Well he was a Jew so I'm guessing he did.

>>883650
Moses appeared on Mt. Tabor when Jesus was transfigured. Jesus came to undo Adam's sin. Christians are the seed of Abraham.

/thread

>>883667
So Christianity depends on the existence of all three as per the OT account

>>883706
Some would say no, but I guess it does.

>>883706
Yes, Jesus even says in the NT that everything in the OT is true, any Christian that doesn't believe the OT to be true is being disingenuous.

>>883706
The concept of original sin is not entirely predicated on the reality of Adam or the creation story: that hasn't been the interpretation of virtually any of the apostolic Churches for centuries. Those early parts of Genesis (as well as most of the book) serve instead as an allegory explaining concepts that would appear in name during later books.

Abraham (or a figure like him) probably did exist at some point, and would have probably been the one responsible for establishing the cult of Yahweh prior to Judaic monotheism arising sometime shortly before or during the Babylonian exile. Who knows how much of his life is actually real as part of the OT, but again, it doesn't really matter all that much.

Moses likewise probably existed, though the Exodus probably did not happen (at least not how it was described with the whole of the Israelites being led out of slavery). He was probably just the figure who established the Commandments, seeing as that code seems to predate the Kingdom-era Judaism when most of the OT was recorded.

Case in point, most of the OT is either allegorical and/or borrows from other regional traditions. Aside from a few points that are explicitly spelled out, the NT is basically standalone in its teachings.

Literal belief in the events of the old testament, at least once you get to Moses and onward, was nearly ubiquitous among Jews at the time and is still the norm among orthodox Jews today. I would say it's approaching 100% that he did.

Of course if you're a christian you also have to believe he was omniscient so maybe he knew better and didn't say anything, I guess.

>>883706
It depends what you want out of your Jesus. If you want his earth father to from a lineage of a certain mythical Jew than that matters which matters for certain prophecies.

Mathew wants 'every word' of the old testament to be true. While Paul basically says the Old Testament is a not relevant for anything, which means what is true there doesn't matter.

One thing is there are many types of Christianity and if you are talking about early Christianity there are even more types and they all have their Jesus.

>>883814
Some people, like Maimonides, see these events as mostly allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic though.
>Old Testament is a not relevant for anything, which means what is true there doesn't matter.
This desu. Whether the OT is allegorical or literal has no bearing on your salvation. Humility, faith, love, and good deeds are more relevant.

>>883969

>Some people, like Maimonides, see these events as mostly allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic though.

That's not quite accurate. Maimonides viewed them as having occurred, but interpreted through what were then mainstream Jewish processes for reading the OT.

For instance, take the Garden of Eden episode. To Maimonides, it was intuitively obvious that the whole thing was a prophetic episode, or a series of such. After all, God is talking to Adam. It is understood that such contact is a form of prophecy, and since Moses is the only one who could talk to God "Face to face", Adam must have been in a trance or a dream like all the other prophets were, ergo, it's a prophetic vision.

I suppose you can say that recasts it as a kind of allegory, but he would have said that there literally was a prophetic vision/contact/whatever you want to call it between Adam and God which is what lead to the condition of modern man.

>>884054
Maimonides comments on these things are vague and can be interpreted both ways.

He usually words it something like "If there are some who wish to interpret this literally, on top of the metaphorical interpretation we have given here, this is fine with us". I'm partial to the view that Maimonides did not believe in the literal interpretation. But since Maimonides was often cryptic, it's hard to prove either way. Some of the views he professes for example, are believed (by some) to have been said in order to appease the rabbinical authorities of his day, so that he would not have been accused of impiety.

I'm not a scholar or anything. Just former Yeshiva student/Orthodx. I've read Maimonides a bit, and this is just the impression I get.

>>884084

>I'm not a scholar or anything. Just former Yeshiva student/Orthodx. I've read Maimonides a bit, and this is just the impression I get.

I don't have any better credentials myself, and the last time I read the Rambam was years ago.

I'm YU myself, if you don't mind me asking, where did you study? How was your Purim?

>>884190
I studied at a Hasidic Yeshiva near Meah Shearim lol. Hardcore.

I'm not observant anymore, actually. Haven't done anything for Purim.

>>883795
>The concept of original sin is not entirely predicated on the reality of Adam or the creation story: that hasn't been the interpretation of virtually any of the apostolic Churches for centuries
I thought the Catholics still adhered to this teaching

>>885145
To the teaching that the story of original sin relates an actual event in our deep common ancestry, but not to the creation of two first parents out of whole cloth.