The problem of Original Sin, in itself, is no longer a dominant concern in the fields of both theology and philosophy. Scholars to this point in history have almost exhausted the possible interpretations of Original Sin. However, as an existential concept, or better an existential mystery, Original Sin lures those who are concerned with authentic being to contemplate it, reflect upon it, and then form a deeper understanding of themselves. This kind of deeper understanding, thought it might be different from individual to individual, is possible because the concept of Original Sin necessarily entails some other crucial concepts such as human freedom and the Image of God. Sin presupposes responsibility, which in turn requires human freedom as its premise. If man is not free, he cannot be responsible for what he has done. But, to be responsible one must be conscious of the distinction between good and evil. What, then, was the distinction between good and evil at the beginning of time? And what was man`s consciousness in this pre-sinful period? Could we say that this consciousness of man is more original than Original Sin? Had this consciousness of man any relation to the Image of God which is supposed to be more original than Original Sin? This series of questions is, indeed, the peculiar product of the Christian tradition, but it can also man`s own finitude is at the same time to consent to the Infinite. Failing to fulfill this obligation is to have an undue self-regard, or to have disproportion with himself. This deviation, occurring once and then time again, obscures the consciousness to the extent that the orientation become no longer clear. Departing from the Sacred or Being, the finite man "goes astray." Jesus` claiming, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," is thus the proclamation of the new creation. The reconciliation consists in the clarification of the Image of God through Jesus Christ`s redemption.