I would like to know about why Jews do not think there is original sin.
from my PoV, it's more up to christians to prove why such a concept is necessary, other than to give jesus a special theological, ah, capability.
In Christianity, we are taught that Adam and Eve eat off of the tree of knowledge and this causes G!D to "evict" them from his presence, because their disobedience toward G!D is their first, or "original" sin.
well, if you look at what G!D actually does to warns them of the consequences of eating the fruit, OK, they're definitely told not to do it, but "sin" is nowhere mentioned. in fact, you'll find that the first mention of sin
qua sin is in genesis 4 - *after* the expulsion from eden. this allows us to posit that sin is actually something that is associated with normative humanity rather than the edenic state. in fact, we associate sin with free-will. without free-will, there is no sin, because you didn't really have a choice. adam's activation of free-will through disobedience was in effect the activation of the sin mechanism, rather than a sin itself - it's a subtle but important distinction.
G!D ... takes an animal and uses its skin to make them their clothing, which is the first sacrifice because the animal has to die in order to "cover" what Adam and Eve now know about their sinful desires
the thing is, that's not what we understand as a sacrifice, nor is there any mention of an actual sacrifice (or offering) until cain and abel. nor is it said that their "desires" are sinful - it is merely pointed out that they have been activated. this is borne out by commentators such as nachmanides who states in not so many words that eve did not have orgasms (the word for "knowledge", da'at being connected with intimacy and, by extension, sex) in the garden. sex, from this PoV, is given to us as a consolation for our expulsion from eden and is a way to regain it for a time - we are even able to remove our clothes and return to the edenic state.
it says that "without blood there is no remission of sin" and that "the life is in the blood".
yes, but that's talking about a different case entirely. not all sacrifices (e.g. the meal-offering and the wave-offering) required blood. nowhere does this reference the garden of eden.
We are taught that the entire reason the ancient Jewish population had blood sacrifices at the Temple was to replace the people, whose blood was required by G!D in exchange for the sins they committed, and those they inherited through Adam and Eve's first disobedience (sin).
i wasn't taught that and, with all due respect, chalice, i can't help what you've been taught. if it's not correct, that's not actually my fault. the principle of human sacrifice being no longer required was established through the episode of the "binding of isaac" (see the thread further down)
While it is true that God created them without sin to begin with, they chose to sin, which caused them to develop a sin nature, and that sin nature is what passed on to their descendents. That is why Cain killed Abel, and why God had to eventually destroy all living things with the flood - everyone was very apt to sin due to the inner inherited desire to sin based on the original sin. This is what we get taught in church about what the Hebrew scriptures say about sin.
and that's
*precisely* the problem!! that's *not* what they say at all. this is simply a spin on the Text that we don't recognise - all it is is a post hoc attempt to coopt it into supporting the rationale behind the original sin! in fact, it's completely misrepresenting the jewish PoV for their own purposes!
it's not how we think about sin and we don't have an original
Then in Isaiah we get shown passages where there will be a "new covenant", and passages like Psalms 92, and Isaiah 53, and Zechariah 3 where someone will die a death like Christ's death to erase our sins in a "single day", and be "engraved" with a tool that is similar to a nail upon a stone (christ being referred to as the Chief corner "stone").
and, as i have pointed out several times previously, all these prophetic passages can be interpreted *entirely* differently. do they even mention that the "virgin birth" passage uses the word for "young woman" rather than the actual word for "virgin"??
So we are under the impression that there is original sin, that the Jewish people had to have that sin atoned for by temple priests who sacrificed "the blood of bulls and goats", and that the "new covenant" allowed for a final sacrifice like Christs.
no, no, no!! the sins atoned for in the Temple cult were ongoing, everyday sins! that is why there are so many different types of sacrifices for the different ones. if it was just one "original" sin, there would be just one sort of sacrifice!!
with the best will in the world, this seems like the "old testament" is being systematically misinterpreted to fit christian theology. it just sounds plain bonkers to me - but i'm happy to be able to help correct you.
b'shalom
bananabrain
