Was the ransom premature? Shouldn't the effects of Adamic sin have been reversed at the time of Jesus' death?

deegee

If the ransom was paid at the time of Jesus' death (Mark 15:45, Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:6, Hebrews 2:9), then why weren't the effects of Adamic sin (sickness & death) reversed at that time?

It seems to me that either:
- The payment of the ransom was premature

OR

- God was not satisfied with the payment of the ransom; it was not sufficient to make up for Adam's & Eve's so-called "sin".
Hasn't god extracted enough from mankind as payment for Adam's & Eve's "sin" given the billions of persons who have lived and died?

If God truly wants to help mankind then why weren't the effects of Adamic sin reversed at the time when the ransom was paid?

If Jesus paid the ransom then why is there still sickness & death?

truth_b_known

For Christian religions, it was paid and is in effect. Remember, they all believe that accepting Jesus as their lord and savior results in going to heaven upon death.

OneGenTwoGroups

Ask a nominal Christian what happened to faithful servants of God before Jesus died and they herp, then they derp.

Then you find out that many of them believe in some sort of limbo that they NEVER talk about. It's kind of like asking a JW about two overlapping groups and 1914.

To the objective observer, Jesus' appearance in the first century changed the world as much as his "invisible return" in 1914. No change, nada. Just a few more cars added to the baseless assertion train.

scratchme1010

OR

There was never an Adam, there was never a sin, there was never a paradise, there was never a garden of Eden, there were never such events.

Vidiot

I could never really wrap my head around the whole "Adamic sin - ransom sacrifice" thing even when I was still in.

FeelingFree

Sorry truth_b_known didn't mean to click dislike. Fat fingers 😕

Island Man

Another thing is the way the condemnation of death due to Adam's sin, falls on all his offspring automatically without them having to put forth any effort or exercise any faith in his transgression. Yet, the ransom is not applied the same way - it is not automatic, but beneficiaries have to exercise faith in it and work at proving worthy of the undeserved kindness by not willfully practicing sin.

It is not fair. Since the condemnation was automatic and not the fault of Adam's descendants, the ransom should likewise be automatic. Christianity unfairly stacks the odds against the innocent offspring of Adam who inherited his sin through no fault of their own. It is a fundamentally immoral worldview where the innocent are blamed and punished for the sins of their ancestors.

schnell

I heard a theory that Genesis 3 may have been written by Ezra after the Babylonian exile. The theory goes that the Jews were in their promised land, they sinned, and God punished them by removing them from their promised land, similar to Genesis 3.

This was on a recent Aron-Ra livestream.

https://youtu.be/bONyPjvRsuo

deegee

The ransom concept is rather puzzling given that Jesus was supposed to taste death for every man:

Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God SHOULD TASTE DEATH FOR EVERY MAN."

If this is the case, then why are people still dying? Why are people still tasting death?

anointed1

deegee

Your question is very sensible. If the effects of Adam’s sin was mechanically transferred to mankind, effect of its antidote too should have been mechanically transferred. It did not happen because ransom teaching did not originate with Jesus nor with God. Jesus had no idea of such a sacrificial death that could remove sins of the world because at the very start of his ministry he declared: “I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” (Mark 2:10) This he said before his death.

Was the ransom premature? Shouldn't the effects of Adamic sin have been reversed at the time of Jesus' death?

Share this