Paul’s Interpretation Isn’t Genesis

[Ray the atheist]

Preamble

I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe in the supernatural or superstition.
Today, I am continuing my focus on the A&E story by discussing the idea of original sin. The doctrine isn’t explicitly stated in Genesis. It comes from Paul’s theological interpretation of Adam, which Christians later developed into doctrine.

I have my own secular interpretations of texts, and I’m not beholden to any theology. I don’t simply accept what other people think. I form my own conclusions based on the text alone.
An interpretation is an explanation of what a text means. The text itself is the words actually written. Therefore, an interpretation cannot be equated with the text.

While Paul and the Church have the right to their opinions, so do I. Paul is not my authority. Neither is any Church.

Definitions

1. Original sin: The doctrine that Adam’s sin resulted in humanity inheriting sinfulness, guilt, or condemnation.
2. Interpretation: An explanation or understanding assigned to a text.
3. Theological interpretation: An interpretation shaped by theological beliefs or doctrines.
4. Textual teaching: A proposition explicitly communicated by the text itself.

Paul’s Relevant Passages

Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men...”

Romans 5:18: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”

Romans 5:19: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

Argument

P1: Genesis does not explicitly teach original sin, and Paul’s interpretation is no more authoritative than anyone else’s interpretation.
P2: I form my conclusions from the text alone, without treating Paul or theology as authoritative.
C: Therefore, original sin is a theological interpretation, not Genesis’s explicit teaching.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #1]

1: Genesis does not explicitly teach original sin, and Paul’s interpretation is no more authoritative than anyone else’s interpretation.

Paul’s interpretation, when written in the NT and, according to Christians, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is authoritative for Christians.

P2: I form my conclusions from the text alone, without treating Paul or theology as authoritative.

Feel free. Part of being a non-Christian means that you don’t have to believe what Christians believe.

C: Therefore, original sin is a theological interpretation, not Genesis’s explicit teaching.

I agree. Original sin is a Christian doctrine, not a Jewish one.

Is that all you wanted to say?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #2]

1: Genesis does not explicitly teach original sin, and Paul’s interpretation is no more authoritative than anyone else’s interpretation.

Paul’s interpretation, when written in the NT and, according to Christians, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is authoritative for Christians.

Well, of course it is.
I'm not disputing that, or course.

I was trying to say that the Holy Spirit isn't something that I can believe in, someone who claims to be divinely inspired can be wrong for a lot of reasons and there is no way for us to check that inspiration.

As an outsider to your faith, i got by the text .. not by claims of divine inspiration.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #2]

P2: I form my conclusions from the text alone, without treating Paul or theology as authoritative.

Feel free. Part of being a non-Christian means that you don’t have to believe what Christians believe.

Thank you.

As a Christian, you have no choice in the matter.
What I'm doing is showing that there's more ways to interpret holy books than what the believers dream up.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #2]

C: Therefore, original sin is a theological interpretation, not Genesis’s explicit teaching.

I agree. Original sin is a Christian doctrine, not a Jewish one.

Is that all you wanted to say?

I never mentioned how the Jews interpret the verses.
Not once.

I'm explaining how outsiders would understand the book without your theological bias.
Christians will use Paul's interpretations, of course.

Outsiders are free to ignore other people's interpretations and are not bound by doctrine.

[1213]

...
P1: Genesis does not explicitly teach original sin, and Paul’s interpretation is no more authoritative than anyone else’s interpretation.
P2: I form my conclusions from the text alone, without treating Paul or theology as authoritative.
C: Therefore, original sin is a theological interpretation, not Genesis’s explicit teaching.

So, what do you think the word sin means?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #6]

So, what do you think the word sin means?

Since the bible doesn't come with a lexicon, we are compelled to speculate.

As a secular reader, it seems to me that "sin" means whatever displeases the god.
It's not about morality, it's about obedience.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #6]

So, what do you think the word sin means?

Since the bible doesn't come with a lexicon, we are compelled to speculate.

As a secular reader, it seems to me that "sin" means whatever displeases the god.
It's not about morality, it's about obedience.

Ok, if we use that definition, it can be said it was a sin what Adam and Eve did. And because it was the first sin of humans, it can be called the original sin?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #8]

As a secular reader, it seems to me that "sin" means whatever displeases the god.
It's not about morality, it's about obedience.

Ok, if we use that definition, it can be said it was a sin what Adam and Eve did. And because it was the first sin of humans, it can be called the original sin?

______________________________________

I like the way that you quote me... the format is important to me.. Id like to know your secret.. so... maybe we could have a small private chat about that sometime... if that's ok, let me know in here and I will send you a note.
______________________________________

Equivocation

Yes, you can call their act “sin” if sin means disobedience. But that establishes disobedience, not moral wrongdoing or moral responsibility. “Original sin” however, is not mentioned in Genesis and adds later theological meaning.

[1213]

....Yes, you can call their act “sin” if sin means disobedience. But that establishes disobedience, not moral wrongdoing or moral responsibility. “Original sin” however, is not mentioned in Genesis and adds later theological meaning.

Original sin is only a name for what they did. The important thing is the meaning of the words, not the words itself. The theological meaning is in the story, regardless of what we call it.