Born in Sins

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Joh 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

I wonder why a Jew, who did not even believe in original sin, accused the blind man in such a manner? What influenced them to even suggest such a thing as being "altogether born in sins"?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Joh 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

I wonder why a Jew, who did not even believe in original sin, accuse Christ in such a manner? What influenced them to even suggest such a thing as being "altogether born in sins"?

How do you know they did not believe in original sin under a different name? He does sound like a Calvinist.

 

[Pastor David]

Joh 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

I wonder why a Jew, who did not even believe in original sin, accuse Christ in such a manner? What influenced them to even suggest such a thing as being "altogether born in sins"?

I think the idea here they were accusing Jesus of being born of unwed parents i.e. in sin (Mary was espoused, not married to Jospeh). They were trying to undermind Jesus' credibility as a rabbi.

 

[Amy.G]

It's a perfect example of the self righteousness of the Pharisees.
They didn't see themselves as sinners.

Luke 18:11-14 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

 

[Amy.G]

I think the idea here they were accusing Jesus of being born of unwed parents i.e. in sin (Mary was espoused, not married to Jospeh). They were trying to undermind Jesus' credibility as a rabbi.

Are we reading the same verse? In John 9:34, Jesus wasn't accused or thrown out. The blind man was.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I simply do not know of a better source of Jewish antiquity than Albert Edersheim. He clear states that there was absolutely no place in Jewish theology for any notion such as original sin. You can read him in "The Life and times of Jesus Christ the Messiah." He is a very well known authority on Jewish beliefs, culture etc. I am certain you know that already. He also wrote another excellent read entitled "The Temple." There may be others as well.

 

[billwald]

>Originally Posted by Pastor David
>I think the idea here they were accusing Jesus of being born of unwed parents i.e. in sin (Mary was espoused, not married to Jospeh). They were trying to undermind Jesus' credibility as a rabbi.

This is the best guess. We have NO Jewish writings from the first half of the first century.

 

[Pastor David]

Are we reading the same verse? In John 9:34, Jesus wasn't accused or thrown out. The blind man was.

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees regarding the blind man.

 

[Pastor David]

Here's a cite, supposedly ran by a Jewish person regarding what they believe about original sin.

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation5.html

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy, I do believe you are indeed correct in your remarks and my suggestion wrong concerning that text. That is what the edit button is for.:thumbs: Thank you.

Ok, lets get this straight. Why did they accuse the blind man, not Christ, of being born in sins? How's that Amy? (nobody tell Pastor David because he has already responded.:tonofbricks

 

[Amy.G]

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees regarding the blind man.

No. Jesus found the blind man later. Verse 35.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor David: Here's a cite, supposedly ran by a Jewish person regarding what they believe about original sin.

HP: What are his/her credentials? That is like saying there is a believer on this list that says this or that. This list is living proof that such a reference to a site ran by a "Jewish" person holds no credibility in and of itself.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, I do believe you are indeed correct in your remarks and my suggestion wrong concerning that text. That is what the edit button is for.:thumbs: Thank you.

Ok, lets get this straight. Why did they accuse the blind man, not Christ, of being born in sins? How's that Amy? (nobody tell Pastor David because he has already responded.:tonofbricks

I already told you. The Pharisees were self righteous and did not think themselves sinners. They thought everyone but them were sinners. That is why Jesus judged them so harshly throughout His ministry, even calling them sons of the Devil & telling them they kept people out of heaven because they themselves would not go there.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I wonder why a Jew, who did not even believe in original sin, accuse the blind man in such a manner? What influenced them to even suggest such a thing as being "altogether born in sins"?

Here is what John Calvin believed about this and according to him the reference is to one's own sins and not the sin of Adam:

"'Thou wast altogether born in sins.' They alluded, I doubt not, to his blindness; as proud men are wont to teaze those who have any distress or calamity; and, therefore, they continually insult him, as if he had come out of his mother’s womb, bearing the mark of his sins For all the scribes were convinced in their hearts, that souls, after having finished one life, entered into new bodies, and there suffered the punishment of their former crimes. Hence they conclude that he who was born blind was, at that very time, covered and polluted by his sins" (John Calvin, Commentary on John 9:34).

 

[Pastor David]

No. Jesus found the blind man later. Verse 35.

Ok. I understand what you're saying. Jesus had healed the man, but the Pharisees were casting the man out. The Jews did believe that a person could be afflicted for the sins of their parents, or that God did visit the iniquity of a sinner to the 3rd or 4th generations.

This is not an affirmation of universal or original sin, but of the teaching found in Deut. 5:9, "...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me"

 

[Pastor David]

HP: What are his/her credentials? That is like saying there is a believer on this list that says this or that. This list is living proof that such a reference to a site ran by a "Jewish" person holds no credibility in and of itself.

I'm not sure what you're asking HP. But I only linked the cite because this person, who claims to be a Jewish Rabbi, substaniates the notion that Jewish tradition denies original sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I want to post something of interest on original sin. Augustine was called "the father of the doctrine of original sin." That is noted by more than one writer. What is interesting is that early on AUGUSTINE HIMSELF MADE COMENTS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO ANY NOTION OF ORIGINAL SIN. That is a real eye opener to me. It shows clearly that such a notion was developed by Augustine, as others have concurred, well subsequent to his conversion. It shows clear evidence that original sin was not the stated dogma of the day, but rather a developed dogma by Augustine latter on. Here is a quote from Augustine:
"No one is compelled to sin, either by his own nature or by another, it remains that he sins by his own free will." pp. 163 History of Christian Ethics by George Wolfgang Forell.

Will someone please relay this to Ruiz so he can inform the list that Augustine was evidently NOT a Christian and obviously held heretical beliefs subsequent to his conversion to whatever? Thanks.

Interesting, very interesting indeed. Ambrose was Augustine's teacher early on.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor David, Please forgive me, If I would have known he concurred with the notion I presented, I would have been assured of his credentials. :laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor David: This is not an affirmation of universal or original sin, but of the teaching found in Deut. 5:9, "...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me"

HP: Are you certain? Are you suggesting that the ONLY place being 'born in sins' or any reference to being 'born in sin' is not even talking about original sin?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I already told you. The Pharisees were self righteous and did not think themselves sinners. They thought everyone but them were sinners. That is why Jesus judged them so harshly throughout His ministry, even calling them sons of the Devil & telling them they kept people out of heaven because they themselves would not go there.

HP: OK. I believe you. Does that mean I have to accept the #1 rule about the woman always being right? :tonofbricks: