• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Sure, but does affected mean "twisted"? I don't say that and you have nothing that supports that.

The belief of original sin is found in ancient Jewish documents.

Samuel Cohon explained that the Jewish view of sin changed when Jesus came.
About the time of the beginning of Christianity three main conceptions of sin struggled for recognition in Judaism. The first regarded corruption of the race as hereditary. The second vaguely asserted as connection between Adam's sin and his posterity's liability to punishment, without defining the exact nature of the connection. The third view considered all sin as the fruit of man's own action.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
The belief of original sin is found in ancient Jewish documents.

Samuel Cohon explained that the Jewish view of sin changed when Jesus came.
About the time of the beginning of Christianity three main conceptions of sin struggled for recognition in Judaism. The first regarded corruption of the race as hereditary. The second vaguely asserted as connection between Adam's sin and his posterity's liability to punishment, without defining the exact nature of the connection. The third view considered all sin as the fruit of man's own action.
Instead of taking the glossing of a reform rabbi's article posted on a Jews for Jesus site, you might want to read the actual article. I would point to page 276, and the first paragraph under "The Paradise Story" which reads "Contrary to the uses made of it by Paul and his followers, the Paradise story contains no doctrine of the fall of the race through Adam, of the moral corruption of human nature, or of the hereditary transmission of the sinful bias." Also, look at page 280, "The breaking of the taboo led to no fundamental alteration in the moral condition of Adam and Eve..." There follows, on page 282, a number of proofs showing that there is no idea of an original sin carried by mankind by default due to Adam's actions.

On page 284 he explains that the idea crept into Judaism only in the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha, which have no part of actual Jewish thought though even there, the ideas presented are distinct from any notion of inherent sin in mankind. Read 286 for more.

You really should read your sources and not rely on J4Jesus to summarize them for you. Or maybe you should listen to an actual Jew.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Instead of taking the glossing of a reform rabbi's article posted on a Jews for Jesus site, you might want to read the actual article. I would point to page 276, and the first paragraph under "The Paradise Story" which reads "Contrary to the uses made of it by Paul and his followers, the Paradise story contains no doctrine of the fall of the race through Adam, of the moral corruption of human nature, or of the hereditary transmission of the sinful bias." Also, look at page 280, "The breaking of the taboo led to no fundamental alteration in the moral condition of Adam and Eve..." There follows, on page 282, a number of proofs showing that there is no idea of an original sin carried by mankind by default due to Adam's actions.

On page 284 he explains that the idea crept into Judaism only in the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha, which have no part of actual Jewish thought though even there, the ideas presented are distinct from any notion of inherent sin in mankind. Read 286 for more.

You really should read your sources and not rely on J4Jesus to summarize them for you. Or maybe you should listen to an actual Jew.

Truth and lies are mixed. I don't agree with the pseudepigrapha or apocrypha either but that doesn't mean that there is no truth in it that is based on the Old Testament.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It would be impossible for the Messiah to be God and not have a virgin birth. Jesus was born of a virgin because He is God incarnate. God does all things decently and in order.
You have all sorts of ideas that are just not logical. To start with, God does not need a virgin birth to be God. Second, God is not a man.

And to reiterate, you can have a Davidic line or the virgin birth, but you cannot have both.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The Old Testament prophets didn't predict that the Messiah would suffer and die. Yet, Isaiah 53 and other passages foretold a suffering servant. It was completely hidden from the disciples that the Son of Man must fill the role of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 before he comes in the power and glory of God's kingdom. In other words, the Old Testament predicted a Messiah and a suffering servant, but not that the Messiah would be the Suffering Servant.
Again with Isaiah 53? How many times do you want to be wrong on record?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Instead of taking the glossing of a reform rabbi's article posted on a Jews for Jesus site, you might want to read the actual article. I would point to page 276, and the first paragraph under "The Paradise Story" which reads "Contrary to the uses made of it by Paul and his followers, the Paradise story contains no doctrine of the fall of the race through Adam, of the moral corruption of human nature, or of the hereditary transmission of the sinful bias." Also, look at page 280, "The breaking of the taboo led to no fundamental alteration in the moral condition of Adam and Eve..." There follows, on page 282, a number of proofs showing that there is no idea of an original sin carried by mankind by default due to Adam's actions.

On page 284 he explains that the idea crept into Judaism only in the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha, which have no part of actual Jewish thought though even there, the ideas presented are distinct from any notion of inherent sin in mankind. Read 286 for more.

You really should read your sources and not rely on J4Jesus to summarize them for you. Or maybe you should listen to an actual Jew.

Certain concepts, like Satan and the Trinity, are more clearly revealed in the New Testament, but they are still there in the Old Testament.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
You have all sorts of ideas that are just not logical. To start with, God does not need a virgin birth to be God. Second, God is not a man.

And to reiterate, you can have a Davidic line or the virgin birth, but you cannot have both.

God does all things decently and in order. God is not the author of confusion. If God came down as a man, it would have to involve a virgin birth.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Again with Isaiah 53? How many times do you want to be wrong on record?

Even the disciples doubted that Jesus would be the Suffering Servant because he didn't come in the power and glory of God's kingdom yet. Just because the Old Testament didn't say that the Messiah would be the Suffering Servant, doesn't mean that he isn't the Suffering Servant.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Again with Isaiah 53? How many times do you want to be wrong on record?

These are the characteristics and accomplishments of Isaiah's Servant. Beginning with the first Servant Song in chapter 42, here are the following observations of the Servant:

1. He is elected by the Lord, anointed by the Spirit, and promised success in his endeavor (42:1, 4).
2.Justice is a prime concern in his endeavor (42:1, 4).
3.His ministry has an international scope (42:1,6).
4. God predestined him to his calling (49:1).
5. He is a gifted teacher (49:2).
6. He experiences discouragement in his ministry (49:4).
7. His ministry extends to the Gentiles (49:6).
8. The Servant encounters strong opposition and resistance to his teaching, even of a physically violent nature. (50:4-6).
9. He is determined to finish what God called him to do (50:7).
10. The Servant has humble origins with little outward prospects for success (53:1-2).
11. He experiences suffering and affliction. (53:3).
12. The Servant accepts vicarious and substitutionary suffering on behalf of his people (53:4-6, 12).
13. He is put to death after being condemned. (53:7-9).
14. Incredibly, he comes back to life and is exalted above all rulers (53:10-12; 52:13-15).
15. The Servant is sinless. (53:9).

Just a casual reading of the passage should leave little doubt that the Suffering Servant is Jesus. In fact, the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Servant passages was that they predicted the coming Messiah. That is, until Jews began having more contact with Christian apologists about a thousand years ago, at which point they reinterpreted the Suffering Servant to be the Nation of Israel. The first Jew to claim that the Suffering Servant was Israel rather than the Messiah was Shlomo Yitzchaki, better known as Rashi (c. 1040-1105). Today Rashi's view dominates Jewish and rabbinical theology.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Certain concepts, like Satan and the Trinity, are more clearly revealed in the New Testament, but they are still there in the Old Testament.
Not really. You have to really beat the Tanakh to death to get anything resembling the trinity, and you certainly have to read into the text things that are not there at face value in order to get the sort of Satan that Christians believe in.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Even the disciples doubted that Jesus would be the Suffering Servant because he didn't come in the power and glory of God's kingdom yet. Just because the Old Testament didn't say that the Messiah would be the Suffering Servant, doesn't mean that he isn't the Suffering Servant.
They didn't believe it, because there was no such teaching floating around yet. Christianity had not yet been invented.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Not really. You have to really beat the Tanakh to death to get anything resembling the trinity, and you certainly have to read into the text things that are not there at face value in order to get the sort of Satan that Christians believe in.

Even without the Bible, people know that evil is real. If there is good, there is evil, in the spiritual sense.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
14. Incredibly, he comes back to life and is exalted above all rulers (53:10-12; 52:13-15).
15. The Servant is sinless. (53:9).
You really know how to misread verses. The servant isn't sinless and doesn't come back to life, except the normal resurrection at the end of time.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
You have all sorts of ideas that are just not logical. To start with, God does not need a virgin birth to be God. Second, God is not a man.

And to reiterate, you can have a Davidic line or the virgin birth, but you cannot have both.

Jesus was equally God and equally man. If Jesus didn't suffer as a man, then redemption wouldn't have the meaning that it had.
 
Top