Was the ransom premature? Shouldn't the effects of Adamic sin have been reversed at the time of Jesus' death?
a very poignant question indeed and one that is so unsatisfactorily still unanswered, Theist Christians will still claim the hopeless old chestnut that there is still a sovereignty issue being solved, so billions of mankind still have to suffer because of a dick waving competition between god and the devil? laughable
Quick answer: yes!
Good question Deegee if you are seeking an understanding of the basis for Christian belief. The ransom is shot through with inconsistencies as mentioned by Island man and others, not to mention the problem of those who lived before the time when Adam was supposed to have lived. The ransom is just a fiction.
Adam did not exist, the Bible account is ludicrous if taken as a literal event. It has all the hallmarks of being one of many foundational MYTHS. Truth was never the object of this story.
Since Adam introduced ‘sin’ in this myth; an antidote would be needed hence the "second Adam" to buy back or reclaim the right to undying life. Myth ruthlessly requires symmetry, retribution and balance, in a way that real life does not. Cultists over the millennia have attributed various god-men saviours in this theatrical tale of redemption. It has usually required the sacrifice of the son of the Sun God at the spring equinox which idea in turn recalls earlier and more primitive methods for restoring equilibrium in the tribe; namely human sacrifice. (Bear this in mind at the memorial!)
The name Jesus (used earlier in Dionysian-mystery ritual) came late in the succession of players for the role. The early first century Christians did not give their saviour a personal name but although “Jesus” was in use in the late second century it was endorsed by the Catholic imperial Church of Rome in the fourth. By the fifth and sixth centuries CE the former names such as the crucified saviour Dionysus and the “Good Shepherd” Mithras and the host of preceding god-men, were proscribed by church decree on pain of death. ‘Jesus worship’ had been the great political tool for late the Roman Empire . . . and possibly had been a stupefying factor contributing in part to its downfall.
Isn’t it strange how there is no evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible? Roman history does not record a god-man called Jesus. Any successful literal resurrectionist would have been headline news at any time and at any place on Earth. History knows of none, it is only in mythology where we encounter people being brought back from the dead.
However do note how church authority has survived until today, secured and sanctified by Imperial Rome seventeen centuries ago and along with it, its most precious myth of the ransom sacrifice.
The real answer .... the biblical narrative is fictional as all expressed ancient mythology.
The believers answer would be that Jesus sacrifice redeem all of mankind's sins including Adam's.
Jehovah is confused. The RANSOM NOTE wasn't signed and so he doesn't know where to send Jesus blood.