www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Original Sin

Hello everyone,

I have a question on how to explain the doctine of 'Original Sin' to Jews and Muslims. I found a Jewish website with a discussion forum and one of the Jews there posted this question:

One of the Jews responding wrote this:

What is a good way to explain the Fall of Man and it's consequence throughout history and for each one of us?

Thank you,

In Jesus and Mary,

BradM

My response to the first question was to post this:

The Passion endured by Jesus Christ is the only acceptable offering to HaShem to restore mankind's lost holiness and allow us to obtain the beatific vision of God and to restore to us that which was lost by the Sin of Adam and Eve. Re-read all of the prophets declarations rebuking Israel and all of the idolatries of the Gentiles and you will know why the only Righteous Servant of God is His Son: Jesus Christ.

The Sin-Bearing Messiah

Isaiah 53: The Christian Interpretation

He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
He is despised and rejected by men (unbelievers, the Jewish people),
A Man (not a nation or a people) of sorrows and
acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

[Linked Image]

All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.

[Linked Image]

He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off [crucified] from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

[Linked Image]

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin.

By His knowledge My righteous Servant [Jesus Christ] shall justify
many, for He shall bear their iniquities.

[Linked Image]

Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus,

BradM

Dear Brad,

Well, this is a very involved question.

Much can be read on Original Sin and our Jewish friends who are interested in this would do well to consult these writings to get a balanced idea of what Original Sin really is all about.

In addition, I think that our Jewish friends should come to know that the Western Catholic and Protestant view of Christ's Death as a kind of propitiation to the Father for sin is just that - the Eastern Church doesn't share that view and it isn't the only legitimate view one, as a Christian, can take.

But I think the earlier part of your post regarding the depiction of Christ's Agony that seems prevalent in the West is an important one.

Eastern iconography of the Cross takes a different approach.

The Cross of San Damiano of St Francis is a good iconic example of an Eastern or Orthodox Crucifixion.

Unlike Western Crucifixes, the Christ of San Damiano is depicted fully in control of the situation. His large figure dwarfs everyone else's. His Body isn't depicted in agony, but calm with an enduring gaze. The Tomb is depicted behind Christ on the Cross and it is empty. Above Christ is an icon of Him already resurrected and ascending to the Right Hand of God the Father.

The Resurrection of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, is the focus of the Eastern Church and this contrasts sharply to the emphasis of the West.

Not only Jews and others can be turned off by Western devotional emphasis in this regard. So was I, and the Eastern focus on the Resurrection and Glory of Christ is what led me to a deeper appreciation of my Eastern heritage.

Alex

Alex wrote among other things:

Hi Alex,

Isn't the Cross of San Damiano of St. Francis of western provenance? Of course one could argue that Christ's crucifixion was an eastern event, but that's not what I mean, I think you suspect.

Irenaeus

>>>In addition, I think that our Jewish friends should come to know that the Western Catholic and Protestant view of Christ's Death as a kind of propitiation to the Father for sin is just that - the Eastern Church doesn't share that view and it isn't the only legitimate view one, as a Christian, can take.<<<

Alex,

Can you argue that St.Paul uses language like this many times in discussing the Redemption? He uses "western" words such as justification, propitiation, sacrifice etc. He also aludes to such "western" ideas such as substitutionary atonement.

I have always liked Western Theology in this respect. I think its important to realize just how terrible and pricey our sin is. I am remined of this everytime I looked at a picture of Christ suffering. I remember that it was my sin that did that to Him.

Columcille

Dear Irenaeus,

Actually, the Cross of San Damiano is of Serbian origin.

As you know, Greeks, today called "Italo-Greeks" or "Italo-Albanians," inhabited large areas of Italy and so their spiritual culture flourished there.

Analyses of this Cross show it to be a classical Orthodox icon of the Crucifixion.

It was adapted in that beneath Christ's Feet are faded representations of four Patron Saints of Umbria.

The representation of Christ on the Cross in both East and West originally portrayed our Saviour in just such a fashion as the Cross of San Damiano.

What was emphasized was Christ's Divinity and being "Master of the situation," as well as His Passion voluntarily undertaken for our salvation.

Alex

I guess my argument was so airtight that no one can answer me. Either that or I'm being ignored

I'm looking at you, Alex :p

Columcille

Dear Columcille,

Sorry, Big Guy! I just got through with the Administrator and now I'm on to you!

(This is a cross I have to bear, you know . . .).

Meyendorff in his "Byzantine Theology" affirms the Western Soteriology that sees the Death of Christ as a way to make amends to the Father for the offense of sin. Christ does this through His death as Man, and the fact that He is, at the same time, God, means that His salvation can be applied to all of humanity.

No one is saying that is not a valid perspective -only that it is not the only one, as the Cappadocian Fathers have shown.

Christ did indeed offer Himself to the Father through the Spirit, as Paul says.

But He did that to reestablish the broken relationship between God and Man. His Blood destroyed our sins through propitiation. The idea that God needed to be placated by His Son's Death is a much later idea that really is not born out by Scripture.

But really, let's look at the Protestant notion of "substitutionary sacrifice."

In other words, that Christ took our place on the Cross etc.

What utter nonsense!

Where does it say that in all of Scripture or the other sources of the Church's Tradition?

God needs to be placated for my sins by my death, a death experienced instead by Christ?

"Substitutionary" is nonsensical because, in accordance with Western (Catholic) Soteriology, our death could NOT have properly atoned for the offence of our sins against God.

Only Divinity can adequately atone for offence against Divinity.

Have a nice day!

Alex

Alex,

It's been explained to me many times by Roman Catholics that the idea of Christ "needing" to die so God could exert his vengeance on something is a strictly Protestant idea that finds no basis in Catholic belief.

Columcille,

Personally, I relate to the Western depictions and emphasis of the Crucifixion. It touches me much more deeply than a non-suffering Christ on the Cross, or even the Resurrection.

ChristTeen287

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Neat topic ! As for me, I prefer the Eastern depiction of the Cross. The Western is good also, just that the Eastern touches me with more resurrection glory than the West.

Adam

I would say that this is, as Alex points out, a 'rather large and complex' topic, and one which reminds us that there's only so much our minds can 'take in' about such deep mysteries!!

And speaking of Mysteries -- I was thinking that this question gives a good reason for meditating upon the Rosary as that gives one a chance to pray over the sufferings, the death endured, the Resurrection, Ascension, and so on. (maybe a good New Year's Resolution for me personally, as I am not at this point a very 'good' Rosary pray-er!)

Also, yes, He chose, he accepted, the suffering, (regarding the San Damiano comments above ) and so on, but yes, He really truly DID suffer. So both depictions and both ways of thinking about it and emphasizing it are 'correct' ...

But -- I think we got away from the first question, which was, how does one explain this in a simple and unambiguous manner to someone else? I don't have the answer to that, but will leave it to another writer to take that up; I just wanted to offer these few thoughts ...

Yours
in the Communion of Saints!

Dear Friends,

Well, terminology may be different, but the Jewish faith does indeed believe in Original Sin.

In that sin of Adam's, humanity fell and suffered the consequences, death, concupiscence etc. That is irrefutable!

What the Jewish person quoted here was probably on about was the Augustinian notion of Original Sin that, happily, the Eastern Church and now the Western Church repudiates.

We do not inherit someone else's "sin" understood as "stain."

What we have inherited is Adam's weakened human nature after being cast out of Paradise.

No one denies that Adam, and with him all of us, was cast out of Paradise. That is plainly stated in the Bible, and unless someone has a version that maintains he is still there . . .

From the Christian point of view, the Law of the Old Testament was given by God to keep humanity in a state of awareness and repentance of its sinfulness, its state of weakened moral resolve and its need for enlightenment of its darkened soul.

The Old Testament, and classical Judaism has always maintained this, taught the followers of Yahweh to await the coming of the Messiah, even "though he tarry" as Moses Maimonides taught.

Orthodox and Catholic Christians accept Jesus or Yeshua haMashiach as the fulfillment of the Messianic Promise and Legacy of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament Prophets believed always in God, His Word and His Holy Spirit, and understood the latter Two as being emanations of God.

The Revelation of Yeshua haMashiach is that the Word of God is not only an emanation of God, but is God as well, as is the Holy Spirit "Ruach haKodesh."

And that the Word of God took human flesh and became Man.

His Incarnation, death and Resurrection destroyed our sins in the Sacrifice on Calvary, reconciling us to the Father through it and through our participation in His Divine Body through the Holy Spirit.

What the Old Testament teaching and sacrifice did, the New Testament fulfills and does most perfectly.

In the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were used. In the New, the Word of God become Flesh is the Lamb of God is sacrificed once and always for our salvation, regeneration and sanctification.

Alex

>>>What the Jewish person quoted here was probably on about was the Augustinian notion of Original Sin that, happily, the Eastern Church and now the Western Church repudiates.<<<

When did the Western Church abandon the Augustinian notion of original sin??

This is news to me.

Columcille

Dear Columcille,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by the Pope, no longer teaches the Augustinian view of Original Sin.

It was never defined by the RC Church to begin with.

Alex

In that case, Western notions such as the Immaculate Conception are now null, according to the the Traditional Catholic teaching surrounding the Immaculate Conception. Surely the Augustinian view is still an acceptable view to hold?

Columcille