Did the Word have a fallen or unfallen humanity?

[Benadam]

I think of our fall as emerging from a distorted view of reality and what it means. If that reality were not a distortion then our response to it would be appropriate. Our nature is not changed but our vision of creation and our relationship to it, and God, have changed in our hearts and consequently the true meaning of our existence is no longer what we experience as real therefore we act out of the false reality we all chose in Adam and so in a real way continue choosing today. We would have not acted differently than Adam did. We can thank Adam and Eve for returning to a life of purity and making a holy place in this fallen humanity so that God could make all things new and emerge from the womb of a new sinless earth Himself as the father of the human race.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Did Jesus ever suffer from a cold or illness?

Would it be possible for the pre-fall Adam to suffer from a cold or illness?

 

[Formosus]

Sin which is sickness became part of the human nature after the fall, because it can be transmitted through our Genes. Sickness itself does not automatically transmit to their offspring, even AIDS and diabetes, sometimes are not automatically transmitted.

The transmission of sin is not genetic. I am fairly certain that particular view was condemned at some council or something. Sicknesses of the body do not become part of our bodily nature, and so sicknesses of the soul do not become part of our spiritual nature.

 

[marlo]

Can you do a research and enlighten us? My reference on my information is Greek Theologian John Karmiris

He writes that “the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, ‘no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day.’ . . . Original Sin not only constitutes ‘an accident’ of the soul; but its results, together with its penalties, are transplanted by natural heredity to the generations to come . . . And thus, from the one historical event of the first sin of the first-born man, came the present situation of sin being imparted, together with all of the consequences thereof, to all natural descendants of Adam.”[1]

thanks
marlo

The transmission of sin is not genetic. I am fairly certain that particular view was condemned at some council or something. Sicknesses of the body do not become part of our bodily nature, and so sicknesses of the soul do not become part of our spiritual nature.

 

[Formosus]

This is the opinion of a theologian and his interpretation of the fathers, I disagree with him and I believe others do as well. I would be happy to do research for you on this subject, but currently I am in the process of writing my thesis so I have more then enough to research as it is.

I can tell you this so far that John Karmiris’ view of sin ( original sin is " ‘sin-sickness,’ the sinful situation of human nature which deprived man of Divine Grace, and subjected him to death, to departure from the Divine life orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/golubov_rags_of_mortality.htm) definitely clashes with the view of Vladimir Lossky who states that man has never been totally separated from Divine Grace.

 

[Benadam]

Marlo, natural heredity doesn’t necessarily mean the flesh is involved. It may be since the theologian only mentions the soul that what is meant by natural is that father’s are the generating force of procreation mothers are the passive force. Woman was taken out of Adam. All human souls and human nature are born of woman and a generation of Adam. This may be what is referred to as natural heredity.

 

[marlo]

thank you for your comment, but i will stick to my view until you can provide a true and factual resource.

This is the opinion of a theologian and his interpretation of the fathers, I disagree with him and I believe others do as well. I would be happy to do research for you on this subject, but currently I am in the process of writing my thesis so I have more then enough to research as it is.

I can tell you this so far that John Karmiris’ view of sin ( original sin is " ‘sin-sickness,’ the sinful situation of human nature which deprived man of Divine Grace, and subjected him to death, to departure from the Divine life orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/golubov_rags_of_mortality.htm) definitely clashes with the view of Vladimir Lossky who states that man has never been totally separated from Divine Grace.

 

[marlo]

i really do not know what you mean here and regarding the topic, our discussion is that the if human nature of adam/christ is the same/different from our own.

now, the byzantine arguments in questions are:

if Adam’s nature AFTER the fall is the same as our own, and the same of Christ, then how it is different to the glorified nature of christ in which we will inherit upon salvation?

If Adams nature AFTER the fall is the same as ours, then how is sin not connected in our nature. If its not connected, how its being passed to our children, as sickness does not automatically trasmits to our offsprings (example are AIDS and Diabetes)

If Sin causes Death and if there’s Death there is Sin, then how come Christ died in which he is sinless?

Marlo, natural heredity doesn’t necessarily mean the flesh is involved. It may be since the theologian only mentions the soul that what is meant by natural is that father’s are the generating force of procreation mothers are the passive force. Woman was taken out of Adam. All human souls and human nature are born of woman and a generation of Adam. This may be what is referred to as natural heredity.

 

[Formosus]

thank you for your comment, but i will stick to my view until you can provide a true and factual resource.

So V. Lossky is not a true and factual source on the subject? I can give you the title of the work if you want to read it yourself.

 

[Formosus]

i really do not know what you mean here and regarding the topic, our discussion is that the if human nature of adam/christ is the same/different from our own.

now, the byzantine arguments in questions are:

if Adam’s nature AFTER the fall is the same as our own, and the same of Christ, then how it is different to the glorified nature of christ in which we will inherit upon salvation?

If Adams nature AFTER the fall is the same as ours, then how is sin not connected in our nature. If its not connected, how its being passed to our children, as sickness does not automatically trasmits to our offsprings (example are AIDS and Diabetes)

If Sin causes Death and if there’s Death there is Sin, then how come Christ died in which he is sinless?

Because Christ’s human nature was united perfectly to God. Our human nature is given an opportunity to reach perfection by uniting ourselves with the Divine Energy. Adam’s nature was identical to ours is currently, but after the fall Adam lost the ability to unite with the Divine Energy. Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection reopened the gates of paradise and thus allows man to take part in the Energies again.

I will admit , after doing some reading on the subject, that Sin and Death have a hereditary nature to them, but Gregory Palamas is firm in stating that Sin and Death are not part of our nature (Papademetriou, George C. Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas New York: Philosophical Library pg 60). When I get a cold, I all of a sudden am no longer human. My human nature doesn’t change. You said "sickness does not automatically trasmits to our offsprings " but some sicknesses do indeed pass to our offspring (and actually some forms of Diabetes are hereditary). Even then, physical sickness is an analogy and not exactly the same situation as spiritual sickness is. If sin is part of human nature, then there is no way for Christ to have redeemed us because He would not have been able to take on a sinful human nature. If He is like us in all things but sin, then that alone points to the fact that sin is not an essential part of who we are (or in other words our nature).

 

[marlo]

I’m not an expert on the views of Gregory Palamas, but everyone would agree that Sin and Death are not part of Adam’s Pre fallen nature, but after the Fall, the human nature had a stain and usually called the corrupted human nature, this corrupted human nature is being transferred to his offspring through generation

Since Christ will take our human nature, and he would not take a corrupted human nature, then the dogma of Immaculate Concepcion of Mary takes place, She was preserved from the stain of Original Sin through the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, resulting to a Pre fallen nature like Adam.

so our Lord has conquered Sin through Immaculate Concepcion and conquered death through his Resurrection, perfecting the Human nature and gaining the sanctifying Grace lost by Adam. This Glorified human nature we will also gain through our salvation.

so my take on the Original post is, the Word have an unfallen humanity.

Because Christ’s human nature was united perfectly to God. Our human nature is given an opportunity to reach perfection by uniting ourselves with the Divine Energy. Adam’s nature was identical to ours is currently, but after the fall Adam lost the ability to unite with the Divine Energy. Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection reopened the gates of paradise and thus allows man to take part in the Energies again.

I will admit , after doing some reading on the subject, that Sin and Death have a hereditary nature to them, but Gregory Palamas is firm in stating that Sin and Death are not part of our nature (Papademetriou, George C. Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas New York: Philosophical Library pg 60). When I get a cold, I all of a sudden am no longer human. My human nature doesn’t change. You said "sickness does not automatically trasmits to our offsprings " but some sicknesses do indeed pass to our offspring (and actually some forms of Diabetes are hereditary). Even then, physical sickness is an analogy and not exactly the same situation as spiritual sickness is. If sin is part of human nature, then there is no way for Christ to have redeemed us because He would not have been able to take on a sinful human nature. If He is like us in all things but sin, then that alone points to the fact that sin is not an essential part of who we are (or in other words our nature).