Immaculate Conception of Mary and Genesis

[Blue_Horizon]

Jesus’ body aged …he had fully human body, just like ours…getting his flesh via line of David, Tribe of Judah, fully Jewish … ( FULLY MAN - FULLY GOD)

Agreed. He was like us in all things but sin (personal disobedience to his Fathers will). Death is not a sin, it is an effect of sin. To be fully human is to die. Like receiving baptism from John, Jesus did so out of full solidarity and humility re the lot of Man.

BTW sin is not the only cause of death. Unaided human nature is inherently corruptible. Without grace (which is not the same as sin) Man appears inherently subject to corruption. Hence the Tree of Life (which would require the regular eating thereof) for maintaining immortality even in Paradise. This is a grace that was also withdrawn by God after Adam sinned.

 

[pocohombre]

Jesus’ body aged …he had fully human body, just like ours…getting his flesh via line of David, Tribe of Judah, fully Jewish … ( FULLY MAN - FULLY GOD)

Perhaps,but is not aging, that is beyond growing up, but once mature (21 yrs of age ? )a process of “decline” ? Is not this part of the curse, due to sin ? Of course fully man,just what kind of body ,perfect or flawed, under the curse or apart from it ?
Again ,I am only talking about the body , for we both agree He was sinless

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps,but is not aging, that is beyond growing up, but once mature (21 yrs of age ? )a process of “decline” ? Is not this part of the curse, due to sin ? Of course fully man,just what kind of body ,perfect or flawed, under the curse or apart from it ?
Again ,I am only talking about the body , for we both agree He was sinless

As just opined, aging as a process of decline was inherent in Adam even in Paradise. That was why Adam was provided with the Tree of Life. It is interesting that access to this Tree was denied separately to the curse.

 

[pocohombre]

As just opined, aging as a process of decline was inherent in Adam even in Paradise. That was why Adam was provided with the Tree of Life. It is interesting that access to this Tree was denied separately to the curse.

Thanks but how can it be separate it from the curse, in the sense that it was part of the curse, or a consequence of the sin , I believe.

 

[brb3]

Perhaps,but is not aging, that is beyond growing up, but once mature (21 yrs of age ? )a process of “decline” ? Is not this part of the curse, due to sin ? Of course fully man,just what kind of body ,perfect or flawed, under the curse or apart from it ?
Again ,I am only talking about the body , for we both agree He was sinless

A body like ours, fully human, received from lineage of David…subject to temptation, like as we, but in all matters remaining W/O sin. A body with Free Will ( like ours ), but always a will that was c/w the Father’s Will ----Jesus praying …"not My Will, but Thy Will "

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thanks but how can it be separate it from the curse, in the sense that it was part of the curse, or a consequence of the sin , I believe.

pocohombre
I think your difficulty is that you assume that all the consequences of Adam’s sin are linked to that sin in the same way. They are not. Genesis seems to go out of its way to make this clear with respect to immortality.

Adam’s aging and intrinsic lack of bodily immortality was inherent in Adam’s perfect human nature in Paradise even before the Fall.

God’s “curse” somehow wounded that perfect human nature and that wound (original sin)is passed down through human generation. But mortality was not encompassed in this wound. I accept Jesus did not inherit the effects of this wound to human nature. But as death was not intrinsically part of this inherited wound in the first place we must search elsewhere the reason why Jesus (and ourselves) was bound to die naturally anyway .

I maintain the loss of corporeal immortality was actually due to a more “external” mechanism - being locked out of the Garden where the Tree of Life" grows so that it cannot be locally accessed.

Hence Jesus, being born into a humanity that is, as a species, “locally” locked out of the Garden, remains deprived of the Tree of Life just like us. He too over time would corrupt and die naturally.

It is interesting that the Fathers opined that God locked us out of the Garden after the Fall as a great compassion, and not because He was jealous that we might receive immortality after sinning. For if we had received immortality after sinning later redemption (ie heaven) would have been impossible.

Therefore I conclude that “death is the wages of sin” needs to be understood with these subtle distinctions in mind. “Wages” is clearly a cause of death for “extrinsic” reasons rather than “intrinsic” reasons. For we were inherently mortal even before the Fall. We did not so much lose immortality, rather we failed to do what was necessary to gain “natural” immortality (quite different from “heaven”).

 

[Rosinante]

Not sure there should be mysteries when it comes to dogma. Paul calls things that God wishes to reveal to a humble regenerated hearts, things that the “world” can not “see”, as a mystery. It is not a mystery to the believer. Yes we see thru a glass veiled somewhat now, according to Paul, relative to how we will “see” in heaven. But John also states that we can know all things thru Christ. This good question posed here is indicative at least to some , of the frailty of some doctrines concerning Mary. Yes one could say the trinity took three centuries to congeal for some, and we all believe in that. But to take up to 1800 years for the final pronouncement on her Immaculateness is evidence enough to show it’s theological troubles. On my side of the fence I’d say maybe we shouldn’t be treading into such issues. One might say that it is Truth, but aren’t we to be busy with more central, catholic (universal) Truths ? The first churches were and apparently had no time for Marion theology, save what is found in the tradition of sacred scripture. Just as Catholics have a great company of witnesses to the effectual experience of faith in their Marion doctrine going back centuries, so do others in their faith without it (ie. the first churches, or Protestants today)…So how could Mary be born, no conceived perfectly, and lived sinless, and still suffer one of sin’s ultimate consequences (aging/death) ? Again, the posed question maybe a wonderful mystical opportunity for faith, or it may be a divine red flag to the doctrine (Immaculateness) itself.

The consequence of death was levied on humanity. It is not a sentence levied against human beings, individually–else we’d all become immortal upon baptism (since it washes away original sin). Mary was human; so was Yeshua.

Ergo, both were subject to the natural death, notwithstanding their sinlessness.

That’s how I understand it, anyway.

Curious, but what denomination of protestantism do you…practice…or subscribe to…or proffess?

 

[pocohombre]

A body like ours, fully human, received from lineage of David…subject to temptation, like as we, but in all matters remaining W/O sin. A body with Free Will ( like ours ), but always a will that was c/w the Father’s Will ----Jesus praying …"not My Will, but Thy Will "

So a body under the curse ?

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre
I think your difficulty is that you assume that all the consequences of Adam’s sin are linked to that sin in the same way. They are not. Genesis seems to go out of its way to make this clear with respect to immortality.

Adam’s aging and intrinsic lack of bodily immortality was inherent in Adam’s perfect human nature in Paradise even before the Fall.

God’s “curse” somehow wounded that perfect human nature and that wound (original sin)is passed down through human generation. But mortality was not encompassed in this wound. I accept Jesus did not inherit the effects of this wound to human nature. But as death was not intrinsically part of this inherited wound in the first place we must search elsewhere the reason why Jesus (and ourselves) was bound to die naturally anyway .

I maintain the loss of corporeal immortality was actually due to a more “external” mechanism - being locked out of the Garden where the Tree of Life" grows so that it cannot be locally accessed.

Hence Jesus, being born into a humanity that is, as a species, “locally” locked out of the Garden, remains deprived of the Tree of Life just like us. He too over time would corrupt and die naturally.

It is interesting that the Fathers opined that God locked us out of the Garden after the Fall as a great compassion, and not because He was jealous that we might receive immortality after sinning. For if we had received immortality after sinning later redemption (ie heaven) would have been impossible.

Therefore I conclude that “death is the wages of sin” needs to be understood with these subtle distinctions in mind. “Wages” is clearly a cause of death for “extrinsic” reasons rather than “intrinsic” reasons. For we were inherently mortal even before the Fall. We did not so much lose immortality, rather we failed to do what was necessary to gain “natural” immortality (quite different from “heaven”).

So you are saying the, “You shall surely die the day that you eat” was only spiritual ? It did not begin the process of physical death also ? Is that a CC teaching that Adam had a mortal body, that he was die someday ? I understand that the tree of life was withheld after the sin, but the mechnaism of aging is set one way or another by the Lord. I would think it began the day they ate…Wow. I just read again, and I have to ask is that CC teaching, that mortality is not part of the curse ? To say His body saw corruption (lack of tree of life) makes me wonder then why the necessity of an Immaculate Conception ? Actually not sure what other sources teach either but don’t think it is this.

 

[pocohombre]

The consequence of death was levied on humanity. It is not a sentence levied against human beings, individually–else we’d all become immortal upon baptism (since it washes away original sin). Mary was human; so was Yeshua.

Ergo, both were subject to the natural death, notwithstanding their sinlessness.

That’s how I understand it, anyway.

Curious, but what denomination of protestantism do you…practice…or subscribe to…or proffess?

Don’t understand how levied against humanity but not human beings ??? As to why God chose not to glorify us now is another topic, but not sure how that bears on the nature of original sin and Mary etc. Makes it a mute point of needing an immaculate conception, if indeed He is just like us, an eventual imperfect body, one that was to take on the sin of the world. Without blemish it seems we all agree to be spiritual-not sinning. So again why the need for physical perfection in conception, if in the end it has nothing ot do with a sacrifice without blemish ?..my fellowship /church is non-denominational. I lkie baptists, though wish they were charismatic/pentecostal. Like Calvary Chapels.

 

[brb3]

So a body under the curse ?

Well, a body under the curse of our sins, ----- at Calvary.

Jesus received a human body, via line of David, from fallen Adam. That would imply a body like ours …but for sin.

However, he got his human body from SINLESS MARY, Immaculately Conceived …so said Pope in (1854 ? ). If that be true, (Mary having no original sin)…would Mary’s pristine state of protected Jesus from a flawed human body ?
I think not, since all Christians are ‘washed clean’ of Both OS & PS at Baptisms …yet their offspring are still unclean. So, IMO, OS would need to be something intrinsic to our genetics, permanently coded in our DNA, and transferable by Mendelian Genetics. Baptism can remove it from us, but not from our ‘seed’ …since sins of fathers are passed down to 3rd generation offspring.

If I’m right, Jesus would of received our flawed ‘sin trait’, but by power of God the Father (via Holy Spirit) proceeding from the Father…Christ could thereby OVERCOME Adams’s corruption, and not ever commit personal sin.

Nevertheless, with a body from Adams’s lineage, Jesus truly tasted death of torture of Cross …with the whole sin burden of mankind (our OS & PS) laid upon him. As scripture says " cursed is he that hangs on a tree".

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…Is that a CC teaching that Adam had a mortal body

PH the Catechism clearly articulates a lot that is implicit in Catholic tradition but not everything, especially finer points as we are discussing.

The Catechism’s deeper explanations and underlying structure is based on a philosophy/theology mostly deriving from the “scholastic theology” of medieval times. The best window into that world is through the famous summary of the canonised doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas, and many others, clearly teach that Adam had a mortal body from the beginning. As the Catechism replicates everything else Aquinas wrote in this area I see no reason why we would easily discount his affirmations.

You are entitled to your own personal opinion, I will stay with Aquinas because I know his theology is coherent and consistent. I believe you will tie yourself up in knots and contradictions and unusual conclusions if you keep going along the path you are taking.

 

[Rosinante]

Don’t understand how levied against humanity but not human beings ??? As to why God chose not to glorify us now is another topic, but not sure how that bears on the nature of original sin and Mary etc. Makes it a mute point of needing an immaculate conception, if indeed He is just like us, an eventual imperfect body, one that was to take on the sin of the world. Without blemish it seems we all agree to be spiritual-not sinning. So again why the need for physical perfection in conception, if in the end it has nothing ot do with a sacrifice without blemish ?..my fellowship /church is non-denominational. I lkie baptists, though wish they were charismatic/pentecostal. Like Calvary Chapels.

The point is that death, as a penalty of Original Sin, was levied against the entirety of humanity–hence, no matter who or what were to take on humanity (as ‘The Son’ did)–would be subject to death, by virtue of humanity. I say not ‘individually’, because the penalty of death wasn’t levied against Yeshua (or Mary) individually–but by virtue of their humanity, exclusively.

As for the need for IC–that goes to the other aspect of the penalty for original sin–eternal damnation, in the sense of alienation from God. Hence the IC addressed that aspect, but not the penalty of death, inherent to humanity, due to original sin.

—else (again, as I posted before)–we’d all become immortal upon baptism.

 

[pocohombre]

The point is that death, as a penalty of Original Sin, was levied against the entirety of humanity–hence, no matter who or what were to take on humanity (as ‘The Son’ did)–would be subject to death, by virtue of humanity. I say not ‘individually’, because the penalty of death wasn’t levied against Yeshua (or Mary) individually–but by virtue of their humanity, exclusively.

As for the need for IC–that goes to the other aspect of the penalty for original sin–eternal damnation, in the sense of alienation from God. Hence the IC addressed that aspect, but not the penalty of death, inherent to humanity, due to original sin.

—else (again, as I posted before)–we’d all become immortal upon baptism.

Well thanks, but still don’t get it . How do you know the penalty wasn’t levied on Christ and Mary ? Again, did his body then decline with age ? Most believe Mary died, aged before her ascencion…Both death and damnation are penalty from the fall. Most don’t escape death but the damnation can be solved by regeneration. The Jews had a way of being cleansed from sin, including original, which to me makes IC unnecessary

 

[pocohombre]

PH the Catechism clearly articulates a lot that is implicit in Catholic tradition but not everything, especially finer points as we are discussing.

The Catechism’s deeper explanations and underlying structure is based on a philosophy/theology mostly deriving from the “scholastic theology” of medieval times. The best window into that world is through the famous summary of the canonised doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas, and many others, clearly teach that Adam had a mortal body from the beginning. As the Catechism replicates everything else Aquinas wrote in this area I see no reason why we would easily discount his affirmations.

You are entitled to your own personal opinion, I will stay with Aquinas because I know his theology is coherent and consistent. I believe you will tie yourself up in knots and contradictions and unusual conclusions if you keep going along the path you are taking.

Well mortal yes in that you can die (get your head cut off, accident etc). I would say though not mortal from the standpoint of aging unto death. I am willing to think on the tree of life keeping aging/disease away - it is God after all that did it one way or another for Adam, and us in heaven /new earth. I believe the human body, apart form aging, can live forever, does regenerate cells when necessary etc

 

[BA11]

So this is something I’ve never understood. Is the central thesis here that, because Jesus was holy and free of sin, that he had to be birthed by someone also free from sin?

 

[pocohombre]

Well, a body under the curse of our sins, ----- at Calvary.

Jesus received a human body, via line of David, from fallen Adam. That would imply a body like ours …but for sin.

However, he got his human body from SINLESS MARY, Immaculately Conceived …so said Pope in (1854 ? ). If that be true, (Mary having no original sin)…would Mary’s pristine state of protected Jesus from a flawed human body ?
I think not, since all Christians are ‘washed clean’ of Both OS & PS at Baptisms …yet their offspring are still unclean. So, IMO, OS would need to be something intrinsic to our genetics, permanently coded in our DNA, and transferable by Mendelian Genetics. Baptism can remove it from us, but not from our ‘seed’ …since sins of fathers are passed down to 3rd generation offspring.

If I’m right, Jesus would of received our flawed ‘sin trait’, but by power of God the Father (via Holy Spirit) proceeding from the Father…Christ could thereby OVERCOME Adams’s corruption, and not ever commit personal sin.

Nevertheless, with a body from Adams’s lineage, Jesus truly tasted death of torture of Cross …with the whole sin burden of mankind (our OS & PS) laid upon him. As scripture says " cursed is he that hangs on a tree".

He got half his body from Mary ? Mary giving the egg and the Holy Spirit the rest ?Still don’t understand the benefit for IC if it didn’t protect from a flawed body and the the Father kept Jesus from sinning.

 

[brb3]

He got half his body from Mary ? Mary giving the egg and the Holy Spirit the rest ?Still don’t understand the benefit for IC if it didn’t protect from a flawed body and the the Father kept Jesus from sinning.

I too used to think Mary was ordinary, like any Girl. But, Luke and scripture says otherwise. And, we know God has birthed some amazing individuals in past. Like Elijah & John the Baptizer. John was clearly a Singularly graced individual…from the womb. So, we rightly understand Christ desired his final prophet to be unique, without OS & probably all PS too. Now, if he did this for John …how much more would he do so for his Mother, also now our ‘spiritual’ mother, our greatest female saint…" most blessed among women".

 

[davidv]

So this is something I’ve never understood. Is the central thesis here that, because Jesus was holy and free of sin, that he had to be birthed by someone also free from sin?

No, that is not the central thesis. Jesus could been born of a woman who was not free of original sin. God chose to do it this way because is was fitting to do so.

In other words, the Immaculate Conception was not a logical necessity.

 

[pocohombre]

I too used to think Mary was ordinary, like any Girl. But, Luke and scripture says otherwise. And, we know God has birthed some amazing individuals in past. Like Elijah & John the Baptizer. John was clearly a Singularly graced individual…from the womb. So, we rightly understand Christ desired his final prophet to be unique, without OS & probably all PS too. Now, if he did this for John …how much more would he do so for his Mother, also now our ‘spiritual’ mother, our greatest female saint…" most blessed among women".

Not sure what you mean by “ordinary” and “just like any other girl”. That certainly is one end of the spectrum , not quite correct to biblical illumination. I would also say to say she was with no OS and PS and queen of heaven is the other end of the spectrum, not quite correct to the biblical illumination. Are you saying John was also without sin ? Not even St. Augustine said this.