>>18419218
I guess if Adam doesn't sin then Eve just dies out there by herself and her sin is never redeemed?
I wouldn't think too hard about it.

>>18419227
Do Protestants also do the Exsultet in their Easter liturgies???

>>18419249
In between handling snakes, I think.

>>18419218
Despite the sin and devastation that original sin brought, it gave us, mankind, the opportunity to see how God truly loves us.

>>18419218
>truly necessary sin
The more I learn about Catholic theology the worse it gets

>>18419218
I'm not a Catholic, but the meaning seems straightforward to me if you consider the line that follows:
>O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!
It's not that "necessarily, Adam sins", rather it's that "necessarily, for Christian redemption to be possible, Adam sins". It doesn't preclude a world where Adam doesn't sin.

>>18419380
So it's infralapsarian then?

>>18419383
I don’t think that’s the right category to use. The text is praising God for bringing out of something bad (sin) something infinitely greater (Christ’s redemption). It’s not in the business of working out the logical order of the divine decrees. At most, it’s compatible with infralapsarian language in the very broad sense that redemption answers the Fall; but that is not the same as affirming infralapsarianism.

>>18419400
Ok but doesn't it still at least exclude a supralapsarian view of the incarnation? Because it asserts that the fall is what merits the coming of Christ. There would be no need for redemption without the fall, whereas the supralapsarian could still say that a type of redemption was still necessary for us even before the fall.

I think we need to separate two questions:

(1) If man had not sinned, would redemption through Christ be possible?
(2) If man had not sinned, would Christ have come at all?

The answer to (1) seems to me to be no, because redemption is inherently remedial. I don’t know what it would mean to say that redemption was "necessary even before the Fall". Redemption from what?

But (2) is a distinct question, and the Exsultet doesn’t decide it. It praises the way salvation actually unfolded - Fall, then redemption. That doesn’t by itself exclude views on which the Incarnation might still have occurred apart from sin.

>>18419423
>>18419409

>>18419218
People read the Sacred Scriptures with wishful thinking and believe they understood what they've read.

>>18419814
This is from the Easter liturgy, not actually from the Bible itself.

>>18419227
Adam lived 930 years. Eve died 6 days after adam. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

File: 1753308527107.jpg (26 KB, 563x648)

26 KB JPG

>>18419380
>>18419227
>>18419843
do some people really think that these things happened? serious question.

>>18419847
Read the Enuma Elish. Inscribed on clay tablets 4000 years before the bible was published...on paper. If that don't get it, read the Sumerian Kings List. Better have a bigger pipe. Also inscribed on clay tablets.

>>18419856
Kings list, not the pipe.

>>18419847
In short. Yes.
However, there is a silver, and a gold meaning.
A human nature, and a divine nature.
A subjective truth, and an objective truth.

God is not Corporeal, so any reading of the Bible/Torah that is focused on "physical bodies", rather than spirit, is not revealing perfect truths about God.

Priests, Pastors, and Rabbis are all told that if they explain the deeper metaphysical truths to people, it will blow their minds, or have unintended consequences, so they constantly tell people just to "believe" the silver meaning until you figure out tje golden meaning for yourself.

This is annoying, because if you straight up ask some of them if something is figurative, or a simili, they will sometimes deny it, because they want you to understand the basic story before you start worrying about its deeper meaning.

In a way, they treat the masses like children.

>>18419254
Go molest a choirboy you weird snobs, leave the real Christianity to the snake handlers.