Blood is not necessary for atonement

[Tumah]

In fact the Torah never offers a sacrifice at all for greater sins such as murder or adultery. Why would God demand blood to atone for small sins like being ritually unclean or whatever but freely forgive greater sins no problem?

There's a false premise here (surprise!). The Torah doesn't provide sacrifices for intentional sins (beside a small handful). Unintentional sins do come with sacrifices, with the exception of murder which has exile - demonstrating a sacrifice isn't enough. An unintentional adulterer/ess brings a sin offering.

There are no sins that are freely forgiven. That type of thinking was exactly what Jeremiah was complaining about in chapter 7.

Ezekiel 33:12 (KJV)
12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.

This verse is part of a passage explaining that the righteous can't rely on their early righteousness to later turn from righteousness.

The answer is quite simple actually. Jesus is the atonement not just for future sins but for all those sins that came before. The blood of bulls and goats? Only atoned for minor infractions. But Jesus atones for true sins. This is why David for example was forgiven without a sacrifice but only a "broken and contrite heart".

Just something for you to consider. God is not inconsistent. He wouldn't want us to kill animals for small sins and then just easily forgive great sins. He must have His own sacrifice for the great sins.

And now that I've explained how your initial presumption is wrong - and that animals are sacrificed for sins of all types, it's no longer necessary to consider the perverse possibility that G-d would rely on human sacrifice to save humanity.

And once we've reached that point, we can realize that all sins require remorse and David was only expressing what was known to all: that the sacrifice isn't the thing that provides the atonement, it only completes the process.

This is foreshadowed in Abraham and Isaac. What does Abraham say? "My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" This was prophecy and Abraham said this because he was a prophet. (Psalm 105:9-15)

The Lamb God provided Abraham that day was only a foreshadow or typology of the true Lamb of God which is the Messiah Jesus Christ.

You're right about Abraham prophetically proclaiming that G-d would provide himself the sacrifice -- but it was in reference to the ram that he ended up bringing in place of his son. That's what actually happened.

So, in conclusion all the times you see the people forgiven without the shedding of blood; it is because God is looking forward to the time when Jesus would atone for all the sins of mankind from Adam to now and indeed the future.


Isaiah 43:25 is more proof because God claims he will forgive us for His own sake. Not for the sake of bulls and goats! But because He will atone in His own way and in His own time. This is what God has done for us.

Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

In conclusion, we can see that the entire Christian concept is based off of ignorance of the actual requirements (as already shown in the OP). Without the NT to reinterpret the Tanach and force ignorance on on its adherents, it would be perfectly clear and this is why Christians always have to turn to the NT's interpretation of individual passages, instead of relying on the internal consistency of the Tanach itself.

 

[74x12]

There's a false premise here (surprise!). The Torah doesn't provide sacrifices for intentional sins (beside a small handful). Unintentional sins do come with sacrifices, with the exception of murder which has exile - demonstrating a sacrifice isn't enough. An unintentional adulterer/ess brings a sin offering.

That's neither here nor there. My point is that it provides no sacrifice for greater intentional sins.

There are no sins that are freely forgiven. That type of thinking was exactly what Jeremiah was complaining about in chapter 7.

So how do you pay for sins? The chastening of the Lord comes on those He forgives; but that is not to atone for the sin. But to punish as a father punishes his sons. (Proverbs 3:11-12)

This verse is part of a passage explaining that the righteous can't rely on their early righteousness to later turn from righteousness.

And it also says the wicked can turn from their wickedness and be forgiven.

And now that I've explained how your initial presumption is wrong - and that animals are sacrificed for sins of all types, it's no longer necessary to consider the perverse possibility that G-d would rely on human sacrifice to save humanity.

You destroyed a strawman.

And once we've reached that point, we can realize that all sins require remorse and David was only expressing what was known to all: that the sacrifice isn't the thing that provides the atonement, it only completes the process.

Of course they require remorse. In the new Testament also they require remorse.

You're right about Abraham prophetically proclaiming that G-d would provide himself the sacrifice -- but it was in reference to the ram that he ended up bringing in place of his son. That's what actually happened.

The ram is symbolic of the Messiah. The ram is not God's true sacrifice. Notice God asks for his "only son" Isaac. Even though he had a son before which was Ishmael. God makes it clear that He's asking for his "only son" because that would be the sacrifice God Himself provides. God's only begotten Son. There is symbolism within symbolism here. It's quite deep.

In conclusion, we can see that the entire Christian concept is based off of ignorance of the actual requirements (as already shown in the OP). Without the NT to reinterpret the Tanach and force ignorance on on its adherents, it would be perfectly clear and this is why Christians always have to turn to the NT's interpretation of individual passages, instead of relying on the internal consistency of the Tanach itself.

There is no forced ignorance. It's just that your rabbis think only they can interpret the scriptures.

But, I could say the same (forced ignorance) of the Talmud.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I don't believe in Original Sin -- that's a Christian idea. I believe that we possess a dual nature: an inclination to good, and an inclination to evil.

Right, ... the yetzer ha-tov and the yetzer ha-ra, no?

The fact that your soul was not at Sinai means that you are not shouldered with a covenant containing 613 laws. It doesn't mean you are second class, or that you won't be in the world to come. It just means that you have a different job in this world than that of the People of Israel. Is there some reason why you would WANT to take on 613 laws? I mean why would you WANT to?

Absolutely none. (a) Because I don't have the self-discipline for it. (b) And because I know a righteous Jew who stood at Sinai and who has offered to stand there for me and any other Gentile who want it..

If you do, you can always come to us and become a Jew.

Thanks, but no thanks. I've never had the calling to do that. But I have had the calling to cover a Jew's back, from time to time, when the poop hit the fan.

 

[Tumah]

That's neither here nor there. My point is that it provides no sacrifice for greater intentional sins.

No sacrifices are provided for minor intentional sins either.

So how do you pay for sins? The chastening of the Lord comes on those He forgives; but that is not to atone for the sin. But to punish as a father punishes his sons. (Proverbs 3:11-12)

I repent.

And it also says the wicked can turn from their wickedness and be forgiven.

Yes, that's right.

You destroyed a strawman.

Doesn't look like it was a strawman.

Of course they require remorse. In the new Testament also they require remorse.

Then that's all there is to it and your focus on sacrifice is misplaced.

The ram is symbolic of the Messiah. The ram is not God's true sacrifice. Notice God asks for his "only son" Isaac. Even though he had a son before which was Ishmael. God makes it clear that He's asking for his "only son" because that would be the sacrifice God Himself provides. God's only begotten Son. There is symbolism within symbolism here. It's quite deep.

No, G-d makes it clear he's speaking about the only son who would inherit him - Isaac. That's the sacrifice on Abraham's part. He was promised that Isaac would inherit him and then G-d seems to tell Abraham to sacrifice that very son.

it's very clear that his only son is a reference to Isaac, because in verse 16, Abraham is rewarded for no withholding Isaac who again is described as "his only son".

There is no forced ignorance. It's just that your rabbis think only they can interpret the scriptures.

But, I could say the same (forced ignorance) of the Talmud.

You could say that same, except you'd be wrong. Unless I mention it, I'm never quoting the Talmud. I simply look up the verse, read the chapter and write that here. I read what the Tanach is saying and derive my understanding from there, instead of imposing my understanding into what's written. That's why your interpretations always look terrible when compared to mine - you're making a picture out of what you read in a different book, so you only take the pieces that fit the picture you want to create. I'm taking all the pieces and putting them together to see what picture they're making.

 

[MJFlores]

The Christian scriptures make the claim that "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." Hebrews 9:22 This is a great part of their reasoning for the necessity of Jesus as the sacrifice for all sins.

I believe Jesus Christ was not a sacrifice for ALL sins.
I believe Jesus Christ did not offer his life for ALL people.

Further, God has decreed about sin and punishment:

Ezekiel 18:20 New Life Version (NLV)
The person who sins will die.
The son will not be punished for the father’s sin.
And the father will not be punished for the son’s sin.
The right and good man will receive good, and the sinful man will suffer for his sin.

Yet it is prophesied that the Christ is to suffer for the sins of many
as these are written:

Isaiah 53:10-12 New International Version (NIV)
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Now how did God reconcile his words in Ezekiel 18:20 with Isaiah 53:10-12?
Again the answer is in the Bible:

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 New International Version (NIV)
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

What is this new creation all about?

Ephesians 5:23 New International Version (NIV)
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

So this is the new creation and this new creation - Christ answered the sins of his body the church.
And as a mater of fact he gave his life not for the world but for his church.

Ephesians 5:25 Good News Translation (GNT)
Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it.

CONCLUSION:

Christ did not give his life for this evil world
Christ did not waste his blood over the sinful nature of mankind.
Nope.
Christ gave up his life for the church he loves which he purchased it with his own blood.
And that church has a name and we can read it from the Bible

 

[3rdAngel]

3rd Angel. The whole purpose of my post was to engage in dialogue over this with Christians. But not every Christian. Please try not to take this as a slam. It is not meant that way. Every person is different. You seem to be a very lovely person. This is simply an explanation for why my replies to you are so rare and so short.

In some cases, the Christian is able to hear and understand and even appreciate the opposing viewpoint of the interlocutor, even if they ultimately reject that viewpoint. That is the sort of Christian with which I seek to engage.

Then there are some Christians who are not able to even hear the opposing viewpoint, much less have an appreciation for it. For them, reading a post has but one purpose, and that is looking for opportunities to post their rebuttals. If they could get away with posting their views without reading the opposing posts, they would (and some of them do this).

I have found that you exist in this latter category, that you cannot entertain ideas outside of your own views. Your sole purpose for being in this forum is to push your own agenda. There is no discourse. The use of the reply button is a mere tool for you to state your own ideas.

That makes it of no value for me to waste my time replying to you. Thus, if I do, on rare occasion, it is usually for something rather obvious, a very short reply, and solely for the sake of other readers.

It's really a shame, because I actually do find your choice of topics very interesting.

Nothing personal but from reading your post this may be more about you than it is me with you pushing your own agenda in regards to christianity. I simply read your OP and wanted to make some comments on it for a discussion. I believe if you were comfortable in what you believe, then you would not feel threatened discussing the scriptures with me. It is a pity really, as I thought this may have been a good topic to discuss. It is ok if you do not feel up to it. I have commented on what I believe and do not believe in regards to your OP in post # 14 linked. Of course different religions may have differing views. No need to stop a discussion because of it IMO. If you have the truth in relation to God's Word you should not feel threatened when someone wants to challenge you on what you believe? Sometimes God can use people to help us understand his word better. Something to think about on your side I guess.

Anyhow all the best

 

[Terry Sampson]

It's not "mistakenly" called the "Old Testament."

Ahhh, just what this thread needed, ... more wood for the fire.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Which explains why you're a Jew. Oh wait, ... you aren't, are you?

None make total sense so not interested in being Jewish. I was a Christian for 28 years though.

 

[pearl]

Anyone familiar with the ancient Israelite bloodless sacrifice of thanksgiving , the toda? https://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/ask-the-rabbi/q-a-sacrifices-in-messianic-times/2018/10/05/

What was the special meal which was able to develop into the Lord's Eucharist?
According to Gese who has little agreement, "Strangely enough, one particular form
of the ritual meal which is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Testament and played prominent part in Judaism at the time of Jesus (according to the Mishnah) has been neglected by scholars; the toda, 'thanksgiving sacrifice'. He references the Psalms
69:51, 40:1-12 and 42, the christological psalms of the Christian Testament.
Gese describes the toda as 'The thanksgiving sacrifice presupposes a particular situation. If a man is saved from death, from fatal illness or from those who seek his life, he celebrates this divine deliverance in a service of thanksgiving which marks an existential new start in his life. In it, he 'confesses' (jd[h] God to be his deliverer by celebrating a thank offering (toda). The toda is not restricted to a bloody sacrifice of flesh but also embraces the unbloody offering of bread; toda is the only form of sacrifce which is concerned with unleavened bread.

"In the coming (Messianic) time, all sacrifices will cease except the toda sacrifice.
All (religious) song will cease too, but the songs of toda will never cease in all eternty" (Gese).
source; as quoted from 'Feast of Faith' Benedict XVI

 

[Iymus]

Intention of Abraham to sacrifice his only begotten son had no future meaning or purpose?

Passover lamb not required for sins not unto death to be mediation between repentant man and God?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yeah, ... because the first Christians were Jews and they told us about it.
The doctrine of Original Sin, that all human beings inherit the blame of Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden, that it is a black spot on their souls, making them imperfect before they are even born, didn't originate with the early church nor was it drawn from Judaism. The theology is proposed hundreds of years later by Augustine.

 

[PruePhillip]

Don't believe that Augustine thing for a minute.
He didn't write the bible - the Catholic Church
is NOT the author of the bible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's not "mistakenly" called the "Old Testament."
The Jewish bible itself speaks of a time when
there will be a new covenant as the people had
no regard for the old one - and they were taken
away into slavery and exile.
The Tanakh is the old covenant - and John the
Baptist was the last of the "Old Testament"
figures.
The Tanakh was fulfilled in Christ - for He became
the lamb slain for the sin of the people. And as
prophesized - the temple and the daily sacrifices
were taken away forever.

The New Covenant is a time when the law will be written on our hearts, IOW we won't need to teach our kids right from wrong -- not true yet. It is a time when ALL shall know God, not just know about him, but know him (IOW no atheists or agnostics) -- not true yet. It is a time when "ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.' "--not true yet. (BTW, notice that it says Jews, and not Gentile Chrisitans.)

IOW the New Covenant has not yet come to pass (contrary to what Christians say). So I shouldn't hear anything from you about the Sinai covenant being "old" or replaced.

The Tanakh does have a few verses about the Messiah (not Jesus), but it is certainly not chock full of them. The Tanakh concerns itself with obedience to the law. That is its message.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Don't believe that Augustine thing for a minute.
He didn't write the bible - the Catholic Church
is the author of the bible.

I didn't say Augustine wrote the Bible. I said that the idea of Original Sin (which is more than mere sinful nature) had its origins with Augustine.

 

[PruePhillip]

I didn't say Augustine wrote the Bible. I said that the idea of Original Sin (which is more than mere sinful nature) had its origins with Augustine.

I meant to write the Catholic church is NOT the author of the bible.
The term "original sin" is not in the bible AFAIK. But suppose this
Augustine coined the term - he didn't invent the concept - our sin
is inherent to us. Repudiating this **** idea of original sin **** has
led to Locke's idea of the "blank slate" - it's one of the foundation
ideas of communism and modern cultural Marxism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I meant to write the Catholic church is NOT the author of the bible.
The term "original sin" is not in the bible AFAIK. But suppose this
Augustine coined the term - he didn't invent the concept - our sin
is inherent to us. Repudiating this **** idea of original sin **** has
led to Locke's idea of the "blank slate" - it's one of the foundation
ideas of communism and modern cultural Marxism.

How about I leave the topic of whether it is in the NT or originated with Augustine between you and fellow Christians.

I'm really only interested in the fact that it is not in the Tanakh.

 

[PruePhillip]

The New Covenant is a time when the law will be written on our hearts, IOW we won't need to teach our kids right from wrong -- not true yet. It is a time when ALL shall know God, not just know about him, but know him (IOW no atheists or agnostics) -- not true yet. It is a time when "ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.' "--not true yet. (BTW, notice that it says Jews, and not Gentile Chrisitans.)

IOW the New Covenant has not yet come to pass (contrary to what Christians say). So I shouldn't hear anything from you about the Sinai covenant being "old" or replaced.

The Tanakh does have a few verses about the Messiah (not Jesus), but it is certainly not chock full of them. The Tanakh concerns itself with obedience to the law. That is its message.

And how can a law be written in your heart? Through love.
No-one is going to love a law, let alone 613 of them. But
in the Gospels we can love the one who came to give His
life for His people. This is the Redeemer mentioned by
Jacob, Lot, David, Isaiah, Moses, Malachi, Daniel etc..
The lowly man of sorrows. The Jews WILL have their
Messiah King, but as Zachariah puts it - they will mourn
for this King is He whom they pierced, the lowly man
who once rode upon a colt.

 

[PruePhillip]

How about I leave the topic of whether it is in the NT or originated with Augustine between you and fellow Christians.

I'm really only interested in the fact that it is not in the Tanakh.

The whole concept of our sinful nature is well addressed in the Tanakh.
It's embedded even in the stories in Genesis. Frankly it's everywhere
as warning, precautionary tales, admonitions etc.. Watch and deal with
your own nature. We have two natures given to us - that which we are
born with and that which we can aspire to through God.

 

[74x12]

No sacrifices are provided for minor intentional sins either.

That is correct; now that I think about it. However, my point is still a valid one. The point is why does God not ask for a sacrifice for intentional sins and yet He forgives them anyway? My explanation: God does have a sacrifice for intentional sins; which is Jesus Christ.

I repent.

Just to repent is not actual payment for the sin.

Psalm 49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever

The redemption of a soul is precious indeed; in God's eyes and yet you don't know the price or the cost of it. In fact you think there is none.

Then that's all there is to it and your focus on sacrifice is misplaced.

You can't explain why God asks sacrifices for unintentional sins but freely forgives intentional ones when people repent. That should raise questions in your mind. My point is there is a missing sacrifice for intentional sins. Which is not missing but to you it is.

Don't tell me leviathan either. Good luck with that one.

No, G-d makes it clear he's speaking about the only son who would inherit him - Isaac. That's the sacrifice on Abraham's part. He was promised that Isaac would inherit him and then G-d seems to tell Abraham to sacrifice that very son.

it's very clear that his only son is a reference to Isaac, because in verse 16, Abraham is rewarded for no withholding Isaac who again is described as "his only son".

Of course the only son is Isaac. That's my point. It foreshadows God's own sacrifice of His only Son. All of Genesis is allegory of other spiritual things.

Besides which Isaac would be the promised seed. It is by Isaac that the Messiah will come into the world. And this is why his "sacrifice" is so symbolic of the Messiah's own.

You could say that same, except you'd be wrong. Unless I mention it, I'm never quoting the Talmud. I simply look up the verse, read the chapter and write that here. I read what the Tanach is saying and derive my understanding from there, instead of imposing my understanding into what's written. That's why your interpretations always look terrible when compared to mine - you're making a picture out of what you read in a different book, so you only take the pieces that fit the picture you want to create. I'm taking all the pieces and putting them together to see what picture they're making.

I didn't say you were quoting Talmud. It's just that you say the new Testament is so wrong. I believe the same way about the Talmud. So your opinion on the new Testament is just that: an opinion.

My interpretations look terrible compared to yours? Not my fault. You need to have your (spiritual) vision checked.

The truth is that only God can show the interpretation. Don't boast in yourself; but in the LORD. Because wisdom belongs to God and to know who it belongs to and who can give it is one of the first points of obtaining more wisdom.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The doctrine of Original Sin, that all human beings inherit the blame of Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden, that it is a black spot on their souls, making them imperfect before they are even born, didn't originate with the early church nor was it drawn from Judaism. The theology is proposed hundreds of years later by Augustine.

Excuse me? LOL! A presumably-devout Jew, who by his own confession, acknowledges that he does not believe in original sin, wants to tell a Christian what it is and where the doctrine of it originated???

I suspect that you claim that the Doctrine of Original Sin originated with Augustine because you have failed to find the specific term "Original Sin" in any earlier text. If so, I'm inclined to believe that you've allowed yourself to be misled by the absence of a clear and unambiguous name for something that you don't believe in. I invite you to reconsider.

• Original sin is not a simple black spot on the soul that can be washed off easily or cut out. It is total depravity, from conception to death unless eliminated or overcome by some means.
• An individual who has original sin has no free will.
• Original sin, a.k.a. ancestral sin, originated with the first humans when they committed their first sin of disloyalty to the Holy One.
• Where did the doctrine originate?
  • Paul of Tarsus, once a Jew in good standing, after his conversion wrote: (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ."
  • "Death? What does death have to do with original/ancestral sin?", you may well ask.
    • (Genesis 3:1-) "Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say: 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?' The woman replied to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree in the middleof the garden that God said: 'You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.' And the serpent said to the woman, 'You are not going to die, but God knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings who know good and bad.' When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate. The the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths."
    • But they didn't die, did they? Or did they? If they didn't die, then what was Paul talking about some 400 years before Augustine? Was he making stuff up? Did he get the notion that death follows ancestral sin from the Gentiles that he proselytized? One thing is for certain, the notion of original/ancestral sin did not originate with Augustine, as you claimed. So, where did Paul get the notion? I say: He got it from the Jewish sages whom he had known in his youth. The basis for my claim is the following:
      • B. Shabbat 145b-146a:
        • Rabbi Yoḥanan then explained to them: Why are gentiles ethically contaminated? It is because they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when the snake came upon Eve, i.e., when it seduced her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai, their contamination ceased, whereas gentiles did not stand at Mount Sinai, and their contamination never ceased. Rav Aḥa, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What about converts? How do you explain the cessation of their moral contamination? Rav Ashi said to him: Even though they themselves were not at Mount Sinai, their guardian angels were present, as it is written: “It is not with you alone that I make this covenant and this oath, but with he that stands here with us today before the Lord our God, and with he that is not here with us today” (Deuteronomy 29:13–14), and this includes converts.
      • B. Yevamot 103b:
        • The Gemara answers: He implants filth in her and contaminates her, as her body accepts his semen. As Rabbi Yoḥanan also said, based on his understanding that the serpent seduced Eve into having sexual relations with him: When the serpent came upon Eve, he infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai their contamination ceased, whereas with regard to gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their contamination never ceased.
      • B. Avodah Zarah 22b:
        • And if you wish, say instead: Even when he finds the wife, he also engages in bestiality with the animal, as the Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, at the time of the sin of her eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination lingers in all human beings. The Gemara asks: If that is so, a Jew should also be suspected of engaging in bestiality. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.
• Bottom Line: Although Augustine put his own stamp on the doctrine of original sin, the heart of the matter did not originate with him, Nor did it originate with the early Jewish or Gentile Christians. It originated with faithful, Torah-observant Jews, for whom standing at Sinai was their cleansing.