Where does the Christian Idea of Original Sin and a Savior Come From?

[MorningSong51]

Here’s the question:

( A side note: Playing on the spelling of ish (man) and isha (woman) the sages noted that the name of God is formed by the conjunction of the letters yud in ish and the he in ishah.) Thus the promise** had stemmed** from Adam & Eve. One more note: the preparation for the red heifer was always done at the Mount of Olives.

King Solomon, who was the wisest of all human beings who ever lived, understood every aspect of God’s creation. Yet he was not able to fathom the secret of the red heifer, and after contemplating it, he declared "I said, ‘I will become wise, but it is far from me’ (Ecc. 7:23).The commandment of the red heifer is one of those ordinances that belong to the category of chok (plural, chukim). These are statutes that God decreed that cannot be understood by human reasoning. Rather, He requires that we perform them on account of our love and fear for Him. Although we can try to delve into the explanation of these laws, and attempt to find some allusion or sense of the ideas conveyed, we know that ultimately their true meaning is beyond our intellectual grasp.

This question has been asked several times but I’m not focusing on this area - 28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed.”

In this verse, we know that the ground had been cursed by the original sin - of Adam and Eve, when God pronounced judgment on both of them and the serpent. How was Noah, as stated in the verse, suppose to bring comfort to the people back then? and to release the curse that was given? see Genesis 3:17 "17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.

 

[fhansen]

Wasn’t the evil inclination (see my other post) already there BEFORE eating the fig? Why was Eve tempted by the snake in the first place and why did Adam also eat the fruit of the forbidden tree? Not an act of sin yet, but a desire. Why should near-perfect human creatures who had everything they wanted desire more: to be godlike? Weren’t they born with the evil inclination, which according to Jewish belief is NOT original sin?

To want to be god-like is not sinful-it’s simply to desire the Ultimate Good-the one thing that humans cannot have or be by nature. Catholicism claims that man was destined to be “divinized”, but on the Creators’ terms. Man on OTOH, wanted more yet, the same thing, but without need for God. From the Catechism:

**398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279
**
Was this an evil, already present? In a way, yes, everything but God is evil in a sense relative to His perfection. This is why the absence of God (hell) is considered evil and this is why even on this earth we know good and evil because here creation is free from God’s will being fully done, fully in control, i.e. mans’ will runs the show. Man simply can’t be God-it doesn’t work-because then there is no God, for all practical purposes.

So the ingredient for the fall was creation itself, combining free will (a good) with a less-than-perfect creation (also good). And, obviously, God deemed this worth it. And God’s will will finally be done, as that creation comes to its senses, like the Prodigal, and returns to the Father. That’s the appropriate way to use our wills. And that’s what we’re here for-to learn how much we need God.

 

[meltzerboy]

The Church’s concept is that via the “Old Covenant”, no real change was effected. The idea is that one must obey all of the Law perfectly if one is to simply be the beings God created us to be. But if we don’t obey the Law continuously and consistently what is that really telling us? Why would we disobey even one jot or tittle-for what possible reason should we have need to atone at all? And the real answer is that man’s sin, and that which keeps him in sin, are the same thing-it’s the very separation from God that occurred originally when man first disobeyed God because that meant God was effectively no longer mans’ God at all. So what good would it do to obey the Law or pray if the real reason for our disobedience is that we’re out of communion with the very thing-God- who can keep us in true obedience to begin with?

The bottom line lesson is that man needs God, first of all, in order to be sinless, not that sinlessness comes from man obeying laws, first of all. And this is why it makes sense for a Redeemer to save us from our sins, to pull us from the pit we’re in-because the Redeemer, in this case, is no less than God Himself.

So the idea of reconciliation, so that God can indwell man as He originally had, is the purpose of the Atonement. The Sacrifice of Jesus sheds more light on our sin-it reveals it to be more offensive, further out of order, more unjust than we may have ever thought-the result of injustice in man: mistrust of, rebellion against, and even hatred of God. The Cross stands as a testimony to this fact-that somethin’s more disordered with man than we like to admit, in order for man to treat perfect truth, innocence, goodness, and love the way he did. And this serves to explain why sin-moral evil-is so rampant in the world. And this also explains why we’re born with basic related injustices/disorders, such as lacking faith in God, let alone love for Him.

Of course Augustine ran with this notion of OS using Romans 5:12 but the concept was already around before he did.

Fhansen, it’s always a pleasure reading your comments, even when I may disagree with some of them. In this case, I disagree with the idea that Man must be perfect since, according to Judaism, it is not expected. Rather, the most important thing for G-d is that Man make a sincere effort to obey as much of the Law as he can and attempt to do better. Traditionally, on the eve of Yom Kippur, we disavow all our promises and oaths in advance, since we know we won’t be able to keep all of them, precisely because we are not perfect. G-d forgives us our imperfections but does expect us to do the best we can the next time. Regarding the notion of Redeemer, Judaism’s view–in keeping with what I just pointed out–is that G-d is already the Redeemer who forgives us. The idea of a G-d who assumes human form and through His suffering, death, and resurrection provides us with vicarious atonement for our sins is thought to be redundant and not part of the Messiah’s mission.

 

[MorningSong51]

Fhansen, it’s always a pleasure reading your comments, even when I may disagree with some of them. In this case, I disagree with the idea that Man must be perfect since, according to Judaism, it is not expected. Rather, the most important thing for G-d is that Man make a sincere effort to obey as much of the Law as he can and attempt to do better. Traditionally, on the eve of Yom Kippur, we disavow all our promises and oaths in advance, since we know we won’t be able to keep all of them, precisely because we are not perfect. G-d forgives us our imperfections but does expect us to do the best we can the next time. Regarding the notion of Redeemer, Judaism’s view–in keeping with what I just pointed out–is that G-d is already the Redeemer who forgives us. The idea of a G-d who assumes human form and through His suffering, death, and resurrection provides us with vicarious atonement for our sins is thought to be redundant and not part of the Messiah’s mission.

Elul -nightfall August 31, 2011, the word “Elul” means “search,” which is appropriate, because this is a time of year when we search our hearts. jewfaq.org/elul.htm

 

[Todd_Easton]

If the need for a Savior did NOT come from the birth of original sin due to the fall of Adam and Eve, is there anything else either from the interpretation of the Scriptures (Hebrew Bible and New Testament) or the writings of the Church Fathers and Catholic theologians which presented the idea that we can only be saved from our sins by means of a Redeemer?

Perhaps the notion for the need for such a Savior came from the fourth Song of the Servant, Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12.

 

[meltzerboy]

Elul -nightfall August 31, 2011, the word “Elul” means “search,” which is appropriate, because this is a time of year when we search our hearts. jewfaq.org/elul.htm

Thanks for the informative link, MorningSong, as well as your other comments and posts. Yes, it is true that Moses prayed to G-d for the benefit of the Jewish people and, in a sense, one can say that is a kind of vicarious atonement. Holy Men (Tzadikim) have a special connection with G-d, as well as being held to a higher standard of conduct, and Moses is regarded as the greatest of the Hebrew prophets. Still, the Holy Man’s prayer must be accompanied by the individual’s repentance and does not take the place of the one-to-one relationship between each person and G-d and between people when one has wronged another. Forgiveness is based on this principle.

 

[MorningSong51]

Thanks for the informative link, MorningSong, as well as your other comments and posts. Yes, it is true that Moses prayed to G-d for the benefit of the Jewish people and, in a sense, one can say that is a kind of vicarious atonement. Holy Men (Tzadikim) have a special connection with G-d, as well as being held to a higher standard of conduct, and Moses is regarded as the greatest of the Hebrew prophets. Still, the Holy Man’s prayer must be accompanied by the individual’s repentance and does not take the place of the one-to-one relationship between each person and G-d and between people when one has wronged another. Forgiveness is based on this principle.

Yes I agree, there are some very good website with Jewish thought - especially on the evil inclinations. You really brought a smile to this face - on your question, Meltzerboy!
From the veiw point of John 6:14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Original sin,however, was not based though on the thought of being forgiven by one’s fellow man (whether it is of a physical, verbal or financial, nature, etc. and whether the act was committed directly to the person’s face or behind his back,Lashon hara) - it was the based upon the thought of man verbally asking God for his forgiveness - I think there are two concepts here. and why? Its in this thought: What caused Adam and Eve to be exiled from the Garden is listed in Genesis, "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

What I understood about Genesis 1, 2 and 3 - is within the thought that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Giving thought toward the fact that in Genesis 1, man was first created to have a spiritual side (as the word of God is first taken in (by the soul) and then exclaimed through the spirit - verbally) and in Genesis 2, God causes man into a deep sleep and creates the human side (flesh) - we are different from all of creation because of these two accounts- man reachs for God from within the depth of his being (spirit) as he seek to find the presents of God from within himself. So in Genesis 3, and during the encounter with the serpent, we are told that the verse says, “of being like God”, so what do these separate verses mean because one tells us image and likeness while the another verse tells “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Again, two totally separate deliveries- image and likeness, and also the verse -“you will be like God knowing good and evil”…same account of the tower of Babel. However, what initiated the entrance to all this (the cause) and that would have been from the original source, the garden - sin entered in and was brought into creation from man. Eve should not have engaged in conversation with the serpent - "The verb prosdhialegomai means “to converse,” in the sense of engaging in repartee or negotiation, i.e., a conversation of equals - but we are not equal with because of the fact God had the serpent “imprisoned” - In Luke 10:18 "He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” and in Isaiah 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” - so if “the serpent” was capable of leading many angels to their destruction he could lead us to ours.

Reading from scripture, the angel Gabriel would not engage in a conversation with Satan over the location of Mose’s body, in Jude 1:9 "But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Even reading from the passage in Ecclesiasticus 2:1 “My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation. 2 Set thy heart aright, and constantly endure, and make not haste in time of trouble. 3 Cleave unto him, and depart not away, that thou mayest be increased at thy last end. 4 Whatsoever is brought upon thee take cheerfully, and be patient when thou art changed to a low estate. 5 For gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity…”

Blessing
Mary

 

[Crumpy]

The explanation of Christ as Savior is given in this rather short encyclopedia explanation:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Salvation

 

[fhansen]

The idea of a G-d who assumes human form and through His suffering, death, and resurrection provides us with vicarious atonement for our sins is thought to be redundant and not part of the Messiah’s mission.

Well, God doesn’t necessarily dance to our tune, fortunately, and there’s nothing inconsistent, IMO, in the Messiah turning out to be God, who is salvation after all, which is the meaning of the name Jesus from my understanding.

Anyway, thank you MB, I’ve appreciated your thoughtfulness and openness in trying to find common ground between our faiths-I’m sure you’ve exercised restraint now and then. My thoughts are more like ponderings and probings, in a way, using Catholic teachings as a guideline, obviously. While I believe that the CC has the clearest and nearest explanation of the truth I also think it can always be explored, understood, and explained better-much better, perhaps-and that in any case all truth is Gods’ truth, and the rest of us are just striving to know it better.

A comment I’d make at this point is that while there are redundancies, one difference in Jesus’ teachings, that you made reference to, is the claim that not only can we be perfect, but that we must be perfect. I think this particular “non-redundancy” is worth discussing. In some Protestant circles, as well as Jewish ones, apparently, perfection is considered unattainable by humans – and imperfection even considered “normal” perhaps.

But maybe imperfection shouldn’t get off so easily; shouldn’t imperfection and normalcy be considered at odds with each other- aren’t they mutually exclusive? Is there something wrong, something basically out of order, with humankind- or not?

One might ask, why is it that man sins? And why wouldn’t God expect and demand that we don’t sin? He didn’t create us to sin-if He did that would mean he created us purposely to oppose His own will. I mean, doesn’t it seem odd, if we sort of stand back and look at it, that we would ever sin, that we would do anything unnatural- or disordered-at all? Dogs don’t sin (I’ll take a liberty here), why should we? In any case, sin isn’t possible unless we’re free, in some manner, to go against God, against our own God-given natures. And such is the paradox of man that, I think, we do this very thing, unreasonable as this and all evil may be. Looked at this way, sin, large or small, is either real, and genuinely disordered, or there is no such thing as sin.

So it seems to be a bit of a cop-out, if I may, when anyone seemingly throws up their hands and decides that man simply cannot be perfect. Because perfection, holiness, righteousness, could be defined as simply being wholly the person God created us to be-no more, no less. Sounds simple enough and yet all sin, according to the Catechism, flows from the original sin of disobedience of God, of our wanting to be God, of not necessarily being satisfied with who we simply are.

The statement can’t be made strongly enough: man must be perfect-and there’s no real reason why a state of perfection should be any easier or harder to maintain in heaven than here on earth, BTW. The only difference is that in heaven we’re in immediate communion with God. And that’s the point. Jesus came to show us how to be perfect. In Him God is united with man. In man we must unite with God. This communion is the key to understanding what Christians call the New Covenant. In a sense we’re throwing away the Law for communion with God, which effectively fulfills the Law ipso facto.

So if Jesus came to show us, for one thing, just how bad sinfulness really is, that the wages of sin really is death-and that He would even lay down His own life if that’s what it took to reveal and prove the ugliness of common, everyday self-righteous sin in man at its extreme-the sin that would cavalierly kill the most beautiful and perfect innocence in the universe, and if that’s what it took to demonstrate the overarching, unconditional love of God in spite of that sin, then I think we may be dealing with a somewhat different sort of animal here.

Jesus placed on history’s landscape a symbol, the cross, that has stood the test of time, serving, in the ordinary sense, as just one more message among many, each testifying to their own version of the truth, but in this case a message attesting to the wrongfulness of man and the righteousness of God, the sinfulness of man and the love of God, and proving it by the fact that He, himself, experienced the pain of suffering and death that results from sin in no less intensity than any of us will. God is actually humble, though He has absolutely no need to be. God loves freely, personally, universally, deeply, unconditionally.

Christianity doesn’t contradict Judaism-it just deepens it, clarifies it, enlightens it, IMO. But we learn this through the person of Jesus, and He’ll always be a stumbling block-He’s just* too* personal, maybe, too specific in who he reveals God to be. After all, He’s just a Jewish carpenter from Nazareth, isn’t he? He’s just you and me, isn’t he? Maybe God should stay a bit more aloof, distant, transcendent, show a little more pride. Then we can pretend to know and obey Him easier, since then we can’t really know Him quite as well anyway.

Sorry, I just really, really like Jesus. There’s just something different about Him. In an often matter-of-factly authoritative way, He puts a face to God-He reveals Him more clearly, defines Him more fully, shows His power and love more directly, bringing Him and His will down to earth in real, tangible, less uncertain form. And the resurrection is the final capstone-the final concrete proof of God’s power and salvific will for man. I think all this was wise and important. I can be wrong-I’m not God. I’m just striving to know Him better, too.

 

[MorningSong51]

Well, God doesn’t necessarily dance to our tune, fortunately, and there’s nothing inconsistent, IMO, in the Messiah turning out to be God, who is salvation after all, which is the meaning of the name Jesus from my understanding.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus:

"This conjunction of statements in the Catechism makes it clear that the Catholic Church sees the dogma “outside of the Church there is no salvation” as the basis for the missionary activity of the Church, because those who are innocently outside the Church but are also seeking to follow the will of God are thus the proper object of the Church’s missionary activity - so as to bring them explicitly the saving truths of the Christian Faith which they are seeking, and by which God desires to effect their salvation through the knowledge of Jesus Christ. "And this is life everlasting that they know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent." (John 17.3), “And there is not salvation in any other. For neither is there any other name under heaven given to men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4.12)

The Catechism explicitly affirms this interpretation in paragraph 161 by insisting upon the necessity of actual faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One Who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:36; 6:40; et al.). "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life `but he who endures to the end,'" (Vatican I, Dei Fillius 3; cf. Matthew 10:22; 24:13 and Hebrews 11:6; Council of Trent Decree on Justification, 8)

The Popes quoted above as stating that outside of the Church there is no salvation did not see this statement as contradicting their other statements that salvation is possible for those who, while not knowing the Church as necessary for salvation and thus not explicitly entering the Church, nevertheless accept whatever grace Christ gives them and thus receive what the Council of Trent called Baptism of Desire.

Pope Pius IX wrote in Quanto conficiamur moerore, 7:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin."

 

[MorningSong51]

Well, God doesn’t necessarily dance to our tune, fortunately, and there’s nothing inconsistent, IMO, in the Messiah turning out to be God, who is

salvation after all, which is the meaning of the name Jesus from my understanding.

Anyway, thank you MB, I’ve appreciated your thoughtfulness and openness in trying to find common ground between our faiths-I’m sure you’ve exercised restraint now and then. My thoughts are more like ponderings and probings, in a way, using Catholic teachings as a guideline, obviously. While I believe that the CC has the clearest and nearest explanation of the truth I also think it can always be explored, understood, and explained better-much better, perhaps-and that in any case all truth is Gods’ truth, and the rest of us are just striving to know it better.

Hi fhansen;

I have to agree totally with your statement. The Catholic church does have a very rich source of knowledge of the truth to salvation throughout the ages. The church provides us with the understanding about the gifts of grace, as this grace moves us closer to God. The best explanation to this, 'The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification: Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself." (CHAPTER THREE GOD’S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE
ARTICLE 2 GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION)

As even better said, “Grace not only assists us in living the Christian life through purification of our hearts, it literally changes our souls by infusing divine life to heal the wounds of sin. Grace is wrought through the work of the Holy Spirit, and grace is what initially moves our hearts to conversion and repentance.”

Yes, there is an extremely rich history that the Church provides us all with - an inheritance of great messengers who have walked before us in the name of Christ and his teachings - who have suffered and battle the great fight over sin. We look to them for help and guidance as we focus on their examples. So there is no quarrels - absolutely none.

However, MB - and I think I understand his question, is asking where does original sin
come from - out of what part of scripture do we see this terminology - what thought was there to this? Again, and in the same breath, where does the thought of the Messiah come from? What part of scripture - where is it mentioned in the old Testament? (Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (?)) Where does it say, that a prophet has to announce the Messiah? Is this out of the book of Samuel - who was a prophet and also the last judge, as his greatest accomplishment was to unite the tribes again, anointed both Saul and David, and also set up courts and heard cases - a great Torah teacher, and was to restore the code of the elder? All of which falls under the 13 principles - Maimonides.

God chose Moses as the one to whom he would speak directly to the Israelites, one would think that some could understand, Moses especially when he said “11:12 Did I conceive all this people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a sucking child,-even with the emotions of Solomon “Give, therefore, thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, … In the same thought could the Exodus and the receiving of the Torah be accomplished without Moses? What about the establishment of the priesthood (that being Aaron)? It wasn’t just enough to leave the Egyptians, the slavery and also the oppression but the thought that the Israelites were “now” to become a united people, going toward the promise land. Now was the future Messiah established at that point? Was the verbiage that was stated “A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you you shall hearken to him. “ the same as establishing a King and a nation?, …, The Israelites were instructed by God, and Moses then led the Israelites back towards Canaan, their Promised Land but was Kingship established, at that point? We know that the Messiah was mentioned when Samuel established the title with Saul then to David- point being (and even then) that the Messiah’s responsibilities were to return the diaspora Jews back to Israel at the first temple was destroyed, but if the Messiah was established prior to David and from Abraham- it would have been at the Covenant Between the Parts…just a thought.

In the Jewish religion - and again, according to which branch of Judaism, the concepts slightly differ - as some feel that we are in the Messianic era, as the here and now.

Blessing
Mary

 

[MorningSong51]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy View Post
The idea of a G-d who assumes human form and through His suffering, death, and resurrection provides us with vicarious atonement for our sins is thought to be redundant and not part of the Messiah’s mission.

in thought, the Messiah and the concepts could have been even prior to Abraham:

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed.” As in the name,** He will comfort us**…

22 Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years.
to walk with God means to follow Him
to walk with God means to be shepherded by Him.
to walk with God means to abide in Him.

27 So God created mankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (image and likeness of God - Genesis 5:1)

We read this in Genesis:

Genesis 1:2 and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Genesis 2:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day
Genesis 5:22Enoch walked with God 300 years
Genesis 6:9 This is the account of Noah Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.
Genesis 26:5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.”
Genesis 28:5 I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land.

All of these characteristics are said about the great Patriarchs - who have walked with God - this would have to be major concept of the Messiah. All this was said in Luke 1:6 Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.

Luke 1:26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Luke1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her.

They walked blamelessly with the Lord - as in creation, the Spirit of God hoovered (overshadowed) Mary and she conceived the Son of God.

 

[meltzerboy]

Again, fhansen, I appreciate your ideas and feelings. Some great remarks, particularly about sin, perfection, and G-d’s love. Although people do convert to other faiths, I think if I were born Catholic, I would have remained as such and held many of the same thoughts as you. Having been born Jewish, though, I have a tendency to think in a somewhat different direction. Nonetheless, my starting this thread in the first place (and the fact I’m a member of a Catholic Forum) suggests I’m willing to listen to and learn about other religious views which are different from those I’m familiar with.

I think the Catholic (Christian) belief that G-d loved the world so much that He became one of us, humbled Himself, suffered for our sins, died and conquered death by being reborn is a most comforting and wonderful feeling. As you state, it makes G-d ever so personal, loving, merciful, and giving. Jews find G-d to be all of this as well. (The evidence is Tevye talking to G-d in “Fiddler on the Roof”!) As a Jew, I cannot believe, as you and many other Christians believe, that Christianity doesn’t change Judaism but instead deepens, enlightens, and fulfills it. Let’s face it: there is some change. Jesus the Messiah becomes also Jesus, the Son of G-d, co-eternal with G-d the Father and the Holy Spirit. Leaving the complex notion of the Trinity aside, there is debate whether divinity was supposed to accompany the human nature of the Messiah based on the Hebrew Bible prophecies. Much debate on this issue. Well, suppose Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah but NOT the Son of G-d (which is what Islam believes). Judaism would still have difficulty with that idea according to what the Messiah is supposed to accomplish. More debate. The Jewish idea about sin and perfection–including original sin–is another issue of contention which I can’t even begin to explain in one post. All I’ll mention here is that, like Catholicism, Judaism does distinguish between different types of sin; but beyond this, there is significant divergence of belief. These are just two points which indicate the differences between our faiths. I don’t wish to launch into a Jewish apologetics discussion–which was not the intention of this thread–since that would not be appropriate. Suffice it for me to say that to imagine Judaism as Christianity minus Jesus or Christianity as an evolution of Judaism, which includes Jesus, is not really the case, even though we may share a common history, moral values, and certain rituals.