The Church says that all salvation is through Christ, but it also acknowledges that God’s covenant with the Jewish people is unbroken.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
Interesting perspective chosen people. However, while it is true that rabbinic judaism teaching does not support “original sin” - the Hebrew scriptures do imply it.
meltzerboy - do you believe there has ever been a jewish rabbi or otherwise who lived their life without sin at all (no lust, not envy, not lapse in judgement, ever?) - do you believe it is even possible? If not, I’m not sure how your belief in evil inclination (described above) differs substantively with “original sin” - both believe that we inevitably sin due to an inherited human condition. The NT merely flushes out the origin of this this inclination (which you appear to also agree with as you believe that adam and even initially did not evidence this inclination (at least until they partook of the forbidden fruit).
Yeah, that’s what we call historical revisionism. Christ has always been seen as God by His followers.
According to post-Christian Jewish understanding which largely developed as a response to Christianity. Please don’t try to superimpose this understanding onto Second Temple Judaism.
And the Jews reinvented their theology to both deny the obvious disease and reject the cure.
Even in ancient times, the blood of animal sacrifice had to be accompanied by prayer, and the Tanakh makes clear (for example in Psalms and Samuel) that seeking atonement for sins by means of prayer and moral behavior, that is, sincere repentance, is the primary means of forgiveness. Animal sacrifice was NEVER required. Forgiveness depends on the choices of the individual and can be achieved by all, not only Jews, as stated in Jonah.
Human nature is not perfect and is susceptible to sin. However, since we are created in the image of G-d, human nature is also susceptible to doing good. The fact we are given free will enables us to make choices for good or evil. Judaism believes that when we are led by our fallible nature toward sin, the remedy is to draw on the aspects of the other side of our nature through prayer and action to seek forgiveness, in keeping with the guidance of Torah mitzvot. This may seem difficult, but, as Moses declares in Deuteronomy, it is not as difficult as it may appear. As I understand it, Christianity (particularly Catholicism) believes that Jesus’ sacrifice absolved Man from original sin but not from subsequent sins. IOW, we are still constrained, as well as elevated, by our human nature, which has the potential by means of free will for both good and bad, are we not? And we still have to confess our sins to G-d via the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Meltzeboy - with respect (and I do have great respect for your posts, both in substance and tone), this is just not correct. While I agree that atonement always required prayer/faith and repentance (as I noted myself in my post above), the entire book of Leviticus is devoted to animal sacrifice showing its central role in terms of atonement within the scriptural (temple and tabernacle) period of judaism.
I agree with this - both your post, and Catholic teaching, acknowledges our inherent sinful nature (that is original sin) - Thus, we need a means of atonement - which before Yeshua was through faith, repentance and sacrifice. In Catholicism and Christianity generally, that salvation plan remains unchanged - we (believers) still sin because our nature remains wounded by original sin (more below), so we seek forgiveness through faith, repentance and sacrifice (the sacrifice being fulfilled in the once and complete sacrifice of Yeshua). Judaism today does not accept that sacrifice and performs no other - as noted in the above reply, focusing now exclusively on prayer, faith, repentance and good deeds (mitzvoth).
Brian, the Hebrew Bible explicitly states that forgiveness for INTENTIONAL sins requires repentance rather than animal sacrifice (for example: Psalms 32:5; 51:16-19). Leviticus and Numbers talk almost exclusively about UNINTENTIONAL sins, with the exception of swearing falsely. Moreover, without restitution to the person harmed by one’s intentional or unintentional sin, animal sacrifice and even prayer are of no avail, since Judaism differentiates between sins directly against G-d and sins against one’s fellow man. If, however, restitution is impossible, prayer will generally suffice.
The quote is from Psalms 51:7 in the Jewish scriptures (and not 51:5). The meaning is that impulses which can cause man to sin are present in him from his inception. It is man’s duty to control and channel them properly (see Ibn Ezra)
I agree there is no divide between Judaism and Christianity with respect to the necessity to repent for one’s sins. However, the nature of the repentance differs in that for Judaism, it requires an individual atonement, whereas for Christianity, in particular Catholicism, the atonement requires, in most cases, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which includes a priest. The Act of Perfect Contrition may only be substituted in emergency situations. This Sacramental mediation with a priest is, I believe, based on an extension of Jesus’ sacrifice for sins since the priest is married to the Church as was Jesus. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this point. The notion of a vicarious atonement in the form of a Savior is not, however, part of Jewish theology.
Meltzerboy - thanks for the reply. However, the Talmud makes it clear that, in fact, the atonement of the high priest at yom kippur can cover both intentional and unintentional sins if combined with repentance. It does not, nor does Torah, teach that intentional sins are forgiven without sacrifice. All sins require sacrifice and repentance (its not either or, for any type of sin, but both).
Thanks - it, yes, 51:7 in most jewish translations (e.g. Tanakh), or 51:5 in many others (e.g., RSV) - but in any event, as to the verse itself (however numbered and in whichever translation), the meaning you suggest (consistent with Melttzerboy’s interpretation as well) I suggest is quite similar to original sin - what is original sin? a disorder we inherited from adam and eve which causes us to have the propensity to sin.
Meltzerboy - That is a nice summary of a distinction between repentance. I think most importantly, what is shared is the need for repentance and confession. Yes, by definition, judaism would not agree with sacramental confession through a priest (which is confession to God through the sacrament) because it does not accept that Jesus was the messiah or a priest in the order of Melchezedk. You are generally correct about perfect contrition - it is effective, but outside of the normative means of confession/reconcilliaton but that is because we believe Jesus gave the apostles (and by extension/succession, the priest hood) the duty and authority to hear confessions and forgive sins through Jesus/Yeshua.
These verses are generally interpreted by Jewish scholars not in reference to the Messiah, but to Israel, G-d’s suffering servant. They must be taken in the context of Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 54, in which the subject of Israel is specified, transformed from downtrodden to joyful since the servant will not be weakened or broken, as Isaiah 42 also indicates. You’re right, however, that much has been written about these verses, presenting different perspectives, contexts, as well as translations of key words, such as “pierced.”
Thanks - interestingly - I see this differently. The scriptures no where suggest there will be two messiah’s (or anointed) - but rather it speaks of one. It is the Talmud discussion of two messiahs which one might say struggled against the implication o the scriptures to explain the suffering servant and kingly roles and speculated about 2 messiah. The Christian idea of a single messiah who comes twice end fulfills both roles is actually are more natural resolution of the issue in accordance with scripture. That said - i agree its a big topic - just like Isaiah 53.
