28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.
This specifically refutes any notion of transferred sin.
I don’t know if it refutes transferred sin. It doesn’t say that. It says people won’t be punished for other’s sin, not that “sin nature” (whatever that is) cannot be transferred (however that may work). The Torah in effect, corrects itself which renders inerrancy of the entire text impossible.
Exodus 20:5: "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me
Ezekiel 18:20: The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be their own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be their own. [see 1-19 as well]
The whole point of the Garden is not that Adam sinned, but that he refused to accept the responsibility. It was not his fault! And Original sin does precisely that - if the sin is inbuilt then it’s not our fault!
We have to be responsible for our own actions. Forgiveness is meaningless if it wasn’t our responsibility in the first place.
Your last statement is another way to say that God: 1) since the Big Bang made a world that is appropriate in case humans at the Neolithic sin, i.e.: submitted to decay and the evolutionary mechanisms of death and life, and 2) at the Neolithic made the humans capable of overpowering decay, death, and concupiscence, i.e.: in a state of original grace without the effects of sin.
Before the arrival of the first human sin, humans were not affected by the decay in the world, and thus, in the perspective of eternal life, this decay did not matter at all: the world was equivalent to a world without decay (the death of animals was a natural process among others, as it was their birth). By contrast, as soon as sin arrived humans started perceiving the world as if there was decay since the Big Bang.
Accordingly, one can as well state, as you do, that “the decay was inflicted from one moment of infection and reached back to the first moment of all things”.
So what? Most, if not all, of it was written by Jews, … not Christians.
Howard Schwartz. Tree of souls: the mythology of Judaism (Oxford, 2004), Book Nine, #572, Page 447.
“Others say it was the serpent himself who seduced Eve, for after he saw Adam and Eve coupling, the serpent conceived a passion for her. He even imagined killing Adam and marrying Eve. So he came to Eve when she was alone and possessed her and infused her with lust. That is how the serpent fathered Cain, who was later to slay his own brother. And that is how Eve was infected with his impurity. As a result, all of Israel was impure from that time until the Torah was given on Mount Sinai. Only then did Israel’s impurity cease.”
Schwartz cites a number of sources, the most relevant of which are in the Babylonian Talmud [https://www.sefaria.org] and quoted here:
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.
And, so too, we found with regard to the primeval snake who seduced Eve, for he placed his eyes on that which was unfit for him, as he wanted to marry Eve. Consequently, that which he desired was not given to him, and that which was in his possession was taken from him. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I initially said that the snake will be king over every domesticated animal and non-domesticated animal, but now he is cursed more than all the domesticated animals and all the non-domesticated animals of the field, as it is stated: “And the Lord God said unto the serpent: Because you have done this, you are cursed from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:14).
The baraita explains the elements of this curse. I said that the snake will walk upright, but now he shall go on his belly; I said that his food will be the same as the food eaten by a person, but now he shall eat dust. The snake said: I will kill Adam and marry Eve, but now: “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed” (Genesis 3:15).
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. Therefore, Yael was repulsed by the contamination that she allowed into her body, and she did not benefit from relations with Sisera.
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.
“ Zohama ”: Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature:
זוֹהֲמָא , זוֹהֲמָה f. (זהם) 1) froth; filth, decayed matter, evil smell. Pes. 42ᵇ
שואבת את הז׳ absorbs the froth of boiling meat. Ter. X, 1 ליטול את הז׳ to carry off foul matter; Y. Ab. Zar. III, 41ᶜ top את שהוא ליטול את הז׳ a substance which is used for &c.—Ber. 53ᵃ שמן … את הז׳; Y. ib. VI, 10ᵈ שמן לז׳ oil used for perfuming the hands after the meal, v. זָהַם. —2) moral impurity, obscenity, voluptuousness. Yalk. Lev. 525 דבר של ז׳ (ed. Lemb. זומא), v. זִיטְמָא. Yeb. 103ᵇ
שדי בה ז׳ he infected her with sensuality. Ib., a. e. הטיל בה ז׳ the serpent infected her (Eve, i.e. the human race) with lasciviousness. Ib. פסקה זוֹהֲמָתָן their sensual passions ceased (were checked through the influence of religion); a. fr. —3) ז׳ דשמשא the sultry air produced by the passage of the sunrays through a cloudy atmosphere. Yoma 28ᵇ ז׳ דש׳ וכ׳ (Ar. a. Ms. L. זִיהָא, Ms. O. זוֹהֲרָא, v. Rabb. D. S. a. l. note) the sultry heat is more intense than that of direct sunlight. [Sabb. 123ᵃ ז׳ ליסטרון, v. זוֹמְלִיסְטְרוֹן.]
Antisemitism has immersed itself in Christian thinking very deeply. The New Testament was largely written by Jews as well. All the NT writers, Jesus and the early Church used/appealed to the OT extensively as well.
Most of us spell “canon” with one “n” in the middle.
And you’re the only Christian I’ve ever encountered who refers to any of that “sacred word” as a rant.
So there was Jewish Scripture before Christian Scripture. How fascinating! And so very interesting that using them doesn’t becessarily include identical interpretation or translation.
So what? That explains his sinless conception and that of Jews since the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai, but it does not–in common and historical Judaism–explain how the very Jewish belief in “ancestral/original sin” originated among early Christians.
Of course there isn’t … now, but once upon a time–before the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai–there was “ancestral sin”… inherited from one’s ancestors. But as my citations from the Torah show, what was removed from Jews at Sinai, was not removed from non-Jews unless and until conversion to Judaism.
Moreover, do you think another’s righteousness (i.e. merit) can be “imputed” to a person, but another’s sin can’t be inherited or imputed to someone else.
Another “so what?” Who was he speaking to? Jews or non-Jews.
LOL! Because the Law given to Jews at Mt. Sinai was and is not except as decided–at various times and places–by Christians.
He spoke to anyone who believes in God. Whether the audience at the time was Jewish or not is beside the point. Christianity accepts the teachings of Christ. He said you could choose not to sin. Therefore there is no such thing as Original or Ancestral sin. Reformation be damned.
There is nothing about Original Sin in the Decalogue.
The principles of (Christian) Love embrace the spirit of the Decalogue without having to rely on legalism to define it further.
I get the impression that you are just trying to be awkward and controversial.
Go back to my previous message and ignore my quotations from Jewish sources again.
What point? The one you missed and are continuing to miss?
What a relief! I was afraid that I was going to have to accept Richard’s.
He’s told me no such thing. When did he tell you that? Nevermind … that’s not really useful to me.
Which heretic are you quoting?
There’s nothing about the Trinity or legalism or Christian love toward heathens in the Decalogue either. Moreover, Jews like to point out that the Decalogue is not the only requirement; there are 618 mitzvoth in total, scattered throughout the Tanakh.
Any awkwardness I manifest comes naturally; and my controversiality arises by accident or with intent. Where does yours come from?
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
15… For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
In my view, you are absolutely right when you state:
But by acknowledging “the saving grace of Jesus on the cross”, you can’t help acknowledging that there was a historical first sin and a “first sinner” after all!
If you further assume that “Adam” in Genesis 3 is nothing other that the name for this “first sinner”, then, it looks like you are believing in a historical first sinner, i.e. “a literal Adam”, without you “forcing yourself” to anything.