>>18244134
>destroys western theology by misinterpreting romans 5:12

Nope try again Orthobro:

>To arrive at a more probable rendering, we can compare with other New Testament instances of εφ ‘ωι, three of which are Pauline:
>…the place wherein (upon which) thou standest is holy ground. (Acts 7:33)
>…burdened, because we would not be unclothed… (2 Cor. 5:4)
>…I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend, wherein I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:12)
>…wherein which as you did also think… (Phil. 4:10)
>Only St. Luke uses εφ ‘ωι in the physically literal sense of on which. St. Paul follows a common literary usage where εφ shows causal or temporal linkage, so it may be translated ‘because,’ ‘for’ ‘inasmuch,’ or ‘whereupon.’ The Douay translates the instances in Philippians as ‘wherein,’ not that the Vulgate in quo literally means in where. Rather, quo is the ablative of qui (who, which), in agreement with a literal rendering of the Greek. ‘Wherein’ in English means in which, following the Latin literally. The context, however, makes clear that this would be better translated as for which in Philippians 3:12 and inasmuch in 4:10 (replacing ‘which’ with ‘that’).
>This evidence agrees with our inference (held by most translators) that εφ ‘ωι in Romans 5:12 should be translated as inasmuch as, though because (i.e., for which reason) would also be acceptable. The verse now reads: …so death passed upon all men, inasmuch as all have sinned.

>>18244134
>>18244150
Continued...

>This evidence agrees with our inference (held by most translators) that εφ ‘ωι in Romans 5:12 should be translated as inasmuch as, though because (i.e., for which reason) would also be acceptable. The verse now reads: …so death passed upon all men, inasmuch as all have sinned.
>This correction leaves some important Augustinian arguments untouched. It is still the case that all men have sinned, since no one can doubt that all are subject to death. This means that even infants have sin in them, since they too can die. As they have no personal sin, there can only be inherited original sin. Further, as not all have sinned in imitation of Adam (5:13), it is clear that we do not inherit Adam’s sin by imitation. The sin in the last part of Romans 5:12 definitely includes original sin, so the phrase all have sinned takes on import, as it appears that we are in some sense the subjects of original sin. This at least suggests, if it does not clearly indicate, that we somehow participate in Adam’s sin.

Source: https://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/original6.htm#sec6_4

>>18244152
>>18244150
>it's another catholic resorts to outrageous mental gymnastics justify his roman mystery cult episode

>>18244150
>>18244152
Augustine didn’t know Greek and thus didn’t know what he was talking about. He misunderstood the Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ (eph' hō), which translates to "because," as meaning "in whom," leading him to conclude that humanity sinned "in Adam" and developed the doctrine of original sin as inherited guilt.

>>18244134
You act like if he had read things a little differently he wouldn't have worshiped a rat kike any longer. Get a clue, dumbass. It's all lies. Augustine was a freak.

>>18244134
>Partly got his ideas of sin from Tertullian
But whatever, right?

>>18244618
If this was true then why did no one correct him.

>>18244134
>what if we inherit the guilt of a guy eating a fruit 5000 years ago lmao
He was a cryptojew.

>>18244628
he was a nafri sex pest. everyone instinctively avoided him. it was only after aryan bvlls besieged hippo and he died that his writings became popular.

>>18244618
You didn't address anything in the posts you replied to.

>>18244618
Romans is explicit on this itself. Paul alludes to Adam one chapter earlier and culminates his thought in "wages of sin is death".

Augustine also knew enough greek to do etymology of the greek meaning of "bath" in his Confessions.

It's true that his Greek was not at the highest level though.

>>18244632
He had a ton of friends moron. He was a sex pest though, even trying to get Alypius into the casual sex game ... fucking Nafris man.

Jesus did not rise from the dead and thus all of this is worthless nonsense. There quite literally is no such thing as real christian philosophy.

Does anyone just not get Augustine?
Here and there I've tried reading City of God, Confessions, some the adversus tracts, but he doesn't really strike me as a deep thinker and a lot of his arguments are based off of misrepresentation.
Like for a guy who was a Manichean for a decade he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of their beliefs and goes out of his way to take clearly analogic passages literally (adversus faustus). I guess he had to do this because he wants to clearly cut ties with the Manichaeans after he was accused of still being one?
Or he opens City of God with the uniqueness of Christianity because Alaric didn't sack Christian churches (which is probably a myth but I guess they believed the story at the time). And he creates a strawman character of pagans who pretended to be Christians so he can go after them for hypocrisy. This is everything we are now taught not to do in writing.
Maybe it's translation issues and his prose isn't coming through, but I'm having a hard time coming to terms with how beloved Augustine is in the western tradition. Any advice?

>>18245073
Read Chadwick's translation of the Confessions with the footnotes and introduction and everything SHOULD be clear.

Augustine was right and basically your a heretic

>>18245078
thanks, I will give it a shot and hopefully it will click

>>18244134
>>proto-calvinism
Good.