Does Judaism have Doctrine of Original Sin and if not why does Christianity?

[Sunstone]

It was extremely funny

Glad to hear that. You're the expert.

 

[gnostic]

If memory serves me correctly, Jesus didn't teach the "Original Sin"...that was Paul's doing, as far as I can recall.

 

[metis]

If memory serves me correctly, Jesus didn't teach the "Original Sin"...that was Paul's doing, as far as I can recall.

I think that you're probably correct on that as I simply do not recall anything attributed to Jesus that dealt directly with that, although some may have an interpretation of something Jesus supposedly said that goes in that direction.

Paul essentially has a problem with the body (carnal) and quite possibly the sex act itself whereas he seems to equate it with being based on lust, which he seems to equate with sin. Remember him saying that people shouldn't marry, although there's one phrase attributed to Jesus that parallels that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

While an oversimplification, I think there is value in recognizing that Judaism focuses on the redemption of a people while Christianity focuses on the salvation of the individual. Each responds to the problem of evil in a manner consonant with its focus, and a focus on individual salvation raises the question: "Why does each and every individual need to be saved?"

 

[CMike]

Glad to hear that. You're the expert.

Yup:yes:

 

[dantech]

Glad to hear that. You're the expert.

You should go to his stand-up acts. He killed it last week.

 

[BruceDLimber]

The Jewish scriptures explcitly REJECT inheritance of sin!! I refer you to Ezekiel 18:14-20 for proof.

And given that Christianity claims to accept the Jewish scriptures as the "Old Testament" and thus valid, this makes its doctrine of "original sin" all the more bizarre!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Jewish scriptures explcitly REJECT inheritance of sin!! I refer you to Ezekiel 18:14-20 for proof.

And given that Christianity claims to accept the Jewish scriptures as the "Old Testament" and thus valid, this makes its doctrine of "original sin" all the more bizarre!

Peace,

Bruce

Well Christianity says that many of the old rules have been taken away or were incorrect.

 

[Pegg]

This is false.
-There is nothing that Judaism taught yesteryear that isn't taught today.
-The Mishnah is only a small part of the Talmud.
-The Talmud is replete with verses from Scriptures on every page.
-There is plenty of Jewish commentary on Scriptures. The smallest number of commentators I've seen in a "Rabbinical Bible" is six. Mine happens to have 14.
-Unless you can tell me that the average Christian is equally familiar with the "OT" as with the NT, this is not even a comment that you should be making.

souls according the hebrew scriptures means the 'living person/creature'...but i dont think this is what is taught in Judaism today, is it?

Neither the mishnah or talmud are part of the Hebrew scriptures at all. They were not written under Gods inspiration or direction.... the mishnah was written after the priesthood were destroyed by the romans in 70CE so it doesnt even come with any kind of priestly authority or approval.

Jewish commentary is also not scripture... much of the commentary is quite contrary to the hebrew scriptures. Some dont even believe in the resurrection which is very prominent hebrew scriptures. And we study the hebrew scriptures quite thouroughly as a group (JW's)

 

[Pegg]

I think it's part of the reason the idea of purgatory became prevalent in catholicism, because there really wasn't an answer for were such "souls" would go.

yes, thats what happens when we lie too.... we have to tell bigger lies to cover the first lie and so on

 

[Tumah]

souls according the hebrew scriptures means the 'living person/creature'...but i dont think this is what is taught in Judaism today, is it?

Neither the mishnah or talmud are part of the Hebrew scriptures at all. They were not written under Gods inspiration or direction.... the mishnah was written after the priesthood were destroyed by the romans in 70CE so it doesnt even come with any kind of priestly authority or approval.

Jewish commentary is also not scripture... much of the commentary is quite contrary to the hebrew scriptures. Some dont even believe in the resurrection which is very prominent hebrew scriptures. And we study the hebrew scriptures quite thouroughly as a group (JW's)

Actually you have that backwards. Scriptures often refers to the person or creature by his/its soul. Gen. 2:7 "and He blew into his nostrils the Breath of life and the man became a living soul." "NeFeSH" means "respiration." The Hebrew words for soul are all based on the breath because it is the breath of G-d.

You are putting your Christian doctrine on Judaism. The Oral Law was given to us the same time the Written Law was. It doesn't need Priestly authority (and that wouldn't even make sense). It has Divine authority.

Jewish commentary is based entirely on one segment or another of the Oral Law. There is no Jewish commentary that contradicts Scriptures.

And please, you study the Hebrew Scriptures? What you mean to say is you study an English interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. I'd be surprised if you knew the first Hebrew word in Scriptures and what its translation is.

 

[Flankerl]

Christianity as a religion from a different cultural background has every right to be different in any way it wants to be from Judaism.

 

[Shiranui117]

It's one of those interesting distinguishing things about Christianity and Judaism. As far as I know there is no concept or doctrine of original sin in Judaism yet there is one in Christianity.

Given the close ties that Christianity has with Judaism at least in terms of its origins, why is such a crucial doctrine missing in Judaism? Where did it come from, how did it develop and were there those of the Jewish community who believed in such a doctrine or still do?

It should be noted, first of all, that Augustine's doctrine of original sin never existed in the realm of Eastern Christianity, and still doesn't. The doctrine of original sin is a later oddity that is confined to the Roman Catholic (not even the Byzantine/Oriental Catholic, just Roman Catholic) and Protestant denominations.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It should be noted, first of all, that Augustine's doctrine of original sin never existed in the realm of Eastern Christianity, and still doesn't. The doctrine of original sin is a later oddity that is confined to the Roman Catholic (not even the Byzantine/Oriental Catholic, just Roman Catholic) and Protestant denominations.

What is the byzantine outlook?

 

[Shiranui117]

What is the byzantine outlook?

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, as the Augustinian position of original sin teaches. Human nature and free will was damaged and impaired, yes--but unlike what Augustinians would say, we believe that man's free will is intact, even if he has tendencies to sin. Humanity is still fundamentally good, and people are still inherently good (a strong contrast to Augustinian and Calvinist statements on the matter), even if we now have a "virus" of sin attached to us. What we inherit from the sin of Adam and Eve is mortality, disease, suffering, a relational separation from God, and the desire to sin--or, as we Byzantines would put it, enslavement to death and sin, and estrangement from God.

The doctrine of original sin (which, as I said before, didn't exist until Augustine pulled it out of his rear in the late 300's) views our fall and current condition in a purely legalistic and business manner, where sin is seen as a crime that is committed, making us only fit for punishment and the lake of fire, and where sin incurs a debt that we owe to God. This "debt" caused by sin requires satisfaction--hence the much, much later doctrines of Anselmian satisfactionary atonement and Calvinist penal substitution, where Jesus is punished as a scapegoat by God for our sins, in order to satisfy both the debt incurred by sin and God's wrath at us. This idea of "satisfaction" is also where Purgatory came from.

The "ancestral sin" position of the early Church and of Eastern Christianity (not just Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but also the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East) views the Fall and humanity's separation from God in medicinal and relational terms--we became irreconcilably estranged from God, and human nature was both enslaved by death and afflicted with the disease of sin.

Therefore, Jesus died on the cross, not to satisfy God's anger or to pay back a debt we owe to Him, but to essentially sneak into the realm of Death and set us free, re-opening the doors of Paradise, and bridging the divide between man and God, reconciling us to Him where once we had been estranged. He freed us from bondage to death and sin, giving us a way out, and through suffering death, Jesus fully participated in our human experience, becoming like us even unto death, so that we may become like God unto eternal life. The Cross isn't a payment to God, but a victory over sin and death, the freeing of humanity, and the reconciliation between man and God. All we need to do is accept the gift of reconciliation, and work to unite ourselves to God, love Him, love others, and become more like Him.

In the Eastern tradition, Purgatory doesn't exist--instead, we have Hades, where the dead await the Resurrection, either being tormented by the effects of their sins, or resting in God's love. Since we have no idea of Purgatory or original sin, even our view of Heaven and Hell is diferent--Heaven is when the person has accepted God and rejoices in the love and presence of God, while Hell is where the soul has rejected God, but God's love and presence is still surrounding them, because God never ceases to love us. So instead of God's love and presence being a source of joy, for the unrepentant sinner, it is instead torture.

I could go on and talk about the nature of salvation, "faith vs. works", critique of the Calvinist 5-point "TULIP" system, etc. but suffice it to say that believing in Augustine's doctrine of original sin vs. what the early Church actually taught makes a massive difference in how you view the Christian faith.

 

[metis]

And we study the hebrew scriptures quite thouroughly as a group (JW's)

In Hebrew? With a Talmud available to show how interpretations may possibly be rendered? With a good knowledge of Jewish culture and tradition 2000+ years ago?

Sorry, but I have talked with many J.W.'s over the years, and generally speaking, their "knowledge" of the Tanakh is mostly shallow and full of many distorted interpretations that's taught to them and then parroted. Better off sticking to the "N.T.".

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

We don't inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, as the Augustinian position of original sin teaches. Human nature and free will was damaged and impaired, yes--but unlike what Augustinians would say, we believe that man's free will is intact, even if he has tendencies to sin. Humanity is still fundamentally good, and people are still inherently good (a strong contrast to Augustinian and Calvinist statements on the matter), even if we now have a "virus" of sin attached to us. What we inherit from the sin of Adam and Eve is mortality, disease, suffering, a relational separation from God, and the desire to sin--or, as we Byzantines would put it, enslavement to death and sin, and estrangement from God.

The doctrine of original sin (which, as I said before, didn't exist until Augustine pulled it out of his rear in the late 300's) views our fall and current condition in a purely legalistic and business manner, where sin is seen as a crime that is committed, making us only fit for punishment and the lake of fire, and where sin incurs a debt that we owe to God. This "debt" caused by sin requires satisfaction--hence the much, much later doctrines of Anselmian satisfactionary atonement and Calvinist penal substitution, where Jesus is punished as a scapegoat by God for our sins, in order to satisfy both the debt incurred by sin and God's wrath at us. This idea of "satisfaction" is also where Purgatory came from.

The "ancestral sin" position of the early Church and of Eastern Christianity (not just Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but also the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East) views the Fall and humanity's separation from God in medicinal and relational terms--we became irreconcilably estranged from God, and human nature was both enslaved by death and afflicted with the disease of sin.

Therefore, Jesus died on the cross, not to satisfy God's anger or to pay back a debt we owe to Him, but to essentially sneak into the realm of Death and set us free, re-opening the doors of Paradise, and bridging the divide between man and God, reconciling us to Him where once we had been estranged. He freed us from bondage to death and sin, giving us a way out, and through suffering death, Jesus fully participated in our human experience, becoming like us even unto death, so that we may become like God unto eternal life. The Cross isn't a payment to God, but a victory over sin and death, the freeing of humanity, and the reconciliation between man and God. All we need to do is accept the gift of reconciliation, and work to unite ourselves to God, love Him, love others, and become more like Him.

In the Eastern tradition, Purgatory doesn't exist--instead, we have Hades, where the dead await the Resurrection, either being tormented by the effects of their sins, or resting in God's love. Since we have no idea of Purgatory or original sin, even our view of Heaven and Hell is diferent--Heaven is when the person has accepted God and rejoices in the love and presence of God, while Hell is where the soul has rejected God, but God's love and presence is still surrounding them, because God never ceases to love us. So instead of God's love and presence being a source of joy, for the unrepentant sinner, it is instead torture.

I could go on and talk about the nature of salvation, "faith vs. works", critique of the Calvinist 5-point "TULIP" system, etc. but suffice it to say that believing in Augustine's doctrine of original sin vs. what the early Church actually taught makes a massive difference in how you view the Christian faith.

I wondered about that, because I found the concept odd as a child based off verses that said that a child would not be punished for the crimes of the parents. I would also admit that the concept of eternal punishment in hell also made no sense to me. Especially in light of the suffering that people go through who do not even believe in God on this earth to have this continued in the next life...is just odd.

 

[CMike]

souls according the hebrew scriptures means the 'living person/creature'...but i dont think this is what is taught in Judaism today, is it?

Neither the mishnah or talmud are part of the Hebrew scriptures at all. They were not written under Gods inspiration or direction.... the mishnah was written after the priesthood were destroyed by the romans in 70CE so it doesnt even come with any kind of priestly authority or approval.

Jewish commentary is also not scripture... much of the commentary is quite contrary to the hebrew scriptures. Some dont even believe in the resurrection which is very prominent hebrew scriptures. And we study the hebrew scriptures quite thouroughly as a group (JW's)

Oy.

The oral law (the mishnah) was given by G-D to the jews on Mt. Sinai as well as the written law.

In fact, the passage states that Moses got two Torahs. He got the written law, and the oral law. Both are divinly inspired.

None of the commentary in the Talmud is contrary to jewish scriptures. The purpose of the commentators is to

• 1) Explain areas that are murky so jews know how to implement the law correctly
• 2) Give a better understanding of specific laws and give a deeper understanding of them

The commentary complements everything else.

 

[Zelophehad]

It's open to all who have knowledge of the religions.

I'm interested because usually one of the big differences that people usually put between christianity and judaism in simplicity deals with the Jesus Christ factor, but there is so much more than that. Another factor is the idea of Original Sin.

While Judaism viewed the Messiah as a bringer of peace and uniter of Israel (i may be incorrect please correct me if I am) Christianity views the Messiah as a taker away of sins.

I believe this is tied to the concept and doctrine of Original Sin.

Original sin is having knowledge of good and evil, which is basically having a moral compass. So Jesus was sent to earth to rid people of their moral compasses.

 

[gnostic]

I think that you're probably correct on that as I simply do not recall anything attributed to Jesus that dealt directly with that, although some may have an interpretation of something Jesus supposedly said that goes in that direction.

Yeah. :yes: That's always a possibility.

Some people will always read something more into what's really there. That's the problem with scriptural literature, because anyone can select a verse (or two) that can be interpreted or manipulated into any possible way, but doing so, often caused the original context of the verses to be lost in doctrine or dogma of the church.