Forsaken the Foreskin

[Desert Snake]

Actually the concept of "original sin" has been a mainstay with both Protestant and Catholic denominations. The Catholic Church, for example, eventually made infant baptism more their norm because of the fear of children dying prior to baptism as this concern had reached panic proportions during one of the early plagues.

Jews by and large do not believe in "original sin" as defined by most Christian denominations, and for what we believe are some very good reasons. If you disagree with how we look at it, that's OK.

This is irrelevant to what I was saying, namely that the concept is there, in Scripture, whether one determines or uses argumentation to not belief the concept, there is an 'argument' for it.

No idea what any of that is supposed to mean, it's wildly off-topic, I'm surprised, I thought you were cool with real discussion.
I'm done having a 'fake' argument with you, won't be discussing anything with you from now on.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Unless Jesus is a complete fabrication, he would be insistent upon any Jew being appropriately observant. What Paul might have thought is entirely irrelevant.

Christians believe that Christ came to fulfill the Law and institute a new Covenant that extends to the entire human race. But I'm sure you already knew that.

 

[metis]

Applied to all? Could you elaborate the difference(s) to the best of your ability?

-- Or Jayhawker

IOW, just because one family was cursed by God doesn't mean that all families are cursed by God.

But let me point out the lack of logic with that theological concept, namely are we to execute you because your grandfather murdered someone? How can humans be considered borne in sin if we're just a bit "lower than the angels"? If a child dies before being baptized, is this child condemned to burn in hell, since "the wages of sin is death"? Is this what you believe?

 

[metis]

This is irrelevant to what I was saying, namely that the concept is there, in Scripture, whether one determines or uses argumentation to not belief the concept, there is an 'argument' for it.

If you check back you'll see that what I stated is that "original sin" is a concept that we Jews generally do not accept, which doesn't mean nor imply that you can't accept it.

No idea what any of that is supposed to mean, it's wildly off-topic, I'm surprised, I thought you were cool with real discussion.
I'm done having a 'fake' argument with you, won't be discussing anything with you from now on.

I have no idea what you mean by "fake argument", and I have not in any way insulted you or stated that you have to agree with me.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you check back you'll see that what I stated is that "original sin" is a concept that we Jews generally do not accept, which doesn't mean nor imply that you can't accept it.



I have no idea what you mean by "fake argument", and I have not in any way insulted you or stated that you have to agree with me.

First off, I never said I believe in 'original sin' concept, secondly, bringing up some obscure (to me) instances of acting towards baptism because of original sin is not arguing the actual Scripture relating to it's adherence/belief.
I have the same 'issues' when debating the trinity, it is a concept that, ultimately, one will face when reading Scripture, regardless of whether you 'believe in it or not.

 

[Sleeppy]

IOW, just because one family was cursed by God doesn't mean that all families are cursed by God.

But let me point out the lack of logic with that theological concept, namely are we to execute you because your grandfather murdered someone? How can humans be considered borne in sin if we're just a bit "lower than the angels"? If a child dies before being baptized, is this child condemned to burn in hell, since "the wages of sin is death"? Is this what you believe?

But it's not just one family. There are numerous times where God says He curses generations, upon generations after the one who sins. If we look at even the first man, Adam-- the entire human race was cursed, along with the ground. Women are naturally supposed to have labor pains, etc. If we look at Egypt, we know that every firstborn in Egypt was reputedly killed because of Pharaoh's actions-- yet he is one person. If we look at Numbers 31, we see that God reputedly tells the Israelites to slay women and infants.. What is the real difference?

I believe everyone is baptised, even beginning with Adam; God breathed His own Spirit into mankind. I also believe heaven and hell are accessible on Earth. There are infants who are baptised, and who are still being raped and killed. But, I also do not believe in free will, and am incapable of knowingly blaspheming God for any reason.

 

[metis]

First off, I never said I believe in 'original sin' concept, secondly, bringing up some obscure (to me) instances of acting towards baptism because of original sin is not arguing the actual Scripture relating to it's adherence/belief.
I have the same 'issues' when debating the trinity, it is a concept that, ultimately, one will face when reading Scripture, regardless of whether you 'believe in it or not.

OK, I think I now better understand where you're coming from, and I do apologize as I did think you were defending the traditional Christian view of "original sin", which I personally disagree with. OTOH, I certainly have no problem with you disagreeing with me on this.

The words "original sin" are not found in scripture, but are an interpretation mostly found in Christianity, so maybe this is where our disconnect originated? It was based on an interpretation by the church patriarch Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, during the 2nd century.

 

[Desert Snake]

OK, I think I now better understand where you're coming from, and I do apologize as I did think you were defending the traditional Christian view of "original sin", which I personally disagree with. OTOH, I certainly have no problem with you disagreeing with me on this.

The words "original sin" are not found in scripture, but are an interpretation mostly found in Christianity, so maybe this is where our disconnect originated? It was based on an interpretation by the church patriarch Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, during the 2nd century.

In a 'generic' sense, no, I don't subscribe to the concept. But, the argument isn't 'illogical' either, it's sort of a possible justification imo.

 

[metis]

But it's not just one family. There are numerous times where God says He curses generations, upon generations after the one who sins.

Yes, there are many times whereas scripture says God cursed whomever-- no doubt.

If we look at even the first man, Adam-- the entire human race was cursed, along with the ground. Women are naturally supposed to have labor pains, etc. If we look at Egypt, we know that every firstborn in Egypt was reputedly killed because of Pharaoh's actions-- yet he is one person. If we look at Numbers 31, we see that God reputedly tells the Israelites to slay women and infants.. What is the real difference?

That depends on whether one is a literalist, and I'm very far from being one. Often there are, I believe, overstatements found within scripture, such as Paul saying to obey all authority as all authority comes from God (would either of us do as such if we had lived in NAZI Germany or in Marxist and officially atheistic Albania?). Also, I see "the Fall" narrative more as allegory than literal history. The point is that I in no way can picture God condemning an innocent baby.

I believe everyone is baptised, even beginning with Adam... But, I also do not believe in free will....

I do not agree with either of these. Baptism, which is a theological extension of the mikvah that started out as a priestly rite, doesn't appear in any of the early narratives, and if we don't have free will, why are we even having this conversation supposedly exchanging ideas? Is it all just a facade? If I rob a bank, did God program me to do that?

 

[Desert Snake]

I do not agree with either of these. Baptism, which is a theological extension of the mikvah that started out as a priestly rite, doesn't appear in any of the early narratives, and if we don't have free will, why are we even having this conversation supposedly exchanging ideas? Is it all just a facade? If I rob a bank, did God program me to do that?

I agree. Baptism isn't 'necessary'.
&
true. We have free will.

 

[metis]

In a 'generic' sense, no, I don't subscribe to the concept. But, the argument isn't 'illogical' either, it's sort of a possible justification imo.

I won't deny the possibility, but I still believe that it's illogical to me, largely because how can a new-born child be guilty of sin? Which sin? Sin is an action, so which action did this child take to deserve condemnation? [these are rhetorical questions]

There's a rule of thumb in Judaism, namely that if an interpretation seemingly defies reason, go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. Fortunately, there are other interpretations that make more sense to us, and this is bolstered by the idea that God condemns "sin", the definition of which is "to miss the mark"-- iow that we have to do something that's misses the mark, and a new-born doesn't qualify, imo.

 

[metis]

I agree. Baptism isn't 'necessary'.
&
true. We have free will.

Since we agree, we must be right.

 

[Desert Snake]

Since we agree, we must be right.

I think the fact, as you brought up, of no early mention of baptism, proves us correct. I didn't even know that fact before you brought it up, didn't really think about it. My reasons are more about 'physical=/=spiritual type reasoning, but that only bolsters the argument.

Free will, yes, that's a given, I don't think any aspect of Abrahamic religious belief is kosher without freewill. Wouldn't work.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Unless Jesus is a complete fabrication, he would be insistent upon any Jew being appropriately observant. What Paul might have thought is entirely irrelevant.

To go along with what you're saying, if Jesus used pick-and-choose methodology in regards to the Law, that would make him a "false prophet" if he told others to ignore any of the Law-- and circumcision is and was definitely part of that Law.

But unless you're like CMike, believing everything is perfect from God-- wouldn't 75% of the Jews be in the same boat as the false prophets?

That is not in any way a coherent response to the preceding comments.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, there are many times whereas scripture says God cursed whomever-- no doubt.



That depends on whether one is a literalist, and I'm very far from being one. Often there are, I believe, overstatements found within scripture, such as Paul saying to obey all authority as all authority comes from God (would either of us do as such if we had lived in NAZI Germany or in Marxist and officially atheistic Albania?). Also, I see "the Fall" narrative more as allegory than literal history. The point is that I in no way can picture God condemning an innocent baby.



I do not agree with either of these. Baptism, which is a theological extension of the mikvah that started out as a priestly rite, doesn't appear in any of the early narratives, and if we don't have free will, why are we even having this conversation supposedly exchanging ideas? Is it all just a facade? If I rob a bank, did God program me to do that?

It's not very helpful to be a literalist- I agree. But I don't doubt these things because the authors were sometimes/oftentimes grandiose. If someone is claiming that they murdered women and children, I am inclined to believe they either did, or would murder women and children. God allowed it; not only did He allow it, but His will prevails. Have we learned that killing women and babies is evil? No one is spared from evil.


Isaiah 24

Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the creditor, so with the debtor.

The earth shall be utterly emptied, and clean despoiled; for the LORD hath spoken this word.

The earth fainteth and fadeth away, the world faileth and fadeth away, the lofty people of the earth do fail.

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, violated the statute, broken the age-during covenant.

Therefore hath a curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are found guilty; therefore the inhabitants of the earth waste away, and men are left few.

We can't go on thinking everything will be fine, and the Messiah will come show us the way. The sons of men are sons of wisdom, and have known things their fathers taught. The Messiah should be everyone taking their anointing of God's Spirit. Why mention Elijah specifically returning, if everyone is raised again? Elijah's spirit anointed Elisha first-- I would expect Elisha as well. But I would also expect that Elijah's spirit, specifically the reconciler of fathers and sons, should rest on any and everyone.

Ezekiel 36 seems somewhat appropriate after Isaiah's prophesy.

And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.

And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep Mine ordinances, and do them.

And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God.

--

Thus saith the Lord GOD: In the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be builded.


And they shall say: This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are fortified and inhabited.

We know that this prophesy is partially becoming more and more accurate. Israel isn't the same size as before, obviously. But it is not completely desolate, or devoid of righteousness. Maybe not the Garden of Eden for everyone yet.

Paul was a clever leader, even if his autobiographies aren't completely accurate. To the other questions: Yes this is all a facade; there is one God. We call ourselves gods whenever we claim anything. We are allowed to blaspheme, to create idols, and to sin. To love God with all one's heart, soul, and mind- you would need to know that you are God's, and not the other way around. We have no ownership, and God fully proves that with fear/uncertainty and death. Men don't invent righteousness, God enables righteousness- or desolation. Somehow, by His grace we are able to experience His will, with and against ignorance, and be like children. As far as any telescope can see- we are like the only begotten of God.

 

[Sleeppy]

That is not in any way a coherent response to the preceding comments.

Coherence loses itself in interpretation. If Job says the messengers of God are accused of folly; imagine you and I. CMike (correct me, if I'm wrong) believes 75% of Jews are practicing a different belief than Judaism. Why? He doesn't believe you are completely Torah observant Jews. You are in the same boat as the false prophets- or the foolish messengers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Coherence loses itself ...

Coherence does not "lose itself."

 

[Sleeppy]

Coherence does not "lose itself."

You're right; it required you. In the same way you read Torah, and still require prophets and Rabbis. We could say you and the Rabbis lose, and attempt to rediscover, Moses' coherence. Or we could simply say coherence loses itself when others attempt interpretation. Interpretation begins from ignorance.

 

[Robert.Evans]

In 4:24-4:26 God was about to kill Moses because he did not perform a circumcision to his son.

How is this just?

The name of Mosheh is not in the Text

 

[Robert.Evans]

24. Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25. So Zipporah took a sharp stone and severed her son's foreskin and cast it to his feet, and she said, "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me." 26. So He released him. Then she said, "A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision."

Yes, the rabbis have other opinions on these verses. Rashi said G-d sought Moses, because Moses had neglected to circumcise his son Eliezer. Because he neglected it, he was to be punished with death. However, Rabbi Jose said Moses did not neglect it, but reasoned: Shall I circumcise him and go forth on the road? It will be dangerous for the child for three days. Shall I circumcise him and wait three days? The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded me, “Go, return to Egypt.” Moses hurried to Egypt intending to circumcise Eliezer upon his return. Moses was threatened with death because first he busied himself with the details of his lodging.

Rashi said that "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me" means You were a cause that my bridegroom would almost be murdered. You are to me the slayer of my bridegroom.

So He released: [I.e.,] the angel [released] him. After this, then Zipporah understood that it was because of the circumcision that the angel had come to slay Moses. She said, “A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision”: My bridegroom would have been murdered because of the delay of the circumcision.

"24. Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25. So Zipporah took a sharp stone and severed her son's foreskin and cast it to his feet, and she said, "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me." 26. So He released him. Then she said, "A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision.""

As 'Mosheh' is not mentioned in that passage, and it is the Pharaohs firstborn that is to be killed, does that not mean that Zipporah is then the wife of Pharaoh? And, either way, who's feet did she cast it at?