• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    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!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

Crossbreed said:
Paul (who wrote the book of Romans quoted above) was not only an apostle, he was a degreed Pharisee.* He necessarily considered the Old Testament when he wrote his books.

*According to some sources, that made him a rabbi, too.
Click to expand...
This has no bearing on what I said earlier.

Judaism does not have a concept of Original Sin. A quick search shows that it's explicitly and unambiguously rejected.

Here's an example from "My Jewish Learning at "www.myjewishlearning.com"

"Everyone has heard that Christians believe in Original Sin, but Jews do not."
and
"Judaism teaches that human beings are not basically sinful. We come into the world neither carrying the burden of sin committed by our ancestors nor tainted by it."
 
Last edited:
Hypnalis said:
This has no bearing on what I said earlier.
Click to expand...
It does have bearing. Saul of Tarsus sat under Rabbi Gamaliel. And he did not throw out the Old Testament* when he embraced Yeshua as Messiah (nor was he required to).

The Nazarene sect of the Jews also found Original Sin to be compatible.

You must have been reading from a different sect.

*The New Testament had not even been written yet.
 
Last edited:
I understand and accept that you believe in Original Sin. Which is fine by me.
But there's no evidence for it coming from any other source than early "post New Testament" Christians.

Here's a quote about the Old Testament from wikipedia:"

"The Old Testament (OT) is the first division of the Christian biblical canon, which is based primarily upon the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, a collection of ancient religious Hebrew and occasionally Aramaic writings by the Israelites"

The old tests Saul had access to were the same as modern Judaism uses today are based on.

The modern inheritors of the original early text that the OT is based on (modern Judaism), state that it doesn't say that Original Sin is a thing.

It follows that there's no basis for a claim that Saul got the idea from the Old Testament (which we can read) or any precursor (i.e. the Tanakh), because the best information we have says it's not in their version either.

To make your point, you'll need to provide some tangible evidence.
 
I don't know if this counts.
The inclusion of
  • Yom Kippur and
  • many of the Levitical offerings
in the Jewish calendar evinces an expected predisposition toward sin.

Those are for when you sin, not if you sin...

That "predisposition" is what Christians & Messianic Jews call Original Sin.
 
Last edited:
@Crossbreed

There's a lot of material about modern Judaism on the web. It's a little different to Christian approaches of course, but it seems to be well documented, well explained, internally consistent, and reasonable.

As quoted above:
"Judaism teaches that human beings are not basically sinful."

You seem to be looking to turn "capable of sinning", into innately predisposed to sin.

I'm 99% sure you'll find statements to the contrary on the web, but you're on your own there.

You need to provide the evidence.
 
Hypnalis said:
You seem to be looking to turn "capable of sinning", into innately predisposed to sin.
Click to expand...
Has there ever been a time where Sin or Guilt offerings or the Yom Kippur call to repentance was called off because people successfully got through some specified time period without sinning...?

Shouldn't those be contingent rites rather than regularly scheduled ones?
 
Crossbreed said:
Paul (who wrote the book of Romans quoted above) was not only an apostle, he was a degreed Pharisee.* He necessarily considered the Old Testament when he wrote his books.

*According to some sources, that made him a rabbi, too.
Click to expand...

I consider Paul to be a self-appointed apostle.
 
Saul of Tarsus did not have access to the texts Jews have today. The Mishna was not completed until the 2nd century CE and the Gamora unti the 6th century. Together these are considered to be the Talmud. Then there was the Midrash which continued to be added to untill the 14th century.

Judaism accepts that much of the Torah is difficult to understand and is ameanable to different interpretations. Talmud and Midrash are different collections of scholars explaining what they thought it all meant. You are free to interpret as you wish, hence we have Ultraorthodox, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstruction, Renewal, and Humanist varieties.

Saul of Tarsus was also a salesman. He understood well that a lot of Judaism was not going to be paletable to the Greeks and Romans. He tweaked Judaic teachings as a marketing ploy. For example, if you insisted on circumcision, there'd be very few conversions among the male gentile population. So, he interpreted it as being optional. He wanted to change Judaism from being God's chosen people to an evangelical belief system that would spread. He succeeded wildly.
 
Crossbreed said:
I don't know if this counts.
The inclusion of
  • Yom Kippur and
  • many of the Levitical offerings
in the Jewish calendar evinces an expected predisposition toward sin.

Those are for when you sin, not if you sin...

That "predisposition" is what Christians & Messianic Jews call Original Sin.
Click to expand...
Jews don't have the concept of original sin, where your ancestor did something wrong, but you have to pay the price in perpetuity. Jews can't even agree on whether heaven and hell exist. The Torah is really vague on that.
 
Crossbreed said:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3:15-16&version=NKJV
Click to expand...
Were disciples called "brother" as well, or only the Apostles?

To me it's like this:

Peter being one of the 12 Apostles was like a member of The Beatles; like George Harrison. Later, George Harrison was in The Traveling Wilburys with among others, Jeff Lynne. George Harrison very well may have considered Jeff Lynne a "brother". But Jeff Lynne never was a Beatle. If Jeff Lynne would have gone around on the side saying he was a Beatle, that would have similarity to the Paul as Apostle idea. Unless there is an unequivocal and absolutely clear statement from one of the original 12 that they regarded Paul as an Apostle.
 
Last edited:
Magna said:
Were disciples called "brother" as well, or only the Apostles?
Click to expand...
In context, it shows Peter's endorsement (and is grounds for the inclusion of Paul's epistles, including his claim to apostleship).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom