Being christian while rejecting important OT figures?

FlyersFan

Oh geee ... what could have promoted this?
Nice to see that I'm living rent free in your head.

Christianity ... the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth

Following the teachings of CHRIST. Not a mythological Adam and Eve. Not a debunked Noah. Not Abraham who may or may not have existed. Not Moses who was a murdering war lord.

Following CHRISTs teachings ...

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength
and love your neighbor as yourself. There ya' go.

So yes .... to a person can be a Christian without believing all the Old Testament folklore and mythology.

You already know that ... it's just that you don't accept the truth of that statement. Your problem is that you think everyone has to fit into a box with a label on it ... and real life doesn't work that way.

edit on 10/9/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength
and love your neighbor as yourself."

How do you (personally) do this? How does this get accomplished in your mind?

sk0rpi0n
I might be proven wrong... when and IF you finally post a link to a mainstream Christian church/denomination that actually shares your views.

You have been proven wrong ... over and over ... manup and admit it for a change.
FROM PAGES ONE, TWO AND THREE OF THIS THREAD.
The majority of Catholic and Protestant people do not take the Old Testament literally.
Jewish scholars now admit that much of the Old Testament did not happen.

In America about 60% on Average believe in Noahs Ark and the other Old Testament fables ... which means %40 of Christians DO NOT and are still Christian.

80% of Catholics do not take the bible myths literally .. and they are still Christians

40% of Evangelical Christians do not believe in Adam and Eve and they are still Christians
That ticks off the evangelical scholars .. that these Christians understand the truth of Adam and Eve and yet they are still good Christians. But there it is. And many theologians at Christian universities have had to accept the truth that Adam and Eve didn't exist. And yet, those Christian theologians are still Christians.

Evangelical Christian Theologians Who Defend Evolution
Only 30% of Americans Take the Bible Literally

Also of note may be the clear majority of Catholics (65 percent) who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God but should not be taken literally word for word,

Gallup Polls on Christians
41% of Protestant Americans believe the bible is to be taken literally.
Less than one third of Catholics believe the bible is to be taken literally.
Reform Judaism - Moses stories of Egypt are allegories

Jewish World Thinker - Jews were never slaves in Egypt

LA Times

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.

reply to post by FlyersFan


/end thread

reply to post by Akragon


Lets hope its not the end of the thread. I would like flyers fan to answer my question.

OpinionatedB
Lets hope its not the end of the thread. I would like flyers fan to answer my question.

1 - Your 'question' is off topic.
2 - You owe me an apology for saying that I hate God. And for telling lies to cover.
Therefore, you get NO response.
PROOF RIGHT HERE

Or - You just hate God.
I am going with the latter

Akragon
/end thread

ABSOLUTELY. SKORPION HAS, YET AGAIN, BEEN PROVEN WRONG AND HE REFUSES TO ADMIT IT. The information one last time so perhaps Skorpion will actually look at the information for a change ...
FROM PAGES ONE, TWO AND THREE OF THIS THREAD.
The majority of Catholic and Protestant people do not take the Old Testament literally.
Jewish scholars now admit that much of the Old Testament did not happen.

In America about 60% on Average believe in Noahs Ark and the other Old Testament fables ... which means %40 of Christians DO NOT and are still Christian.

80% of Catholics do not take the bible myths literally .. and they are still Christians

40% of Evangelical Christians do not believe in Adam and Eve and they are still Christians
That ticks off the evangelical scholars .. that these Christians understand the truth of Adam and Eve and yet they are still good Christians. But there it is. And many theologians at Christian universities have had to accept the truth that Adam and Eve didn't exist. And yet, those Christian theologians are still Christians.

Evangelical Christian Theologians Who Defend Evolution
Only 30% of Americans Take the Bible Literally

Also of note may be the clear majority of Catholics (65 percent) who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God but should not be taken literally word for word,

Gallup Polls on Christians
41% of Protestant Americans believe the bible is to be taken literally.
Less than one third of Catholics believe the bible is to be taken literally.
Reform Judaism - Moses stories of Egypt are allegories

Jewish World Thinker - Jews were never slaves in Egypt

LA Times

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.

END OF THREAD

wildtimes
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

Sadly, we are witnessing the 'great falling away' as described by Paul.

On the contrary. HAPPILY we are witnessing the 'great falling away of ignorance, fear, and bronze age nonsense' as "real."

You know, that "bronze age nonsense" is the origin of nearly ALL modern religion, including such beliefs as reincarnation, espoused by the bronze age druids. Just because something has been around since the bronze age, or even before that, does not automatically make it not true or "nonsense".

If Christianity falls, guess what? ISLAM FALLS WITH HER, since it's whole premise is based on the same God and 'revelations' given to random ordinary people. If there's no "Jesus Messiah," what will the Muslims do? Wring their hands...
and hope the Quran isn't true also. Otherwise, yikes.

Not true. If Christianity falls, Islam is strengthened, since they can point and laugh and say "we TOLD you so!". Both Christianity itself and Islam have predicted a great falling away of Christians from their religion, and the poster you were responding to seems to be correct in his assessment that we are watching that very event right now. Islamic revelations are not dependent on Christian revelations for their sustenance, so that argument doesn't hold. Muslims have their own set of revelations, and their own prophet to look towards. They don't need the Christian concepts to function. This is why they can confidently say that the Bible was "tampered with" and go on their merry way, believing as they always have with no harm done to their faith.

Muslims have their own concept of Jesus and messiahship which do not depend on the Christian concepts of those things.

This is the first thread in some time to bring a tear to my eye. To see people claim to know a deity while at the same time rejecting everything that deity potentially had to say about itself is astounding. To reject it's revelation of itself and still claim to know and follow it is an astounding display of cognitive dissonance - claiming to hold two directly opposing beliefs at the same time. That's at least one thing Muslims cannot be accused of.

The only thing I can really say with certainty is that if mankind has finally put Jesus's God on the ropes, at least I will not live long enough to see it's final demise. That IS a comfort, perhaps in a twisted sort of way. I can say it confidently because as long as I still breathe, it has at least one believer. I have not rejected what it has had to say about itself because there is no other way to be acquainted with it short of a face to face confrontation.

To see it from a different perspective, how could a man claim to know anything about physics if he rejected out of hand all the physics texts which explain it? He could of course still make that claim, but it would at best be a hollow one, without substance. One cannot claim to know anything if one believes everything said about it is lies.

Even though I can make no claim to being a Christian, when the Christians fall away from their God, I will still stand. Until I am dropped. Only then can Jesus's God die in peace, and the celebratory bacchinalia begin. Anything before that is premature, because the fat lady hasn't sang yet.

reply to post by nenothtu


the dawn of knowledge is the eve of all religions

FlyersFan
THE TOPIC QUESTION WAS -

sk0rpi0n
Can one really call himself a 'christian' if he/she dismisses key Biblical characters such as Adam, Melchizedek and Noah as myths...while speaking ill of the prophets Abraham and Moses?

THE ANSWER HAS BEEN GIVEN ... ABSOLUTELY.

If you believe that Jesus the son of God died on the cross for your sins as the Christ, and you do your best to follow Jesus command of love God and love neighbor ... then you are a Christian. THAT IS IT.

Riddle me this - how can he have died as the Christ if the entire foundation for his messiahship was made up? How can a Christian believe in a Christ that never was one?

Wouldn't that make them something other than a Christian? Maybe something along the lines of "the spirit of an antichrist"?

Those people can call themselves anything they like, but that doesn't mean it is what they actually are. We can call a golf ball a watermelon, but that does not magically make it one.

I'm sure you will refuse to accept that fact. The agenda of this thread was so damn obvious and it's not the answer you want to get. But the fact is ... most Christians do NOT take the Old Testament literally. It's PROVEN WRONG and it has NOTHING to do with salvation or the belief in Jesus.

DEAL WITH IT.

If the Old Testament was made up, and has been proven wrong, then there is no foundation for a Christ. If there is no foundation for a Christ, there is no Christ. If there is no Christ, there are no Christians.

DEAL WITH IT.

SisyphusRide
reply to post by nenothtu

 

the dawn of knowledge is the eve of all religions

So they say. Perhaps that depends on what the true source of knowledge IS.

Should that prove to be the case, then I and my education will remain in ignorance.

I believe in physics because that foundation has been laid in books, which I have read, studied, and found little to quarrel with, and which has been confirmed by my observation of the world around me - my interaction with the things of physics, and which logic has led me to the inescapable conclusion of.

I believe in God for the same reasons.

FlyersFan

BELIEVERpriest
we just dont know science well enough to debunk any ancient claim.

Yes we do.

Science 101 ... the earth isn't 6000 years old, the population of the earth couldn't come from 3 pair of reproducing (related) couples from 5,000 years ago,

The average human generation is 20 years. That gives us 300 generation in your postulated 6000 years. Calculating backwards, allowing for only two parents in each generation, after 300 generations you have 2.037x10^90 ancestors. THAT is an impossibility, since the Earth could absolutely not sustain those numbers. This means we are all inbreds. Now going forward instead, allowing for ONE original reproducing couple, and allowing an average of 20 years per generation, and allowing for only TWO children to be born per couple, we arrive at the same figure for the current world population.

Hmmm... we seem to be falling short at only 7 billion currently.

Now, with that said, the point is really moot, since your opponent has said repeatedly that the Earth is far older than 6000 years. It is YOU who came up with the 6000 year figure, not him. It's intellectually dishonest to hold someone to account for something they never said, and in fact have repeatedly denied.

The "6000 year" figure came from Bishop Usher. why anyone at all would put any stock in his ravings is beyond me.

reply to post by nenothtu


the Truth is out there...


for physics should not stop looking, or get angry and criticize the logos.

I for one am appreciative of what physics brings back to those who defined the questions...

reply to post by FlyersFan


So says the woman who said she is praying for me because she believes I am evil and possessed. No, I wont apologize until I get one first and no, I am not holding my breath. Unlike you I can continue on with life and even conversations no matter what godawful things people spew out of their mouths about me so it doesn't effect me at all that you wont apologize and that you recognize no need to.

As far as your refusal to answer my question, I didn't think you could articulate how to follow the only sentence in the entire bible you claim to believe is from God.. Some Christian you are.



PS. Threads are not created and/or ended upon your say... its an open forum, we don't need you to tell us when to stop posting in a thread. Just because you cannot even articulate how to follow one verse does not mean the rest of us need to shut up.

PPS. even though it is logical to assume that you hate God since you despise and call evil most of the words in your own book concerning HIM, I will apologize for speaking my thoughts on the matter since it hurt your feelings apparently. I wont however, apologize for believing that that is a logical conclusion to things you speak concerning the God of your own books because when you call things He said, did and allowed, evil, you are calling HIM evil in essence, and most people (granted not you apparently) hate things that are evil.

FlyersFan
THE TOPIC QUESTION WAS -

sk0rpi0n
Can one really call himself a 'christian' if he/she dismisses key Biblical characters such as Adam, Melchizedek and Noah as myths...while speaking ill of the prophets Abraham and Moses?

THE ANSWER HAS BEEN GIVEN ... ABSOLUTELY.

If you believe that Jesus the son of God died on the cross for your sins as the Christ, and you do your best to follow Jesus command of love God and love neighbor ... then you are a Christian. THAT IS IT.

nenothtu
Riddle me this - how can he have died as the Christ if the entire foundation for his messiahship was made up? How can a Christian believe in a Christ that never was one?

Wouldn't that make them something other than a Christian? Maybe something along the lines of "the spirit of an antichrist"?

If the Old Testament was made up, and has been proven wrong, then there is no foundation for a Christ. If there is no foundation for a Christ, there is no Christ. If there is no Christ, there are no Christians.

thank you nenothtu for having common sense which is to uncommon.

reply to post by FlyersFan

FlyersFan
You have been proven wrong ... over and over ... manup and admit it for a change.
FROM PAGES ONE, TWO AND THREE OF THIS THREAD.
The majority of Catholic and Protestant people do not take the Old Testament literally.

Actually, not so much "/end thread".
There is a huge gulf of difference between "Not taking all of the Bible literally" and "denying the existence of the OT Biblical figures".

For example, I remember there being a huge thing about it in the Anglican Church a couple years back- about half the clergy don't believe in the virgin birth (or that Christ is the only route to salvation), and among the christian public there, only a third of them believe in the virgin birth. A third of the clergy don't even believe in the resurrection. A significant number would probably (although I guess I can't be sure) believe in the existence of a historical Jesus.

Flyers Fan declared in this post that she doesn't have a religion, but rather "spiritual beliefs". She also calls herself a "Christian".

This is the funny part - she believes Jesus died as a "sin sacrifice", yet rejects Adams existence as a myth. But without Adams existence, there can be no "original sin"... as mainstreamChristians believe. And without "original sin", the very idea foundation of Jesus' "sin sacrifice" is invalidated.

FF's spiritual beliefs is derived from Christian scriptures yet contradicts the beliefs and doctrines of main-stream Christians, who otherwise believe in OT figures rejects or insulted by a Flyersfan, a so called "Christian".

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Most of the Christians I've hung out with don't place much stock in a concept of "original sin". It seems to be a Catholic concept, although it HAS been adopted by various other denominations. What the bulk of the Christians I've known believe instead is a doctrine of a "sinful nature of man" - not the same as an "original sin". The doctrine of the "sinful nature of man" postulates that mankind has a sinful nature, which is a predisposition TOWARDS sin, not the actual sin itself. They believe that Jesus died to save them from their nature, their human predispositions.

You see, every action of a man originates in his "heart", his nature, as a thought. It's not what we put into our bodies that makes us "unclean", it's what issues OUT of us, coming from our very nature. That all starts with a thought, rather than an action. Jesus said that to even LOOK at a woman with lust was to commit adultery, without ever even having to ACT on it. That is because action grows from thought.

You see, the ramblings of a man's heart can be towards continual evil, yet he never has to once act upon those ramblings - but that failure to act does not change his predisposition towards it. They believe a man can ACT good all his life, and never BE good, because of that human nature. It is written "there are none good, no, not one, except my Father in Heaven." they believe the reason for that is the sinful nature of man. They believe that man is, on his own, incapable of BEING good, only of ACTING good.

In that context, any "original sin" means little, since it is only the acting out of a heart that was already wayward. For Jesus to be saving them from an "original sin" perpetrated by Adam and Eve would mean that he is saving them from SOMEONE ELSE'S sin, not their own sinful nature. Such an act would be essentially meaningless, since their own nature would still have to be accounted for.

"Adam" could be entirely allegorical, a personification of the sinful nature of man in a story, and still not change that nature in man for better or worse. His concrete existence is therefore not essential to the lesson being taught, although the story, allegorical or not, IS.

Personally, I believe there WAS an Adam, but do not necessarily believe he was the only human in existence at the time simply because others are mentioned only in passing or by inference. Just because they don't take center stage in the tale does not automatically mean they did not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I also, personally, don't think that eating a fruit was as sinful as lying about it, trying to cover it up, and then blaming YOUR actions on SOMEONE ELSE (blaming Eve in the case of Adam, blaming the serpent in the case of Eve - passing the buck to try to make someone else guilty and absolve yourself of your OWN actions). I don't necessarily get that from the Bible though - I probably get it from my dad. He was real big on telling the truth, coming clean, and owning your own mistakes. The worst whipping I ever got in my life was not for the action I committed, it was for lying to the Old Man and trying to cover it up.

The same seems to me to be the case in the tale of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.

reply to post by nenothtu


Well, original sin is a mainstream Christian belief.

I'm not talking about exceptional cases, but mainstream Christians hold that the first man, Adam had something to do with the sinful nature of man... you know, the whole "fall of man" in the garden thing.

Christianity - through Pauls scriptures - connects Adam and Jesus.... Adam as the cause of the problem, and Jesus as the solution to the problem.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned... - Romans 5:12

For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! - Romans 5:15

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. -1 Corinthians 15:22


So, any "Christian" who rejects Adam as a myth, invalidates the idea of Jesus' being a "savior" from the sin that brought into the world by Adam.

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Well, original sin is a mainstream Christian belief.

I'm not talking about exceptional cases, but mainstream Christians hold that the first man, Adam had something to do with the sinful nature of man... you know, the whole "fall of man" in the garden thing.

What are you classifying as "mainstream"? Catholicism only? Are all of the rest relegated to peripheral status? it's ok if you are doing that - many Catholics I've spoken with do the same. To them, the rest of us are just heathen, same as the Godless jungle people. I thank God every day that my own religion doesn't hinge on the assessment of some other human, though.

It's kinda like the difference between Sunni and Shi'a.

Christianity - through Pauls scriptures - connects Adam and Jesus.... Adam as the cause of the problem, and Jesus as the solution to the problem.

Adam is not the cause of the problem, he is a useful example of it.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned... - Romans 5:12

Yes, death came into the world through one man, because there had to have been a first one, from which all others sprang. His name could have been Adam, or it could have been Irving, but he has to have existed, else we would not. What his name was is irrelevant to the fact that he was human, had a human nature, and therefore brought human nature into the world. Christians call him Adam, but he could has easily have been named Og.

For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! - Romans 5:15

Which does nothing to change my postulate. We are only quibbling over a name, and what we beieve the "trespass" to have been, going by the same story.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. -1 Corinthians 15:22

Paul calls him "Adam" because the writings call him Adam. Had he said Irving instead, the story and the point would not have changed, but listeners would have been scratching their heads and saying "who the hell is Irving?" We sometimes have to speak to people in terms they can relate to, terms they can understand, on their own levels, because otherwise the point gets lost entirely in the confusion created.

So, any "Christian" who rejects Adam as a myth, invalidates the idea of Jesus' being a "savior" from the sin that brought into the world by Adam.

ALL of Jesus' parables are KNOWN to be parables, myths, stories, and yet the points they teach are still valid. We don't have to believe in a literal Seven Virgins trimming seven wicks to get the point.

So with Adam and Eve.

My point is that their actual existence is irrelevant. However, we cannot throw out the TALE without also throwing out the teaching it entails. Your opponent does not have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but neither can she throw out the story without also losing the lesson, thereby diminishing Christianity and losing part of what it IS.

In doing so, an entirely new religion is created, not a "streamlined version".

ETA: I'm sorry, but I have to get ready to go out right now so I can trek across the frozen wastelands here for a few hours on some errands that need attending to. I do enjoy the discussion, however, and the opportunity to examine my own beliefs and thereby keep myself sharp, and so will return to it in a few hours.

Thank you.

reply to post by nenothtu

What are you classifying as "mainstream"?

There are Christians who believe the NT is more important than the OT, but they acknowledge the importance of the OT figures. However, I am addressing the people who outright reject/denigrate OT prophets... and yet hold on to views that are dependent on OT teachings.

Adam is not the cause of the problem, he is a useful example of it.

You can rephrase that as you want, but Adam is said to have created a problem.
When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. - Romans 5:12a
Rather, when Adam pushed the red button, a big problem was caused for the entire human race.

Adam has to do with the problem of "original sin" that Jesus supposedly fixed with his "sin sacrifice". If Adam never existed, then Jesus really "died" for nothing, and therefore has no power to "save" anybody through a "sin sacrifice" that was not needed at all.

ALL of Jesus' parables are KNOWN to be parables, myths, stories, and yet the points they teach are still valid. We don't have to believe in a literal Seven Virgins trimming seven wicks to get the point.

Its obvious that Jesus cooked up nameless characters to make points through his parables.
They are not the same as OT figures who are crucial to Christian theology... and who were referred to as real people by Jesus, Paul etc. Or do Christians believe the Bible full of people referring to fictional stories and myths?

Adams existence is highly relevant to Christians who claim Jesus died as a "sin sacrifice". The "sin sacrifice" itself rests on the doctrine of "original sin".
Similarly, the OT is also highly relevant to Christians because Jesus said “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu

 

There are Christians who believe the NT is more important than the OT, but they acknowledge the importance of the OT figures. However, I am addressing the people who outright reject/denigrate OT prophets... and yet hold on to views that are dependent on OT teachings.

That may be part of the problem in the misunderstanding - Christians don't recognize Adam as a "prophet". Only Muslims have that association.

You can rephrase that as you want, but Adam is said to have created a problem.
When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. - Romans 5:12a
Rather, when Adam pushed the red button, a big problem was caused for the entire human race.

I didn't rephrase it, I contradicted it.

Adam has to do with the problem of "original sin" that Jesus supposedly fixed with his "sin sacrifice". If Adam never existed, then Jesus really "died" for nothing, and therefore has no power to "save" anybody through a "sin sacrifice" that was not needed at all.

There is no problem of "original sin". Some Christians seem to delight in categorizing and separating out sins by degrees, as if such a thing existed. They have "original sin", "mortal sin", Venial sin", and all manner of separate "sins" all packaged up and ready to go. It's a fallacy - sin is sin.

"Original sin" ought to be called "ongoing sin", because it is all the same. No one now pays for Adam's sin, they pay for their own. Adam's sin is on Adam's head.

Its obvious that Jesus cooked up nameless characters to make points through his parables.
They are not the same as OT figures who are crucial to Christian theology... and who were referred to as real people by Jesus, Paul etc. Or do Christians believe the Bible full of people referring to fictional stories and myths?

The actual names and existence of Old testament characters is immaterial - the lessons to be drawn from the accounts is what is of importance. Whether the accounts themselves are factual or fanciful is not important theologically.

For that matter, most of the NT characters could be fictitious, and Christianity would still work - the only one wh has to have been literally real for Christian theology to work is Jesus himself. The rest could ALL be stories and object lessons without affecting Christianity.

Adams existence is highly relevant to Christians who claim Jesus died as a "sin sacrifice". The "sin sacrifice" itself rests on the doctrine of "original sin".
Similarly, the OT is also highly relevant to Christians because Jesus said “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

You err. Christian doctrine does NOT rest of "original sin" - it only does so to those who love to attempt separating sins out by degrees and types. For the rest, for whom sin is sin, a sin sacrifice would still be required because of the sinful nature of man, regardless of whether the first sin was committed by Adam in Eden or Irving in Pasadena.