For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, ²² adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly

Did the writer of this verse think that the heart is inherently corrupt with evil intentions ? the verse does not seem to be talking about the condition of the heart, but what it is capable of doing, according to the author. 

Does the Greek give the “from within” idea ?

⁶ The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? ⁷ If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

This verse says that Cain is able to master over sin. in the time of Jesus, was sin understood the same way we understand it today ? 

Jews say that their understanding of sin is different from a christians understand, i quote 

Examining one word, “sin” shows how Jews and Christians often use the same words in English – but mean very different things! As the title of my page says: Judaism is not Christianity minus Jesus!

What about the Christian contention in Hebrews 9:22 that  “the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”?   Totally false.

There are many qorbans (translated as “sacrifices”, but in Hebrew the term means offers to G-d meant to bring the person closer to G-d). Most qorbans had nothing to do with atoning for anything — and blood was not required. If one was too poor for an animal, then flour could be substituted for the  חַטָּאת / chatat (sin sacrifice). 

Many qorbans specified money, incense or flour as well as burnt offers or blood offers.   

There were only two types (the chatat – which is for a  חֵטְא / cheit – translated as “sin” and meaning a “missing of the mark – you tried to do good but “missed” and the second type of qorban (sacrifice) which could be brought for wrongdoing were the אָשָׁם  / asham qorbans which are translated as “guilt” but that is a poor translation.    The  חַטָּאת / cḥattat (accidental sins)  and אָשָׁם / asham  sacrifices were PRIVATE offerings brought by INDIVIDUALS, not “atonement” offerings on behalf of the entire nation.   Also, no individual sacrifice could be brought for someone else or in advance.   The type of offering was specified (female goat or lamb being the most common, but sometimes a bull, birds or flour) — only domesticated (not wild) kosher animals were fit for sacrifice.  Human sacrifices (Jesus anyone?) are totally forbidden by the Torah.  Read Vayikra / Leviticus chapter 5 to learn about the  אָשָׁם / asham  (guilt / tresspass) qorbanot (sacrifices) and the very few things they covered:

** you do not have permission to see this link **  If he is bound by an oath [to give evidence in court], where he was a witness who saw or knew [something], and he does not testify

** you do not have permission to see this link **  The same is true] if a person touches anything ritually unclean, whether it is any dead non-kosher animal, wild or domestic, or any dead unclean creeping animal, and then commits a violation while forgetting that he was unclean.

** you do not have permission to see this link ** if he comes in contact with any ritual uncleanliness stemming from a human being, which renders him unclean, and then forgets about it,

** you do not have permission to see this link ** if a person makes a verbal oath to do good or bad, no matter what is expressed in the oath, and then forgets about it.

The  אָשָׁם / asham  (guilt / tresspass) qorbanot  also atoned for stealing things from the altar.

You also brought an אָשָׁם / asham  if you weren’t sure if you’d sinned — or what sin you might have committed.   If you weren’t sure you’d sinnd you’d bring an asham, instead of a חַטָּאת / cḥattat (accidental sins).  This is because a חַטָּאת / cḥattat (accidental sins) means an admission of the sin, and you’d be  punished for it. If a person brought an asham (because they weren’t sure they’d sinned) and later discovered that he had in fact committed the sin, he would have to bring a chatat at that time.

As shown above, it was also if you broke your word (a breach of trust) that was an asham.

Ashams were eaten by the priests.

The only types of individual sins that could be atoned for with blood sacrifices were these two types: חַטָּאת / cḥattat accidental missing of the mark) and the אָשָׁם / asham PERIOD. Any other type of sin (like willfully doing something wrong had to be atoned for with repentance, charity, turning to G-d, etc.  Sacrifices didn’t work at all).  Hebrews 9 lied (or whoever wrote it was woefully ignorant of Jewish law including those surrounding sacrifices).  

 

 

 

Would the historical Jesus have understood sin differently than how we understand it ?