Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Kesler · 08-24-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

My HS Bible teacher claimed that there was no punishment for the transgression of A&E, but new arrangements had to be made because God decided to prevent physical access to the Tree of Life. Thus there was a necessity to provide for an alternate means for making a living (working hard in the fields) and an alternate means for assuring human continuity (sexual reproduction).

Did your teacher explain why an omniscient God would need to make "new arrangements" and have "alternate means" for anything?

greyline · 08-24-2006, 01:33 PM

I started this thread because of a conversation I'd been reading on another board, where a Christian claimed Jews believed in Original Sin. This riled a Jewish poster, who explained unequivically that they do not. The Jewish poster spent "over half [his] life in Yeshiva [Orthodox Jewish school]", has taught polemics (the differences and various discussions and arguments in Judaism and Christianity) at University for many years, and has published articles in the field.

Some quotes (bear in mind he's talking to a largely Christian audience):

Quote:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ORIGINAL SIN IN JUDAISM. NOTHING EVEN CLOSE TO IT. We do not believe in, espouse, talk about or discuss anything near it.
...
The bible was closed with the OT - END.
...
In all my teaching experience, I cannnot remember ever having to explain to either Jews or Christians, students or Adults, that Jews do not believe in "original sin". These are accepted "terms" and "terminology" within Christian context, not within a Jewish context.

He also pointed out the Jewish requirements for the Jewish Messiah, which do not include anything about blood sacrifice to pay for inherited sin:

Quote:

The idea of a Messiah in Judaism, is a man, like any other man
1. Be A King
2. Fight Wars
3. Lead the Jewish people in reestablishing the Kingdom in the Land of Israel
4. Rebuild the Temple
5. Function as a true leader of the people
...
The Messiah dies. He is not eternal or immortal. he is not divine. He is simply a rebirth of the Davidic dynasty. His children rule afterwards.
...
The Messiah (Moshiach) is NOT a religious entity. He is a nationalistic one. A flesh and blood human King. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Back to the OP: if the concept of Original Sin resulting in eternal damnation for all descendants of A&E was so important in God's plan, why didn't he mention it to the Jews, and why didn't Jesus know about it?

jakejonesiv · 08-24-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Yes, very well stated. This is spot on.

Jake Jones IV

Solo · 08-24-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

As this is clearly an example of a practical, legal issue of death penalty, rather than of the existential fact of death, I don't see how it addresses the problem discussed here. :huh:

Jiri

Sgent29 · 08-24-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Here is an excerpt from a Hasidic on-line manual on repentance:

Jiri

Try something from historical writings or the modern orthodox. Anything else is not normative Judaism. Its doesn't mean its wrong, but its not what the majority of Jewish tradition espouses.

Hasidic's are a relatively new (17th century or later) branch of Judaism -- which is very similar to orthodox, but with a much heavier emphasis on the supernatural

Sgent29 · 08-24-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Here is an excerpt from a Hasidic on-line manual on repentance:

Before a person returns to God, he has no being. It is as if he has not yet been created. Because it would have been better for him not to have been created at all. But when he comes and purifies himself in order to return to God, he puts himself in order and prepares to become a being. This element of preparation for becoming -- coming into being, as it were -- explains why the Divine Name which is associated with repentance is Ehyeh, `I shall be'

When someone wants to purify himself and return to God, they tell him `Wait!' (Yoma 38b-39a). It is true that he should hurry to release his soul and flee from the darkness. But he shouldn't be discouraged and depressed when he sees how far he is from true prayer and other holy devotions. It is a necessary part of the process that he should wait. In the end he will be worthy of making amends completely, and all will be restored. Understand this well.

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.

Jiri

Just to point out that this position (although I don't completely agree that its normative Judaism), does not support your position of orginal sin.

In the above example -- its the pentitents inability to speak with complete sincerity that is his downfall -- not Adam's.

Solo · 08-24-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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'.

I wish I could help you with that.

Quote:

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.

...and that to you is "God creating his own necessity".

Jiri

greyline · 08-24-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

As this is clearly an example of a practical, legal issue of death penalty, rather than of the existential fact of death, I don't see how it addresses the problem discussed here. :huh:

Jiri

If one takes the standard Christian viewpoint that A&E were immortal before eating the fruit, and that God's punishment for eating it was immediate death (according to God beforehand) or eventual death + eternal damnation + a few other things (according to God afterwards), then they died for their crime (death penalty) and their children inherited their ability to die. Thus their children were punished by death for their parents' crime.

Solo · 08-24-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgent29

Try something from historical writings or the modern orthodox. Anything else is not normative Judaism. Its doesn't mean its wrong, but its not what the majority of Jewish tradition espouses.

Hasidic's are a relatively new (17th century or later) branch of Judaism -- which is very similar to orthodox, but with a much heavier emphasis on the supernatural

I have already made it clear that in the liberal wing of contemorary Judaism, the reading of the Fall would be ways off of the doctrine of original sin as developed by Augustine. It seems to make no difference to some people here who are hell-bent on denying that the Christian idea of man as sinner before God, to which the notion of "original sin" speaks, proceeds from Judaism.

They seem to be transfixed by chat boards and personal declamations made by the Christian fundamentalist ilk, who never heard of Barth, Niebuhr or Tillich and their confrontations with mainstream Jewish folks, who understandably want to have nothing to do with Christian hell.

And on we go.....

Jiri

Aristophanes · 08-24-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Paul was a Jew and he understood

maybe because he made it up?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.