Is the concept of Original Sin fair?

[Metatron]

I have some concerns about the fairness of Original Sin and would be interested other forum members opinion on this issue.

One of my concerns deals with the account as presented in Genesis. God tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil otherwise he will die. Later of course, Adam and Eve are seduced by that rascally serpent, God banishes them from Eden, and death is brought into the world, etc. The problem I have with this is that by definition, not having yet partaken of the famous apple, Adam and Eve have no concept of good and evil and indeed the threat of death is meaningless to them since they also would have no understanding of what death is! Adam and Eve are innocents who have no moral compass with which to make the decision. Its like telling a toddler who has never been disciplined not to eat the really neat looking poisoned candy and then walking away and seeing what happens.


Another thing that bugs me is the implied concept of inheritability of sin, i.e. Adam and Eve sin so everyone else to the umpteenth generation is equally culpable and has a one-way ticket punched to the Really Hot Place. Where is the personal responsibility in that? Indeed, where is free will if the punishment is already in place without a decision having been made? I would think that God at least would want to punish you for the sins that YOU have committed.

Thank you for your time.

[Cathar1950]

goat

The concept that it was a 'promotion' is a very Jewish one. One of the Jewish interpretations is that you can not sin without knowledge of something being right or wrong. Therefore, Adam and Eve (Mankind and life) where innocent
because they did not know evil. (Mind you , they were capable of it, just not aware of it).

They were Kids that grew up.
The idea of Jesus dying for our sins the fall and original sin are all Paul's invention to Gentiles.
The suffering servant was either Israel or even the prophet.
Paul had no trouble twisting the LXX for his rantings.
When the writer of John wrote the about the lamb that takes the sins from the world he was using Pauline thinking some 40 years later.

[Easyrider]

[Goat]

I think you mean "no worse than beasts" since beasts never do anything out of malice.

DanZ

The key knowing about doing good. It is the knowledge about good, and evil, that allows man to be able to make choices, and can aspire to become closer to god.

[Goat]

[Easyrider]

[Goat]

[Cathar1950]

[Easyrider]

and yes, .. Yetzer Hah Rah is the evil inclination. That is not original sin. That is countered by 'Yetzer Tov', or the urge to do good. Totally different concept. It seems to me that many Christians think you are born sinful. Judaism believes that a child is born as a blank slate, and the urge to do good can be encouraged.

There's even evidence in the Tanakh of one being sinful from the earliest state of conception, i.e.

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. - Psalm 51:5

As for Rabbi Moses Alschech, I have never known ANY rabbi say that there is only one interpretatin to any passage. Do you have a pointer to the original source where that was written? In any case, I am sure that either the quote is wrong, or taken out of context.

And you're sure of this why?

My quotes on Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53 referring to the Messiah also included Talmudic quotes, which you can look up. In addition, the Jewish concept of the suffering servant being the Messiah (i.e. Messiah ben Joseph) must have come from somewhere in scripture, so if not Isaiah 53 then where? Somewhere down the line you will need to admit that the suffering Messiah in Judaism is not a Christian invention.

I would like to see a source for that.. the original source for the quote that is. Maybe you can tell me, yes??

I've traced it initially back to "Driver & Neubauer, "Isaiah 53 According to Jewish Interpreters" (Oxford 1899). Get that book and I'm sure it will give you an even earlier reference.

Another excellent source of Isaiah 53 and other Talmudic, etc., references to Isaiah 53 and the Messiah is "What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah," by Rabbi Rachmiel Frydland. It should be available at Amazon.com and is an excellent read. It also goes into depth on other Messianic passages and their pertinent rabbinic quotes.

[Goat]

and yes, .. Yetzer Hah Rah is the evil inclination. That is not original sin. That is countered by 'Yetzer Tov', or the urge to do good. Totally different concept. It seems to me that many Christians think you are born sinful. Judaism believes that a child is born as a blank slate, and the urge to do good can be encouraged.

There's even evidence in the Tanakh of one being sinful from the earliest state of conception, i.e.

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. - Psalm 51:5

As for Rabbi Moses Alschech, I have never known ANY rabbi say that there is only one interpretatin to any passage. Do you have a pointer to the original source where that was written? In any case, I am sure that either the quote is wrong, or taken out of context.

And you're sure of this why?

My quotes on Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53 referring to the Messiah also included Talmudic quotes, which you can look up. In addition, the Jewish concept of the suffering servant being the Messiah (i.e. Messiah ben Joseph) must have come from somewhere in scripture, so if not Isaiah 53 then where? Somewhere down the line you will need to admit that the suffering Messiah in Judaism is not a Christian invention.

I would like to see a source for that.. the original source for the quote that is. Maybe you can tell me, yes??

I've traced it initially back to "Driver & Neubauer, "Isaiah 53 According to Jewish Interpreters" (Oxford 1899). Get that book and I'm sure it will give you an even earlier reference.

Another excellent source of Isaiah 53 and other Talmudic, etc., references to Isaiah 53 and the Messiah is "What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah," by Rabbi Rachmiel Frydland.

Oh yes.. the psuedo-jew. I am sorry, but Rachmiel Frydland is not a Jewish Rabbi. He was an ex-jew, and undoubtly had a crisis of faith in the holocaust.

I don't consider his writing a good source.

As for "What the rabbi's know about the Messiah", it was compiled and published after his death. Many of the passages where definitely reinterpreted with Christianity in mind. I can not give this book much credence.

Maybe you can start a thread about Isaiah 53. I don't see what this has to do with original sin?

As for Pslam 51:5, that is just a poetic way of David saying he was feeling bad and depressed. You are reading one line, and not taking the passage as a whole. i
I
Such a declaration is rare in the tanakah (there are a few other places). Of course, the psalmsist, rather than ask for god to 'transfer' the sins, asks for god to 'hide his face from them' and to blot out the sins himself.

This is one person talking about his guilt feelings, and is not projected on all of man.

[Easyrider]

Oh yes.. the psuedo-jew.

I've heard this kind of talk before. Anyone who believes in the real Jewish Messiah, Jesus, is automatically a pseudo-Jew. That's nuts. Well, that must include Jesus the Jew himself then, since he claimed to be the Messiah.

I am sorry, but Rachmiel Frydland is not a Jewish Rabbi. He was an ex-jew, and undoubtly had a crisis of faith in the holocaust.

I don't consider his writing a good source.

Frydland was a graduate of a Talmudic academy and also studied Talmudic literature at Yeshivat Emek Halacha in Warsaw. He had a degree in Semetic Languages, as well as a Masters in Talmudic Hebrew, eventually completing work as a Ph.d. candidate at New York University. Later he served as Professor of Jewish Studies at Tennessee Temple College and also taught various Talmudic courses later on. If you have an objection to what he taught please make your case. Otherwise I'll have to go with the expert and discount your opinion.

As for Pslam 51:5, that is just a poetic way of David saying he was feeling bad and depressed. You are reading one line, and not taking the passage as a whole.

Sorry, I'm not buying that one.

Do you deny there are Talmudic references to Isaiah 53 being Messianic?