All sinned in Adam and All killed the Son of God

[simpleas]

Upon trying to understand original sin, investigating ancient writings about creation and gods etc, and reading who knows what…

I realised that as humans, mainly Christian, we are taught we sinned with Adam, in Adam, and that we then went on to kill the son of God. We don’t sound to nice…

All of us, even non Christians, decided we would sin/break the covenant with God at first creation, and then we all crucified the Son of God.

Is this what we really believe? Did we really do this by our own hand?

 

[Todd977]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section with multiple paragraphs on Original Sin that might be worth reading. Here are two that seem to especially address your question:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (source)

Also from the Catechism concerning our collective responsibility for Jesus’ death:

Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death

597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. the personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council: . . .

Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388

All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 The Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. and it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. and when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392 (source)​

With respect to this last part about us crucifying Jesus

 

[Todd977]

My :twocents: …
With respect to this last part about us crucifying Jesus, I think the Catechism is using a figure of speech. Of course, we were not the men who actually crucified Jesus. However, because Jesus suffered and died for all the sins of mankind for all time, not only for the sins committed up to the time of his death but for sins committed in the future, including the sins that we would commit, we might as well have been the ones hammering the nails into his flesh for all the suffering he went through for our sins.

 

[simpleas]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section with multiple paragraphs on Original Sin that might be worth reading. Here are two that seem to especially address your question:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (source)

Also from the Catechism concerning our collective responsibility for Jesus’ death:

Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death

597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. the personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council: . . .

Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388

All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 The Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. and it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. and when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392 (source)​

With respect to this last part about us crucifying Jesus

It seems to read to me as a contradiction. On one hand all men are one body in one man, yet are not responsible for the original sin, only affected by it, and so descendants of the one man (Adam) could not have chosen to break communion with God, therefore original sin wouldn’t stand.

Then, we didn’t crucify Jesus, nor are all the people of Jesus time responsible for the crucifixion because they did not know he was the son of God, yet :

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. and it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews.

We bare the greater guilt because we know him, have Christ within, yet every person whoever lived would have had Christ within them for it was Christ at the beginning who breathed the breath of life into the humans.

 

[simpleas]

My :twocents: …
With respect to this last part about us crucifying Jesus, I think the Catechism is using a figure of speech. Of course, we were not the men who actually crucified Jesus. However, because Jesus suffered and died for all the sins of mankind for all time, not only for the sins committed up to the time of his death but for sins committed in the future, including the sins that we would commit, we might as well have been the ones hammering the nails into his flesh for all the suffering he went through for our sins.

Thanks.

I think I see what you are saying, yes we were not the ones who physically killed Jesus.

Jesus is risen from the dead so no longer suffers the pain of human nature I believe.
We never existed when Jesus was being crucified so we could have no part in what we didn’t consent to, isn’t that logical?

 

[grannymh]

Pardon me. I am trying to catch up with this essential thread. Essential because there has to be something different about Original Sin and our personal sins.

The thread title refers to “All sinned in Adam” Are you satisfied with what has been presented about Original Sin? Or do you have a question?

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

Pardon me. I am trying to catch up with this essential thread. Essential because there has to be something different about Original Sin and our personal sins.

The thread title refers to “All sinned in Adam” Are you satisfied with what has been presented about Original Sin? Or do you have a question?

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

There was a question in post #5 but no one has responded.

 

[simpleas]

We never existed when Jesus was being crucified so we could have no part in what we didn’t consent to, isn’t that logical?

Just as we didn’t exist when Adam and Eve sinned against God, we didn’t consult with Adam who seems to be referred to as the head of the human race, so therefore we can’t justly be held in a sinful condition…

These are thoughts, for discussion, rather than questions that demand an answer because I know there is no real answer to it, for me anyway.

 

[grannymh]

We never existed when Jesus was being crucified so we could have no part in what we didn’t consent to, isn’t that logical?

Just as we didn’t exist when Adam and Eve sinned against God, we didn’t consult with Adam who seems to be referred to as the head of the human race, so therefore we can’t justly be held in a sinful condition…

These are thoughts, for discussion, rather than questions that demand an answer because I know there is no real answer to it, for me anyway.

Should the discussion go back to the purpose of Adam? And wait until later to examine our existence? Or should we start with our existence which was not at the same time as Adam’s and not at the same time as the Crucifixion. Either way, we may get to the heart of the matter.

What is the real purpose of Adam’s existence? Perhaps one real purpose for a real Adam could be the establishment of a friendship relationship between the Creator and humankind.

 

[goout]

We never existed when Jesus was being crucified so we could have no part in what we didn’t consent to, isn’t that logical?

Just as we didn’t exist when Adam and Eve sinned against God, we didn’t consult with Adam who seems to be referred to as the head of the human race, so therefore we can’t justly be held in a sinful condition…

These are thoughts, for discussion, rather than questions that demand an answer because I know there is no real answer to it, for me anyway.

Assuming you believe we are all drawn toward “the good”… (if not, stop reading)
Why are you drawn toward “the good”? What purpose does it serve, for you to seek the good, be in unity with the good, and do the good?

 

[Gorgias]

We never existed when Jesus was being crucified so we could have no part in what we didn’t consent to, isn’t that logical?

Just as we didn’t exist when Adam and Eve sinned against God, we didn’t consult with Adam who seems to be referred to as the head of the human race, so therefore we can’t justly be held in a sinful condition…

These are thoughts, for discussion, rather than questions that demand an answer because I know there is no real answer to it, for me anyway.

Your questions straddle two ways of looking at the situation: that is, the literal, historical question and the theological aspect.

Literally and historically, we weren’t present at the ‘Fall of Man’, nor were we present at the crucifixion. So, from a literal perspective, we’re not responsible for these events.

However, these events have wide-reaching theological import. In the “Fall of Man”, we see humanity’s tendency to reject God and choose things that are contrary to His will. As humans, we share in this tendency. We, too, are affected by the “original sin” of the first humans.

Likewise, the cause of Jesus’ crucifixion – that is, His salvific death and resurrection – is sin. As sinners, then, our sins are the ‘cause’ of Jesus’ death… and in this way, we share in the guilt of his death.

There’s no contradiction here: one analysis asks the question “who is responsible in a historical sense?” and the other asks “who is responsible, from a theological perspective?”.

 

[fhansen]

We never existed when Jesus was being crucified so we could have no part in what we didn’t consent to, isn’t that logical?

Just as we didn’t exist when Adam and Eve sinned against God, we didn’t consult with Adam who seems to be referred to as the head of the human race, so therefore we can’t justly be held in a sinful condition…

These are thoughts, for discussion, rather than questions that demand an answer because I know there is no real answer to it, for me anyway.

As I believe was already stated, the Church acknowledges that we didn’t commit the original sin; we’re not guilty of having committing the act-while we nonetheless contracted the state known as original sin through the act of Adam. The act and the state are two different things. The first involves the actual disobedience while the second involves the consequence of that act.

All humanity fell and was corrupted by Adams act. We can read about the results of that corruption or woundedness in our daily newspapers, results flowing from a basic lack of communion with God that man was made for, and that he’s lost without. Adam sort of chose the path of selfishness and autonomy, forsaking whatever level of love he would’ve experienced by virtue of his personal proximity to God in favor of “Something Else”, something bigger, something of his own that perhaps God might deny him so long as God remained the one in authority, the one determining morality for Adam.

From then on humanitys struggle has still been the same one, a test between right and wrong, between love and pride, between whether selfish interests should trump the dictates of love in our motivations, even if they could cause harm to neighbor. It finally boils down to that basic question in fact: should we love God and neighbor, or not? Are we contributing to evil, to harming each other, to whatever extent that we do not? And if we should, how do we accomplish this?

 

[grannymh]

Your questions straddle two ways of looking at the situation: that is, the literal, historical question and the theological aspect.

Literally and historically, we weren’t present at the ‘Fall of Man’, nor were we present at the crucifixion. So, from a literal perspective, we’re not responsible for these events.

However, these events have wide-reaching theological import. In the “Fall of Man”, we see humanity’s tendency to reject God and choose things that are contrary to His will. As humans, we share in this tendency. We, too, are affected by the “original sin” of the first humans.

Likewise, the cause of Jesus’ crucifixion – that is, His salvific death and resurrection – is sin. As sinners, then, our sins are the ‘cause’ of Jesus’ death… and in this way, we share in the guilt of his death.

There’s no contradiction here: one analysis asks the question “who is responsible in a historical sense?” and the other asks “who is responsible, from a theological perspective?”.

When, as a young student I learned the Catholic theological doctrines, we were taught reality. Like the reality of major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit. It is a tad hard to find reality mentioned on a free speech public message board.

Please explain your reference to a wide-ranging theological import of human tendency. Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church is a literal event, that is, it is an historical real action which affected human nature in addition to a shattered relationship between Adan and his almighty Creator. Original Sin is not an allegory or tendency or whatever is the result of happy humans tampering on the internet.

I do not mean to be rude. Please accept my apology.

I am sure you agree that Original Sin per se took place. I am sure that the residents in the ivory tower have plenty to offer.

In my humble opinion, there is only one way to look at the first human spitting at God’s intentions.

Then one is free to exercise free speech even when it is a bit confusing.

 

[fhansen]

When, as a young student I learned the Catholic theological doctrines, we were taught reality. Like the reality of major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit. It is a tad hard to find reality mentioned on a free speech public message board.

Please explain your reference to a wide-ranging theological import of human tendency. Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church is a literal event, that is, it is an historical real action which affected human nature in addition to a shattered relationship between Adan and his almighty Creator. Original Sin is not an allegory or tendency or whatever is the result of happy humans tampering on the internet.

I do not mean to be rude. Please accept my apology.

I am sure you agree that Original Sin per se took place. I am sure that the residents in the ivory tower have plenty to offer.

In my humble opinion, there is only one way to look at the first human spitting at God’s intentions.

Then one is free to exercise free speech even when it is a bit confusing.

Granny, pardon me, but I didn’t see where Gorgias denied the historical reality of the Original Sin.

 

[simpleas]

Assuming you believe we are all drawn toward “the good”… (if not, stop reading)
Why are you drawn toward “the good”? What purpose does it serve, for you to seek the good, be in unity with the good, and do the good?

I think most people are drawn towards the good, even though it doesn’t seem good to others.

Your post just asks questions, sort a personal, rather than focusing on what the thread is trying to discuss, but thanks.

 

[goout]

We never existed when Jesus was being crucified so we could have no part in what we didn’t consent to, isn’t that logical?

Just as we didn’t exist when Adam and Eve sinned against God, we didn’t consult with Adam who seems to be referred to as the head of the human race, so therefore we can’t justly be held in a sinful condition…

The good that we are drawn to is community with God and others. In that vision, the good of one is the good of all.

947 "Since all the faithful form one body, the good of each is communicated to the others. . . . We must therefore believe that there exists a communion of goods in the Church.

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus…

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle

.
Since we do not live in isolation, our acts and disposition affect others. Sin is never purely personal. It creates a void, so to speak, that affects others. Original siin could be said to be a void in original unity.

We are not culpable specifically for his sin, but it affects others.
The mechanism is a mystery as described by the Church.

 

[grannymh]

There was a question in post #5 but no one has responded.

Not sure how I missed it. Sorry about that.

Physically, logically, we were not at the Crucifixion.

When I was little, I was drawn to the crucifix in Church and in homes. All I wanted to do was to remove one thorn from His painful crown.

 

[Gorgias]

When, as a young student I learned the Catholic theological doctrines, we were taught reality.

When, as an older student, I learned Catholic theology, I was taught reality, too…

Please explain your reference to a wide-ranging theological import of human tendency.

Umm… Pardon?

I’m simply saying that these events – the original sin of the first humans and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus – have significance beyond their historicity. They have theological import, too. That’s not novel… nor is it opposed to Catholic teaching. Not sure where you’re seeing a problem here.

(The reference that seems to have offended you – to ‘tendency’ – is merely a reference to concupiscence (i.e., the tendency to choose to sin), which is an effect of original sin.)

 

[grannymh]

When, as an older student, I learned Catholic theology, I was taught reality, too…

Umm… Pardon?

I’m simply saying that these events – the original sin of the first humans and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus – have significance beyond their historicity. They have theological import, too. That’s not novel… nor is it opposed to Catholic teaching. Not sure where you’re seeing a problem here.

(The reference that seems to have offended you – to ‘tendency’ – is merely a reference to concupiscence (i.e., the tendency to choose to sin), which is an effect of original sin.)

My sincere apology for offending you. I really do not belong in the Philosophy Forum.
Affirmation came when the spam soldier decided I did not belong in this Forum and my original reply disappeared.

Thank you for all the good work you do.

 

[Gorgias]

My sincere apology for offending you.

No problems.

I really do not belong in the Philosophy Forum.

We all belong here!