What was the original sin of mankind?

The reason I am asking is because I never really latched on to the story about Adam and Eve in the Garden and the event about the apple as being as severe as what Lucifer did, yet we are taught that the event in the Garden is the 'original sin' I do believe that happened, but wasn't the original sin when Lucifer/Satan and 1/3 of his angels tried to overthrow God?

If so does that change 'original sin' to pride and jealousy which is what Lucifer had, instead of disobedience by Adam and Eve in the Garden.


This all happend, pre-Garden of Eden. Below is some background scripture I found.


#############

Luke 10:18, where Jesus said:

"I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightening."
Satan was on earth when he initially revolted against God. Notice what God stated was Lucifer's (Satan) plans in Isaiah 14:13 :

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: . . . "

So although Lucifer had been the covering cherub, right over God Himself on His throne (see Ezekiel 28:14), he then was transferred to the earth while still obedient. While on the earth, ruling over it, he (and one third of the other angels) decided to rebel against God. As he rose up to attack heaven, he was cast down to earth, as Jesus had seen.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifer-Satan.html

The original sin was to make "Christ" external rather than internal. From that point flows every abuse and sin (both old and new covenant). Pre-fall, they walked in fellowship with the inward Christ. Post-fall, they were jumping through acceptance hoops harvested from the tree of knowledge.

The original sin was to make "Christ" external rather than internal.

I don't entirely get that ^ as being the original sin.

 I do get it as A&E's response to their sin, eating from the tree they were told not to eat from. Their response was to hide and to cover themselves, that shows me that they saw themselves from a different perspective.

  Post-fall, they were jumping through acceptance hoops harvested from the tree of knowledge.

What knowledge did they gain?

Also after reading the link, I read that Satan had told A&E that "they could be like God" if they ate from the tree. I guess I never really was taught that A&E wanted to be like God, but only that they disobeyed a simple instruction.

Please bear with me. It has been since childhood that I even looked at the event of original sin. I think that the pride part gets lost when people teach original sin to children because it's easier for them to understand obedience.

Plus I respect you guys and your thoughts.

Interesting thread. At the risk... Here are my thoughts.

To throw out Lucifer as the point of original sin is interesting considering how Adam responded to God, "The woman..." I don't see how God will accept us passing the blame to Lucifer any better than He did Adam's. At any rate, the question raised is that of the original sin of mankind not Lucifer. Was not the original sin disobedience? When doubt entered before relationship with God was withdrawn simply asking would not have been sin. The Holy Spirit did not depart until after action had been taken.

To put the fall of Lucifer to earth before the rebellion is misreading the Word. Lucifer was cast down for his actions. Where Isaiah 14:13 comes in is when Lucifer tries to set up his kingdom rule here on earth. But Jesus stops that with his return.

Now the covering cherub thought from Ezekiel 28:14 makes for a very enteresting study. Look for the covering "Black as sackcloth" verse and the protective "covering" teachings of the church and the misunderstandings of the Holdemans and other churches are understandable. But God tells Lucifer he was anointed not covered. Now if you study the teachings of the church as anointings instead of coverings it changes the way one looks at your standing with God and your responcibilities to the church.


================

What was the original sin of mankind?

but wasn't the original sin when Lucifer/Satan and 1/3 of his angels tried to overthrow God?

Luke 10:18, where Jesus said:

"I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightening." Isaiah 14:13 :

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: . . . "

So although Lucifer had been the covering cherub, right over God Himself on His throne (see Ezekiel 28:14)

The original sin was to make "Christ" external rather than internal.


I do get it as A&E's response to their sin, eating from the tree they were told not to eat from. Their response was to hide and to cover themselves, that shows me that they saw themselves from a different perspective.


Also after reading the link, I read that Satan had told A&E that "they could be like God" if they ate from the tree. I guess I never really was taught that A&E wanted to be like God, but only that they disobeyed a simple instruction.

To throw out Lucifer as the point of original sin is interesting considering how Adam responded to God, "The woman..." I don't see how God will accept us passing the blame to Lucifer any better than He did Adam's.

I'm not interested in passing the blame to Lucifer I'm interested more in seeing if we can determine what sin was first. The way I see it is, that if we look at Lucifers sin as pride and jealousy it fits the inherent struggle that we have with God more than disobedience does. I realize they are booths sins but pride is the mother...to me anyway. Pride is what makes some people want to be like God by being their own God, it makes us not want to rely on his plan of redemption, it does a lot of harm. Pride is also what makes us sometimes think we can take the place of God in others lives.

 At any rate, the question raised is that of the original sin of mankind not Lucifer. Was not the original sin disobedience?

Right^ that is the question..,but did A&E share the same sin as Lucifer? Remember Lucifer said to A&E "if you eat from the tree you can be as God" it was the same thing Lucifer tried to do himself.

 When doubt entered before relationship with God was withdrawn simply asking would not have been sin. The Holy Spirit did not depart until after action had been taken.

I don't understand that ^.

To put the fall of Lucifer to earth before the rebellion is misreading the Word. Lucifer was cast down for his actions. Where Isaiah 14:13 comes in is when Lucifer tries to set up his kingdom rule here on earth. But Jesus stops that with his return.

I think according to scripture, Lucifer and his angels had control of the Earth and that was given by God, they went back up to Heaven and tried to overthrow God and God cast Lucifer back down as a snake.Check the link I posted. Lucifer indeed according to my reading of the Scriptures was cast down before A&E ate that apple.

Now the covering cherub thought from Ezekiel 28:14 makes for a very interesting study. Look for the covering "Black as sackcloth" verse and the protective "covering" teachings of the church and the misunderstandings of the Holdemans and other churches are understandable. But God tells Lucifer he was anointed not covered. Now if you study the teachings of the church as anointings instead of coverings it changes the way one looks at your standing with God and your responsibilities to the church.

^I'm not interested in what any church teaches, I'm only looking at scripture and individual thoughts on the matter.

"I'm not interested in what any church teaches, I'm only looking at scripture and individual thoughts on the matter."

Paris, Yet we were taught, Who did the teaching?

I'm not, I'm only. Is that more open or more closed? More individual or more scripture? You asked for thoughts, those were mine, not a churches. FYI- A church teaches what individuals believe, how they interp. the scripture. But what does scripture say about what we are talking about here? I still say that satan was cast down after his rebellion not before.

Your opinion is interesting. Just added my thoughts for you to think over, don't need your agreement. If you find them of no use just cast them aside.

Later

Vine I did not mean to offend you, I"m sorry, I liked your comments.

To tell you the truth, I never went to church as a kid so I don't remember who taught me what. After thinking back, as a kid, when I went to church it was hit or miss with friends and neighbors once or twice a year but whoever told me the story about Lucifer was much wiser than anyone who told me about some stupid apple.

In the first 35 years of my life everything I learned about  God and the Bible I did on my own, with the help of the Holy Spirit.  

An interesting thread.

If God made man a creature of choice then it would be possible for an enemy of God to appeal to man. For there to be a choice then there must be multiple options.

Is Saten the only choice as an alternate?

The Bible says that "God is a Spirit". It also says that "God is Love". Combine the two and you have it that God is the Spirit of Love. Could it be that Satan is the spirit of pride?

Perhaps the choice of man is Love or pride. The war is then will I subject and serve -Love- or will I do it my way -pride-.

The Bible says that "God is a Spirit". It also says that "God is Love". Combine the two and you have it that God is the Spirit of Love. Could it be that Satan is the spirit of pride?

Perhaps the choice of man is Love or pride. The war is then will I subject and serve -Love- or will I do it my way -pride-.

I really like that, it makes sense and it gives me a clearer idea of the war that we fight. The Bible also says we fight with the spiritual forces of the Heavenly places..

Ephesians 6:12

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places

 After I make a decision for Christ I have given my life to the Spirit of Love nothing more perfect than that!

Obedience or lack of it to God, to me has a lot to do with just every day living and we aren't perfect in the flesh we war with our flesh but the battle is won in the Spirit. I never really took that to mean that the Holy Spirit was going to make me perfect in obedience only that the Holy Spirit has marked me as belonging to God.  

That doesn't mean I''m supposed to go on and sin and do anything I want, but in some ways sometimes when I sin if I believe that I am marked with the Holy Spirit to overcome all temptation and I fail, I wonder if I'm blaming the Holy Spirit.

*I'm kind of thinking out loud in that last part.

But where is Scott? I still haven't reconciled the name of the Tree, and the knowledge that we got that we didn't want.

I can tell you what I think. I can't say that I conclusively think that this is right.

God, being Love, is and was well aware that the knowing good and evil was not going to make man's life more enjoyable. In fact the only way that man could be enticed to want this knowledge was going to be through pride taking the top spot.

I am not sure that pride is a bad spirit when it is subject to Love. It is kind of beautiful -as the old testment scriptures describe Lucifer-.

When it raises itself as the ultimate it immediately becomes damaging. Put it in ultimate control of mankind and you have problems at the very core.

Pride could appeal to man through persuading and lies that the knowledge of good and evil would inhance life. Perhaps A@E even were convinced that having this knowledge would aid them in pleasing God. (Anyone tried to do that?)

The whole thing destroys our happiness until we accept that God will forgive us and restore us.

As long as we are attempting to deal with good and evil on our own power we are still based on pride being the ultimate power. We need to subject to God again to get this thing resolved.

"religion" in itself can not resolve this as it often only adds to the knowledge of good and evil. This is already in mankind from the beginning. Instead the "Knowledge of Grace" is what I am hungry for.

I have been praying for the "Spirit of Love" to annoint my soul. I do not know how God can do this, but the scriptures seem to point to this as the way. Part of me cringes at the thought. It seems that all the careful systems I have in place to keep me running true are at risk if I totaly hand over the reins.

Paris, Don't be sorry for I was not offended. Did I sound offended?

Pride could appeal to man through persuading and lies that the knowledge of good and evil would enhance life. Perhaps A@E even were convinced that having this knowledge would aid them in pleasing God. (Anyone tried to do that?)

The whole thing destroys our happiness until we accept that God will forgive us and restore us.

As long as we are attempting to deal with good and evil on our own power we are still based on pride being the ultimate power. We need to subject to God again to get this thing resolved.

"religion" in itself can not resolve this as it often only adds to the knowledge of good and evil. This is already in mankind from the beginning. Instead the "Knowledge of Grace" is what I am hungry for.

That ^ was very well said and I think I get part of  what you are getting at about 'religion' it gets in the way by adding knowledge.

 Now what I was thinking from the very beginning is "why is everyone so focused on teaching about the apple, and obedience?" and what I came up with... it's because it is the start of "religion" and  when people are engaged in teaching about 'obedience' being the trait God wants the most from us then they can be the ones who begin to tell you what is or isn't obedient, (as if we don't already know) but what it does is make Their structure for forgiveness the focus of our Salvation. I don't think that it's all premeditated by people to teach about the "apple/obedience" focus. I don't know why it's done that way, and I'm not trying to blame anyone only that it's a trick. The apple story never worked for me, I always looked at it like "what?, really an apple?" It kind of reminded me of the salesman that held up a shiny object for you to look at so you might not see the real deal.

I have been praying for the "Spirit of Love" to anoint my soul. I do not know how God can do this, but the scriptures seem to point to this as the way. Part of me cringes at the thought. It seems that all the careful systems I have in place to keep me running true are at risk if I totally hand over the reins.

 I think-The Spirit of Love the fully accepting of grace is hard because our pride keeps saying "I need to add to it or be involved in it." It does feel like if I let go of the systems the working to be better in His eyes I'm taking a chance but I don't have any fully working systems in place, I need to hand them over...

Paris, Don't be sorry for I was not offended. Did I sound offended?

Thank you for telling me that Vine, I did think you were offended, but not bitter... -_-

I'm glad you weren't. : )

The original sin was to disobey God. And apples probably hadn't evolved yet.

If Eve (and Adam) would never have questioned the wisdom and sovereignty of God, they would never have listened to another voice.

Whether the original sin was with Lucifer or Adam and Eve, one thing that remains, they both questioned whether God was really sovereign, and both to their own destruction.

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory.

I agree, to let God have his supreme independent authority is key. Another thing I noticed in the A&E story is that the man and wife were tricked into doing something disobedient/letting Gods Sovereignty out of their site and it only took one person to confuse them. Granted it was satan, but maybe there is a lesson in not opening the door to anyone who tries to stands in His place.

Sovereignty is best understood one on one. Know who you are serving.

Is it also about Adam and Eve wanting to be independent? God was taking very good care of them but they weren't satisfied with that. They wanted to have more. Reminds me of teenagers, which they probably were.