Born in Sins

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

>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.

 

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees regarding the blind man.

 

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

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation5.html

 

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

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"

 

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.