Posted: Apr 25, 2017 4:10 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
While I agree it is a No True Christian fallacy, he does have a point with regards to Original Sin (or Curse) being a fundamental part of the Christianity's origin myth.

I quite agree the No True Christian fallacy is being employed there, to what end I can't say.

What do you think the point is?

Like I said, that it's incongruous to deny something that is a fundamental part of the origin of your religion.

I don't necessarily buy the notion that Original Sin was part of the origin of christianity.

It's present both in the bible and in texts written by the early Christian communities.

proudfootz wrote:So it would appear we are viewing things from different perspectives.

What do you base your perspective on?

proudfootz wrote:
It would be the equivalent of Jews who believe Moses didn't lead the Jews out of Israel because they were enslaved but because they wanted to live in Israel.


The Jewish texts speak of the Exodus as the freeing of the Jewish slaves from Egypt.
Despite the complete absence of mass enslavement of Jews in ancient Egypt, this is still a central tenet of Judaism.
There's no significant Jewish denomination that believes this did not happen, with the exception of those who dismiss the entire Jewish texts as being pure allegory.

proudfootz wrote:
proudfootz wrote:I personally view myths about christian origins to be dubious. That christian cults can exist today without the notion of Original Sin would seem to me an indication that the doctrine was not a necessary condition at an earlier time.

That does not follow.

At best it indicates that later Christians found little or no objection to changing the original dogma.

I disagree. At the very least it demonstrates doctrines and dogmas could have changed.

That's not a disagreement of my position.

proudfootz wrote:At best it would indicate that Original Sin is not a necessary dogma for one to be a christian.

From a modern day perspective.
That says nothing about the early days of Christianity.
That's like arguing that marriage was always a central Chrisitan tenet, eventhough the Chruch did not officiate it until well into the Medieval period.

proudfootz wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Supposing that Jesus and his first followers were Jewish, and as I pointed out in an earlier post Original Sin requiring a Savior doesn't seem to be a part of that religion, this notion would seem to have evolved at a later date.

Jesus and his followers were Jewish in almost the same sense that they are Muslims according to Islam.


They were ethnically Jews and thought of themselves the natural continuation of the Jewish faith.

They interpeted the Jewish text as predicting the arrival of Jesus and that Jesus would absolve/save them from the original sin/curse inflicted upon A&E.

Was Jesus one of these interpreters?

How would we know? We have no direct writing of him.

What we do know, both from the bible and other early Christian texts, is that this is the origin myth: that god had to sent Jesus to (paraphrasing) create a loophole out of the eternal, inheretable sin of A&E.

proudfootz wrote:
Anyplace I can do some more reading on these Muslim followers of Jesus who came up with the notion of Jesus as a Savior from reading the Torah?

Read my post again, that's not what I said.