Logic behind original sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This author didn’t use any logic. He just points to the bible and says, “see it’s not logical”. He doesn’t go on to explain why.

He wrote that drivel in 2010 and only 3 people commented on it, and even then only a year after it was written. I wouldn’t worry about.
 
I agree the author does not explain what is illogical about man’s fall. He just describes the Bible in a flippant way and says, “It defies logic!” He also overly forces Fundamentalist interpretations, such as the literalism of a “talking snake.” The article is just childish and doesn’t engage actual doctrine, nor does it remotely substantiate what is illogical about Jesus fulfilling prophecy by being born of a Virgin, etc…
 
That’s literally one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read, and I’ve read every book Stephen King has ever written. Besides the clunky middle-school style and gratuitous overuse of question marks, he misidentifies the three persons of the Trinity, mistakenly claims that each of them actually is the other (no, that’s explicitly not true), and, as the poster above said, offers no actual argument.

He gets original sin wrong (attributing it to guilt rather than the fallen condition of man, deprived of the supernatural gifts promised to man given his obedience). He indulges in elementary school name-calling (“God is mean!!!”) and calls this “logic” for some reason.

I mean just read the last paragraph. Then read it again. It’s meritless garbage written by a badly-educated person or else a very well-trained ape.

I would recommend reading Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition for a useful lay treatment of the philosophical basis for original sin and its implications.

Also, this comment made me laugh: “They blame every thing on Eve.” I guess that’s why the Church has always and everywhere referred to it as the “sin of Adam,” and why the Council of Trent’s authoritative decrees on original sin don’t even mention her name?
 
I was reading this article. examiner.com/article/the-logic-of-original-sin-and-salvation-from-jesus-resurrection-wait-does-this-make-sense It says that original sin is illogical. His to reply to stuff like this?
He seems to think that Original Sin was actually eating a physical, “magical fruit”. This is a gross misunderstanding. IMHO, Original Sin was man’s trying to play God, IOW, deciding the rules for himself. We see a lot of this going on today; just consider moral relativity and the redefinition of truth as examples. So much for his idea that we shouldn’t be blamed for something our ancient ancestors did.
 
Also, this comment made me laugh: “They blame every thing on Eve.” I guess that’s why the Church has always and everywhere referred to it as the “sin of Adam,” and why the Council of Trent’s authoritative decrees on original sin don’t even mention her name?
St Paul: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
So Trent doesn’t mention Eve because only Adam, being the first human being and a man, was considered worthy of mention. But on the other hand, there is indeed a whole literature on Eve’s sin (and the divine curses inflicted upon women) and the contrast between Eve’s sinfulness and Mary’s sinlessness.
campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/neweve.html
 
The first sentance of the article isn’t even correct.

The reason for Jesus’ birth is that we needed a Saviour so that we can go to heaven instead of hell, and eliminate the original sin caused by Adam and Eve.

The reason for Jesus’ birth is so that God could fully reveal himself to man, and so that God could show his glory to man. God would have became man, entered creation and fully revealed himself even without original sin.

There really isn’t a need to read any further, nor to have any anxiety whatsoever about it.

-Tim-
 
I was reading this article. examiner.com/article/the-logic-of-original-sin-and-salvation-from-jesus-resurrection-wait-does-this-make-sense It says that original sin is illogical. His to reply to stuff like this?
The doctrine of OS might be illogical if it’s reasonable to assume that all human sin we presently observe is normal-IOW not sin at all. But somehow I have a hard time believing that humans, capable of love and kindness, are also naturally endowed with the proclivity for such things as genocide, rape, and torture, sometimes committed in widespread fashion by otherwise normal folk. There’s too much contrast here, something beyond reason, not as it “should be”, when we have humans committing deliberate, ruthless acts purposely chosen for the very intention of maximizing pain and humiliation , acts that would put the behavior of the most vicious animal to shame. Let alone the ordinary greed and selfishness that every day leads to major and minor acts of embezzlement, gossip, theft, adultery, etc. Something’s missing, and that “something” isn’t something bad, as if OS makes us dirty-it just makes us unable to control ourselves, to “cooperate” with our own true natures, as we all possess a suspicion that we may actually benefit more if we place self first, above all else, and this is essentially how we’re born.

The fact is that a sentient, rational being with free will is hard-pressed to willingly, continuously control himself unless this “something” is no longer missing. The essence of Original Sin is* man’s separation from God*, God being, among other things, the foundational logos and purpose behind nature and the universe. Man is cut off from nature; he already senses this fact, but isn’t sure if he should care or not. But he* should* care, because it means he’s cut off from his own nature as well: lost, not knowing where he came from, if anywhere, what he’s here for, if anything, and where he’s going, if anywhere. Unless he finds his way back home, to God, he remains lost. That’s a statement of faith, but it just happens to be the truth.

Jesus came to demonstrate the alternative worldview to mans preferred viewpoint, one which leaves man in full “control” of his world, for better or worse, but ultimately for the worse, ultimately leading to chaos, destruction, futility and meaninglessness. He did this so we have a choice, without violating our free will, to the extent we’re willing to make the choice, between right and wrong, good and evil, life or death. Jesus demonstrated: God’s existence, His power, His humility (amazingly), His uncompromising trustworthiness and unconditional love for man-He placed love, in fact, at center stage, making it the gold standard, the highest value in the universe- and He simultaneously proclaimed the reality of it’s opposite, human sin, God’s forgiveness of sin, and man’s powerlessness to refrain from it without direct, immediate relationship, or communion, with Him.

If there were no God, then it would all be a fairy tale, but, in the case of the Christian gospel, not one that anyone would’ve bothered to make up IMO.
 
The doctrine of OS might be illogical if it’s reasonable to assume that all human sin we presently observe is normal-IOW not sin at all. But somehow I have a hard time believing that humans, capable of love and kindness, are also naturally endowed with the proclivity for such things as genocide, rape, and torture, sometimes committed in widespread fashion by otherwise normal folk. There’s too much contrast here, something beyond reason, not as it “should be”, when we have humans committing deliberate, ruthless acts purposely chosen for the very intention of maximizing pain and humiliation , acts that would put the behavior of the most vicious animal to shame. Let alone the ordinary greed and selfishness that every day leads to major and minor acts of embezzlement, gossip, theft, adultery, etc. Something’s missing, and that “something” isn’t something bad, as if OS makes us dirty-it just makes us unable to control ourselves, to “cooperate” with our own true natures, as we all possess a suspicion that we may actually benefit more if we place self first, above all else, and this is essentially how we’re born.

The fact is that a sentient, rational being with free will is hard-pressed to willingly, continuously control himself unless this “something” is no longer missing. The essence of Original Sin is* man’s separation from God*, God being, among other things, the foundational logos and purpose behind nature and the universe. Man is cut off from nature; he already senses this fact, but isn’t sure if he should care or not. But he* should* care, because it means he’s cut off from his own nature as well: lost, not knowing where he came from, if anywhere, what he’s here for, if anything, and where he’s going, if anywhere. Unless he finds his way back home, to God, he remains lost. That’s a statement of faith, but it just happens to be the truth.

Jesus came to demonstrate the alternative worldview to mans preferred viewpoint, one which leaves man in full “control” of his world, for better or worse, but ultimately for the worse, ultimately leading to chaos, destruction, futility and meaninglessness. He did this so we have a choice, without violating our free will, to the extent we’re willing to make the choice, between right and wrong, good and evil, life or death. Jesus demonstrated: God’s existence, His power, His humility (amazingly), His uncompromising trustworthiness and unconditional love for man-He placed love, in fact, at center stage, making it the gold standard, the highest value in the universe- and He simultaneously proclaimed the reality of it’s opposite, human sin, God’s forgiveness of sin, and man’s powerlessness to refrain from it without direct, immediate relationship, or communion, with Him.

If there were no God, then it would all be a fairy tale, but, in the case of the Christian gospel, not one that anyone would’ve bothered to make up IMO.
While I definitely benefited from what you wrote, in my humble opinion, some of it sounds like an echo of the position that we are sin machines. And how can we be cut off from nature – maybe I need to know more about human nature and the [true] nature we are cut off from.

I do not think there is a real distinction between endowed with a proclivity for evil and having an inclination toward evil. Both can be subjected to human intellect and will. God’s grace is freely offered to all, even when it is not accepted in full. For me, personally, it sounds more logical that Adam, through propagation, transmitted his wounded nature to us.
 
While I definitely benefited from what you wrote, in my humble opinion, some of it sounds like an echo of the position that we are sin machines. And how can we be cut off from nature – maybe I need to know more about human nature and the [true] nature we are cut off from.

I do not think there is a real distinction between endowed with a proclivity for evil and having an inclination toward evil. Both can be subjected to human intellect and will. God’s grace is freely offered to all, even when it is not accepted in full. For me, personally, it sounds more logical that Adam, through propagation, transmitted his wounded nature to us.
I’m not saying he didn’t transmit his wounded nature to us-I’m just trying to identify the nature of that nature. 🙂 And while humans are capable of both good and evil, it’s the propensity for evil that’s out of place in us, or else there’d be no injustice in sinning, no reason for Jesus to make Atonement. Being cut off from nature, internally as well as externally, is reflected in human shame alone, which indicates shame of being the creature rather than the Creator. And Paul, in Rom 7 highlights part of our inner conflict:
**21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! **

It’s also referred to in the Catechism where it tells us that:
**1707 “Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history.” He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:
Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.

400 …Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man…

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. **

More from the Catechism on the correct understanding of man’s sinfulness as well as a bit more on his schizophrenic condition:
**401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:
The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303**

God is so* necessarily* a part of man’s very being that to be effectively separated from Him constitutes division, disharmony,* death* for man, his justice shattered.
 
I’m not saying he didn’t transmit his wounded nature to us-I’m just trying to identify the nature of that nature. 🙂 And while humans are capable of both good and evil, it’s the propensity for evil that’s out of place in us, or else there’d be no injustice in sinning, no reason for Jesus to make Atonement. Being cut off from nature, internally as well as externally, is reflected in human shame alone, which indicates shame of being the creature rather than the Creator. Paul, in Rom 7 highlights part of our inner conflict:
Like you, I often use as my base the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition. Link to quotes in post 11.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10784011&postcount=11

When I wish to identify human nature, I start with CCC 355 because this is the nature of Adam and the nature of you and me. Adam’s nature started out in original holiness and justice. This pristine condition does exclude Adam from committing the greatest evil possible. Considering the dire consequences of freely scorning his Creator, Adam did commit the greatest evil possible.

The logic behind Original Sin is the simple fact that the status of God as Creator of all is far different from Adam as a material/physical creature. We need to keep in mind that God is a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions (simplified description) and we humans are not equal to Him. Yet, we are still capable of sharing in divine life because of being made in the image of God. When Adam and Eve transferred their wounded human nature to us, we remained in the image of God – our spiritual soul remained as an essential part of our nature.
 
Like you, I often use as my base the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition.
And I appreciate your continuous insistence on holding precisely to the Catechism’s teachings. To sum up my points on fallen human nature, going by both scripture and the Catechism: Man is divided within himself, conflicted both with God, himself, and the world around him. Reconciliation with God, resulting in communion with Him, is man’s sole hope and source for finding his authentic harmony, integrity, justice/holiness/righteousness, peace and happiness. To the extent that man is reconciled with God, he’s reconciled with himself and the rest of the universe. This reconciliation/communion is the purpose and goal of the Incarnation.
 
The first sentance of the article isn’t even correct.
The reason for Jesus’ birth is that we needed a Saviour so that we can go to heaven instead of hell, and eliminate the original sin caused by Adam and Eve.
The reason for Jesus’ birth is so that God could fully reveal himself to man, and so that God could show his glory to man. God would have became man, entered creation and fully revealed himself even without original sin.

There really isn’t a need to read any further, nor to have any anxiety whatsoever about it.

-Tim-
When we read the first three chapters of Genesis,

we discover that God did reveal His glory to man. (Genesis 1: 1) God’s glory was not in days, but in the entire creation of our material/physical universe. (Genesis 1: 3-25)

Granted that God did not fully reveal Himself as a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions (simplified description) at the beginning of human history. We need to remember that Adam, the first human on the globe, was not a god, but someone created by God. At that point, Adam did not have full ability to witness the Beatific Vision.

Yet, Adam was not just a pretty rock. He was a marvelous creature who had both the knowledge and the will to live as a creature in love with his Creator. Adam’s ability to participate in a true friendship with God was because he was created in the image of God. (Genesis 1: 26-27)

Being in the image of God means that Adam’s nature was an unique unification of both the material world which included his anatomy and the spiritual world of God which would be the ultimate goal of human life. (Genesis 2: 7) It is because of the God-created spiritual soul, that Adam was called to share, through knowledge and love, in God’s life. Furthermore, Adam could live in pure friendship with God on our earth. (Genesis 2:15)

God’s love for Adam and his spouse Eve was so great that He blessed them as the first parents of all humanity which would follow. (Genesis 1: 28-31) With this blessing, Adam and Eve started out in a love relationship with God. Their future children and their children’s future children would inherit Adam’s nature and therefore they would begin life in God’s friendship. Before all this could take place, Adam had a choice to make. The terms or rules for being in friendship with God was that Adam had to be obedient. (Genesis 2: 16-17) Remember that Adam, the creature, did not have the status of God, the Creator.

Because he is the original human, Adam committed the Original Sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity. Because Adam was to be the first father of all humans, his sin had disastrous consequences. As a parent, having children, Adam passed on his wounded nature to his children and to his children’s children for all time.

When Adam scorned God, God did not abandon Adam’s descendents, you and me. Genesis 3: 15 is viewed as the first announcement (Protoevangelium) of Jesus Christ Who is the Messiah and Redeemer.

Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. As True God, Jesus loves all humanity from the moment of Adam’s first breath of life. Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd because not only does He take care of His flock, but He is willing to lay down His life for His flock.
(John 10: 11)

As True Man, Jesus stood in Adam’s place, subsequently our place. (Romans 5: 12-21)
With His supreme act of obedience, Jesus conquered death and thus repaired the broken relationship which was originally between Adam and God.
 
First of all, Eve eating fruit from a tree isn’t the point. You can take it allegorically if you want, but the point is that Adam and Eve rebelled against God and disobeyed Him.

We are not blamed for Adam’s sin. Adam and Eve were born without a sinful nature. While being tempted, it was completely of their own free will that they decided to rebel against God. This rebellion has consequences. Adam and Eve lost their original state of holiness. They could no longer transmit this state of holiness and lack of sin onto their offspring. What is unholy cannot create holiness. The first act of rebellion led to a weakening of human nature. With this lack of holiness, we could not hope to achieve the perfect union with God in heaven.

Now, the article implies that Jesus’ death and resurrection is exactly what freed us from the original sin; but that’s not entirely the point.

A fundamental axiom in Christian theology is that a righteous person of merit can intercede on behalf of others and atone for their sins. For example, Moses atoning for the people of Israel. Within Catholic theology, this applies to the Church granting us an indulgence or we ourselves receiving our indulgence and giving it to someone who has passed away.

The salvation of mankind was not through Jesus’ death alone. It is through His entire life. From the incarnation itself, God came down to man and dwelt among him. Jesus lived a perfectly obedient life to the Father, and was completely sinless His entire life. Jesus chose to offer up this perfectly obedient life to the Father as atonement for the sins of the world. This atonement satisfied God and when someone chooses to join their will with Christ’s they receive the atonement that Christ won and can return to that original state of holiness; freed from original sin.
 
First of all, Eve eating fruit from a tree isn’t the point. You can take it allegorically if you want, but the point is that Adam and Eve rebelled against God and disobeyed Him.

We are not blamed for Adam’s sin. Adam and Eve were born without a sinful nature. While being tempted, it was completely of their own free will that they decided to rebel against God. This rebellion has consequences. Adam and Eve lost their original state of holiness. They could no longer transmit this state of holiness and lack of sin onto their offspring. What is unholy cannot create holiness. The first act of rebellion led to a weakening of human nature. With this lack of holiness, we could not hope to achieve the perfect union with God in heaven.

Now, the article implies that Jesus’ death and resurrection is exactly what freed us from the original sin; but that’s not entirely the point.

A fundamental axiom in Christian theology is that a righteous person of merit can intercede on behalf of others and atone for their sins. For example, Moses atoning for the people of Israel. Within Catholic theology, this applies to the Church granting us an indulgence or we ourselves receiving our indulgence and giving it to someone who has passed away.

The salvation of mankind was not through Jesus’ death alone. It is through His entire life. From the incarnation itself, God came down to man and dwelt among him. Jesus lived a perfectly obedient life to the Father, and was completely sinless His entire life. Jesus chose to offer up this perfectly obedient life to the Father as atonement for the sins of the world. This atonement satisfied God and when someone chooses to join their will with Christ’s they receive the atonement that Christ won and can return to that original state of holiness; freed from original sin.
The atonement will continuously fascinate me. Because in this act God is doing the acting, actually satisfying Himself, simultaneously showing us that obedience to His will can be done, and how it can be done, even as ultimately this means rejecting the will of the world, and being rejected by that world.
 
First of all, Eve eating fruit from a tree isn’t the point. You can take it allegorically if you want, but the point is that Adam and Eve rebelled against God and disobeyed Him.

We are not blamed for Adam’s sin. Adam and Eve were born without a sinful nature. While being tempted, it was completely of their own free will that they decided to rebel against God. This rebellion has consequences. Adam and Eve lost their original state of holiness. They could no longer transmit this state of holiness and lack of sin onto their offspring. What is unholy cannot create holiness. The first act of rebellion led to a weakening of human nature. With this lack of holiness, we could not hope to achieve the perfect union with God in heaven.
Yes. Adam’s sin resulted in an absence of sanctifying grace…a wounded human nature…which all humans have contracted. In Adam, all have sinned; in Christ, all are made righteous. Original sin is not a sin we “commit”, but a sin we “contract” or “inherit”…a “state” rather than an action (CCC 402-404, cf. Romans 5:12-21).

As incorrect as the author’s first sentence is, he actually refutes his very own position with it. “The reason for Jesus’ birth is that we needed a Saviour so that we can go to heaven…”

Wait a minute! Why do we need to go to Heaven?? Well, I’m sure the author would agree (conjecture on my part, sure) that it’s got something to do with the fact that no human is born into Paradise, where God had intended for us to be. But WHY aren’t we born into Paradise when we are born? Have we committed sins in our pre-birth existence that precludes us from Heaven? No…we aren’t born in Paradise because we have this contracted state of sin in our human nature. Our human nature is no longer grace-filled as Adam and Eve’s was at their creation. We contracted “Original Sin”. Just like the Bible says:

“Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He comes forth like a flower, and withers; he flees like a shadow and continues not. And dost thou open thy eyes upon such a one and bring him into judgment with thee? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.” (Job 14:1-4)

“What is man that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?” (Job 15:14)

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me…Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Ps 51:5, 7)

“Do not reproach a man who is turning away from sin; remember that we all deserve punishment.” (Sirach 8:5)

“What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.””…”since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:9-12, etc…and Rom 3:23)

“12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned – 13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many may be made righteous. 20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 5:12-21)

“For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1Cor 15:21-22)

“One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.” (Heb 7:9-10)

“Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.” (2Cor 5:17)
 
The atonement will continuously fascinate me. Because in this act God is doing the acting, actually satisfying Himself, simultaneously showing us that obedience to His will can be done, and how it can be done, even as ultimately this means rejecting the will of the world, and being rejected by that world.
Showing us obedience is a part of Christ’s salvific mission. John often quotes Jesus as saying that He came to do the will of the Father Who sent Him which is found in the “Bread of Life Discourse” and other places.

In regard to Original Sin, the essential meaning of Christ as True Man is His direct relationship to Adam. St. Paul often speaks of this relationship because death came through a human being; thus the resurrection of the dead came through a human being. This basic relationship is key to understanding Original Sin which occurred between non-equals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top