soldiers that [commit suicide](http://www.projectcensored.org/1-more-us-soldiers-committed-suicide-than-died-in-combat/) now often [outnumbers](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10178403/More-British-soldiers-commit-suicide-than-die-in-battle-figures-suggest.html) the actual casualties from enemy fire. I bet there’s someone that will try to give this a positive spin. Don’t let me stop you. ---
**Author:** ![ruben4ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@ruben4ruben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruben4ruben)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/302 "2013-10-27T01:15:55Z")
PPS This was my last post. It’s been an interesting experience to have been on SDMB. Now I have to move on though. Thanks everybody and good luck. Ruben. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/303 "2013-10-27T02:24:35Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > PPS This was my last post. It’s been an interesting experience to have been on SDMB. Now I have to move on though. Thanks everybody and good luck. > > Ruben. Good thing, since you do not seem to be here to actually discuss anything - I will point out that your eathquake quote is blindingly incorrect and appears to be from a site ‘proving’ end times prophecy - From the USGS website - [QUOTE=[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase\_in\_earthquakes.php](http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php) - bolding mine] We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. **Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.** […] According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year. [/QUOTE] and how do they get that in an 11 year period a total of 99 is 6 times greater when its expected to have 17 per year??? basic math shows that number to be about half the expected total. Based on the ‘quality’ of your research, we can see how easy it would be to rebutt the ‘rest’ of your pathetic post. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/304 "2013-10-27T02:33:35Z")
Figured out how to use the USGS global search - [%2C[85%2C360]]%2C%22viewModes%22%3A{%22help%22%3Afalse%2C%22list%22%3Atrue%2C%22map%22%3Atrue%2C%22settings%22%3Afalse}%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A{%22id%22%3A%221382841087586%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A{%22starttime%22%3A%221986-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A7%2C%22endtime%22%3A%221996-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22}}}"]there were 137 earthquakes from 1986-1996 that were 7.0 or higher]([Latest Earthquakes](http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#){%22feed%22%3A%221382841087586%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A[[-85%2C0) - making his ‘cite’ totally bogus. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/305 "2013-10-27T11:40:39Z")
> [@Conservian](#): > > Note: Many of these prophecies Jesus is referring to are those which are to occur just prior to His 2nd Coming. > > Mark 13:30 is pertaining to the generation that is going to witness all those prophecies which Christ talks about in preceding verses. Also Christ applies the word “you” as in ALL “you" who believe.” Now, > > Mark 8:39 “Some of them that stand here,…” > Again, pertaining to those that would be standing “here” at that time. Jesus did not say: “some of you that are standing here now” > > Matthew 16:27-28 Same exact as Mark 8:39: > > Luke 21: 6-12 Again, Jesus says “you” as representing ALL of those who ‘believe.’ > One could be of the opinion that these verses probably apply more so to believers of this day, as “wars and rumors of war” grow fiercer and far more consequential by the day in the Middle East. A direct quote Verses 27-28 in Matthew Chapter 16- " For the Son of man Is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and then he will render to everyone according to his conduct." In the Bibles I have read; a direct quote: “Amen a say to you there are some of those standing here Who will not taste death, till they have seen the son of man coming in his Kingdom”. You wish to translate differently, that is your right ---
**Author:** ![Conservian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@Conservian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conservian)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/306 "2013-10-27T12:59:17Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > A direct quote Verses 27-28 in Matthew Chapter 16- > > " For the Son of man Is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and then he will render to everyone according to his conduct." > > In the Bibles I have read; a direct quote: “Amen a say to you there are some of those standing here Who will not taste death, till they have seen the son of man coming in his Kingdom”. > > You wish to translate differently, that is your right That translation sounded fine. Moreover, that same revelation was also echoed by The Apostle Paul years later - 1 Cor. 15:51. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/307 "2013-10-27T14:44:49Z")
> [@Conservian](#): > > That translation sounded fine. Moreover, that same revelation was also echoed by The Apostle Paul years later - 1 Cor. 15:51. A failed prophesy repeated is still a failed prophecy. Not that it matters, of course, since Jesus didn’t fulfill _any_ of the Old Testament prophesies to become a messiah, and to become one he would have had to fulfill _all_ of them. Even if you _could_ somehow show that Jesus fulfilled a prophesy or two(and you _certainly_ haven’t), it would be like claiming that a mouse is an elephant because it has four legs and a tail. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/308 "2013-10-27T15:26:59Z")
No. No. The proof that a mouse is an elephant is that a mouse has four legs and a tail and it is grey. (White mice correspond to white elephants, of course.) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/309 "2013-10-27T15:42:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. No. The proof that a mouse is an elephant is that a mouse has four legs and a tail and it is grey. (White mice correspond to white elephants, of course.) And pink mice? ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/310 "2013-10-28T14:37:35Z")
> [@Charredcasm](#): > > And pink mice? Well, they obviously exist because pink elephants exist, right? ---
**Author:** ![Conservian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@Conservian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conservian)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/311 "2013-11-03T18:31:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > A failed prophesy repeated is still a failed prophecy. > Not that it matters, of course, since Jesus didn’t fulfill _any_ of the Old Testament prophesies to become a messiah, and to become one he would have had to fulfill _all_ of them. Even if you _could_ somehow show that Jesus fulfilled a prophesy or two(and you _certainly_ haven’t), it would be like claiming that a mouse is an elephant because it has four legs and a tail. Won’t argue with your opening sentence as it reads. However, it does not translate into meaning that an “unfulfilled” prophecy is a “failed prophecy.” It’s just the reality of things - like the fact that a mouse is not an elephant, no matter what color they come in:) > [@tomndebb](#): > > Piffle. You have made several appeals to messianic Judaism in your posdts while denying the reality thast messianic Judaism is not Judaism, at all–it is Christianity. Dodging around claiming that you are “only” referring to “biblical history” is contradicted by what you have posted. (To say nothing of the way that you clearly do not understand the actual history when you treat the “Pharisees/Sadducees/High Priest” as if they were a monolithic bloc that acted in concert, ignoring the fact that the two political factions did not agree with each other and also ignoring the fact that the Pharisees were not some group united in opposition to Jesus.) > Your arguments are not based on scripture, but are based on the simplistic misreading of scripture (and the deliberate ignoring of all other history) that you accepted in an unconsidered fashion from a particular sect. > > Nope. The apostles were not routinely criticized for being uneducated. And if you are referring to Acts 4, the Pharisees were not even involved. It was the opponents of the Pharisees, the Sadducees–who rejected the idea of resurrection–who detained Peter, (still without calling him “uneducated”). In fact, in Acts 4 and 5, it is stated, (against your earlier claim that the High Priest was Pharisee), that the High Priest was a Sadducee. It is further noted that it was a Pharisee who stood up in the council and defended Peter. So your persistent demonization of the Pharisees, while getting your facts wrong, demonstrates a need on your part to ignore Scripture to attack what you believe about the Pharisees in contradiction to scripture. When you simply create your own version of scripture, demonstrating a serious ignorance of the situation you are discussing, you are not persuasive. Here you go again with your own brand of ad libbing : “Messianic Judaism, routinely criticized, defended Peter, monolithic bloc, Judaism is not Judaism.” all to suit your own narrative. You’d do better sticking what I actually said, not what you think I meant. That said, I will stand corrected on your mention of " high priest - pharisee," Sanhedrin was actually the word I should have used in association with high priest. Now as to your most recent claims about biblical history, there is much to be corrected. The following verses accentuate the fierce opposition that Jesus faced and that a united effort was put forth by his foes. Matthew 16:1 The Pharisees and Sadducees both confronted Jesus to test and confound him. Also, In Mark (among others) chief priests, scribes and elders confronted Jesus and questioned his authority. Matt. 26:57 & 59: Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;" So here again we have “whole council” which we know also included Pharisees; many were likely scribes, and Sadducees ; a more priestly clan, along with the elders, etc. Now among ALL those groups which comprised the “council” (aka, Sanhedrin) and despite their major differences, what was the one common denominator that they ALL shared ? - Fierce opposition to Jesus as Messiah. And to what extent does Scripture indicate they- the council - were willing to go to find Jesus guilty? - False testimony. You inserted the word “monolithic” in this regard, I did not. I may have use “contorted.” * * * Your suggestion I was inferring Peter/Apostles were being “routinely criticized” is again, pure exaggeration. I merely drew a parallel on what you stated about “ignorance” and what Acts 4:13 says: “Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” And as to your claim of Pharisees not even being present here too is also errant - Acts4: 5 “And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, 6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.” Sounds pretty much like the same clan that conspired against Jesus to me, and also the very same which sought to deal harshly with Jesus - preaching. And finally, as to your inference that the council member who was a Pharisee had "defended Peter, this also is an embellishment. His testimony reveals concern for what would be the wiser move for the preservation and appearance of Council, not Christianity. Be persuaded by what Scripture says, not what I or anyone else thinks it says. > [@simster](#): > > don’t you mean his third coming? or maybe his second second coming? or was his first coming after his physical presence left? > You accuse others of ‘bending’ the scriptures and words to fit thier agenda - yet here you do the same thing. > > Do you think the audience he was speaking to thought that? Would there have been better words to use if he meant ‘some other nebulous future’ generation? Do you think the authors of the work in question thought it meant ‘thousands of years in the future’ ? > > What you are doing is the obvious - "clearly it didn’t happen then, he said it would happen then - he must have meant some other ‘then’. > > It doesn’t work. A quick comment about what 'Christians’l knew before Christ’s promise of The Holy Spirit was fulfilled; The Apostles and other believers knew very little before they were enlightened by “The Comforter”, who would teach them all concerning truth and insights. Appears fairly obvious to me that your own brand of interpretation is what “failed” - that Jesus was referring to those physically present with Him at that time. It didn’t work when you claimed it and “it doesn’t work” today. What “doesn’t work” is an ‘interpretation’ that doesn’t comport with reality. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/312 "2013-11-03T18:54:00Z")
> [@Conservian](#): > > Won’t argue with your opening sentence as it reads. > However, it does not translate into meaning that an “unfulfilled” prophecy is a “failed prophecy.” Unless and until he has fulfilled _all_ the Old Testament prophecies, he is not and cannot be the messiah. The is no position of “Messiah(pending approval)”. Jesus didn’t, therefore he isn’t. Dude’s dead-deal with it and move on to the next candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/313 "2013-11-03T19:13:33Z")
You know who else has “not yet” fulfilled the Old Testament Messianic prophecies? Me. About as near as I can tell, that puts me and JC on equal footing, when it comes to claiming to be be the Messiah. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/314 "2013-11-03T20:42:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You know who else has “not yet” fulfilled the Old Testament Messianic prophecies? > > Me. > > About as near as I can tell, that puts me and JC on equal footing, when it comes to claiming to be be the Messiah. _Equal_ footing? I don’t think so. 1. It shouldn’t be too hard to prove your current existence. 2. You haven’t died without fulfilling any of them, so the window is still open to the possibility. 3. Hi, Messiah! ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/315 "2013-11-03T21:04:10Z")
> [@Conservian](#): > > A quick comment about what 'Christians’l knew before Christ’s promise of The Holy Spirit was fulfilled; The Apostles and other believers knew very little before they were enlightened by “The Comforter”, who would teach them all concerning truth and insights. > Appears fairly obvious to me that your own brand of interpretation is what “failed” - that Jesus was referring to those physically present with Him at that time. > It didn’t work when you claimed it and “it doesn’t work” today. > > What “doesn’t work” is an ‘interpretation’ that doesn’t comport with reality. My interpretation - uses the words as plainly written. Your interpretation - requires all kinds of contortions and ‘but, he really meant’ that are not backed by the plain text. If he did not mean those physically present with him that day - there were other words that could have been used - since they were not - he clearly meant what was written down - that is reality. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109/316 "2013-11-03T21:38:37Z")
> [@Conservian](#): > > Here you go again with your own brand of ad libbing : “Messianic Judaism, routinely criticized, defended Peter, monolithic bloc, Judaism is not Judaism.” all to suit your own narrative. You’d do better sticking what I actually said, not what you think I meant. What you said tends to be a distorted version of reality and snipping phrases out of context that you deny without demonstrating an actual error fails to persuade. > [@Conservian](#): > > Now as to your most recent claims about biblical history, there is much to be corrected. > > The following verses accentuate the fierce opposition that Jesus faced and that a united effort was put forth by his foes. > Matthew 16:1 The Pharisees and Sadducees both confronted Jesus to test and confound him. Also, In Mark (among others) chief priests, scribes and elders confronted Jesus and questioned his authority. > Matt. 26:57 & 59: Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. > 59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;" > > So here again we have “whole council” which we know also included Pharisees; many were likely scribes, and Sadducees ; a more priestly clan, along with the elders, etc. Nothing you have posted, here, contradicts anything I said. You are not “correcting” anything, but simply pretending that you have a point. I have never claimed that no Pharisees were involved in the opposition to Jesus. You, however, have used the word “Pharisee” on multiple occasions without any clarifying adjective, implying that the Pharisees spoke with one voice or acted in complete concert–that is pretty much the essence of a monolithic bloc–and you have done so in places where you have claimed that “they” were the enemies of Jesus. I have already pointed to a passage of scripture in which a Pharisee actually spoke out in defense of the Christians. > [@Conservian](#): > > Now among ALL those groups which comprised the “council” (aka, Sanhedrin) and despite their major differences, what was the one common denominator that they ALL shared ? - Fierce opposition to Jesus as Messiah. > And to what extent does Scripture indicate they- the council - were willing to go to find Jesus guilty? - False testimony. > > You inserted the word “monolithic” in this regard, I did not. I may have use “contorted.” You emphasize the word “ALL” and then complain that you did not use the word “monolithic.” I have already pointed out how your language has implied a monolithic group and you have still failed to post anything that contradicts the facts I posted to correct your errors. * * * > [@Conservian](#): > > Your suggestion I was inferring Peter/Apostles were being “routinely criticized” is again, pure exaggeration. > I merely drew a parallel on what you stated about “ignorance” and what Acts 4:13 says: > “Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” No. I took your words: > [@Conservian](#): > > “Uneducated” Yep, the Pharisees said the same about Jewish Christians in the NT, especially that fisherman. Nothing in that quote says “some Pharisees” or “once criticized.” It is a flat declaration that implies that it was an ongoing situation regarding all the Pharisees. If that is not what you meant, then you should have written a more carefully worded sentence. > [@Conservian](#): > > And as to your claim of Pharisees not even being present here too is also errant Now, you are the one who is inventing statements. I never said that the Pharisees were not present. In fact, my evidence that some Pharisees defended the early Christians came from the next chapter. I said that no Pharisee was “involved.” From the beginning of Acts 4 through the end of Acts 5, many Sadducees and no Pharisee is mentioned as being a part of the accusations. Let’s look at your list - Annas the high priest, (already identified as a Sadducee), and "as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, (so, most likely more Sadducees). > [@Conservian](#): > > Sounds pretty much like the same clan that conspired against Jesus to me, and also the very same which sought to deal harshly with Jesus - preaching. It “sounds like” it because you hae a need to interpret it that way instead of following your own instructions to take actual scripture for your history. > [@Conservian](#): > > And finally, as to your inference that the council member who was a Pharisee had "defended Peter, this also is an embellishment. His testimony reveals concern for what would be the wiser move for the preservation and appearance of Council, not Christianity. I never claimed that the Pharisee was acting out of noble impulses, so your “embellishment” is in your own head. I noted that the only person noted as defending Peter, for whatever reason), was Pharisee. And whatever motive you choose to impute to him, his argument explicitly noted > [@](#): > > And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: > > But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. so he is explicitly noting that they could be from God. > [@Conservian](#): > > Be persuaded by what Scripture says, not what I or anyone else thinks it says. Rest assured I will not be persuaded by anything that you say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-original-sin/670109.md?page=15)