greyline

The third and fourth generation is not all mankind forever. Also, if God intended this to mean all mankind forever as a result of A&E's sin, why isn't it in Genesis 3 instead of Kings?

greyline

Thanks - very interesting. And very different from any Christian interpretation. I'm always bemused by Christian attempts to explain the OT in ways different from Jews.

greyline

One of the above links does point to an interpretation that God lied, but I don't know if it's the consensus on Judaism.

Original and first sin aren't the same thing. A&E committed the first sin but that that sin is inherited by all descendants and condemns them to everlasting damnation no matter what they do (unless they believe Jesus died for that inherited sin) is purely Christian.

Chris Weimer

Solo - none of what you posted (Hasidic views on pentenance) validates anything you said so far.

Wads4

Perhaps it was meant as a metaphor for eternity-I don't know. Isn't god supposed to have written (or inspired) Kings as well,-indeed the whole bible?

Anat

Solo, as someone without a Christian education I stare at 'Man's Fall from God's grace' (should I have capitalised anything else there?) like a rooster at 'b'nei adam'.

As for God creating his own necessity - what is the Hasidic idea of 'tzimtzum' if not that? God decides on what terms he interacts with his creation. Or if you want to apply parenting terminology, there's a difference between logical consequence and punishment.

greyline

From Deuteronomy 24:16 (repeated in 2 Kings):
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

There are specific examples in the OT of children being punished/killed for their fathers' sins, but no one ever said the Bible had no contradictions? (Uh, or maybe someone did...)

Rick Sumner

The very idea of original sin--particularly in Judaism of the first century--is nonsensical. It implies that one begins without a right relationship with God, a concept so foreign to Judaism that it boggles the mind that one wants to put it there.

As Sanders points out, the reason the existence from the outset of a right relationship with God is never stated is because it is implicit: The entire concept of atonement is to restore your right relationship with God. That one existed to begin with is presupposed.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Solo

Chris, that is your opinion. I am posting here in the hope that people are able to make relatively simple logical operations on my propositions. So for instance, if I post the following:

Repentance never stops. It is a continuing movement. Even at the very moment that a person is saying `I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled, etc.' it is still impossible for him to say the words with complete sincerity without a single extraneous motive. Thus he must repent for his earlier repentance -- namely the flaw in his previous confession

it is with a view of the intelligent reader here, who can evaluate the exhibit of a contemporary Jewish sinner's sense of utter inadequacy before God, and connect it to the manifested set of beliefs on which Judaism and Christianity were originally built.

But obviously there will be some who will not make the connection. Was kann man tun ? :huh:

Jiri

Solo

The idea implies no such thing. Adam and Eve lived before their separation from God, i.e. before sin, and began then presumably in a harmonious relationship with God.

And since we have Paul in the 1st century who built a whole new religion on the (very) Judaic antipodes of the (present) separation from, and the (future) reconciliation with God, the concept can boggle only minds prone to boggling.

Jiri