Mary and birth pains

[NotWorthy]

I don’t know why I questioned toil. Clearly it is part of the original curse. I must have been tired. It seems, however, that death was a natural part of life and that it would only have been avoided if the ate from the tree of eternal life. So I don’t view death as part of the original curse.

I think Spiritual Death is part of the original curse. That’s why the phrase “to die the death” or “to die to die” is used. (I noticed that the online NAB doesn’t use this phrase, but I’ve seen it used before in other translations).

Adam and Eve lost their Sanctification (or saving grace) and thus they died spiritually that day. This is a state we mostly recover (except for that rascally concupiscience) when we are baptized,

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All

Genesis. 3:16 To the woman he said I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing. Painlessness was never part of the preternatural gifts of Adam an Eve. My thoughts.

Have a Blessed Christmas.
OneNow1

 

[Valke2]

I think Spiritual Death is part of the original curse. That’s why the phrase “to die the death” or “to die to die” is used. (I noticed that the online NAB doesn’t use this phrase, but I’ve seen it used before in other translations).

Adam and Eve lost their Sanctification (or saving grace) and thus they died spiritually that day. This is a state we mostly recover (except for that rascally concupiscience) when we are baptized,

This sounds a bit like Teshuva in Judaism. The act of turning back toward God – which requires that one first turn away from God. One obvious difference being that Teshuva applies to adults who make a conscious act as part of the process, whereas baptism is genearlly done to infants.

Obviously, the process is radically different, but the intent seems to be similar, if I am understanding your post.

 

[st_ignatius110]

I don’t know why I questioned toil.

No problem. Believe me I understand about being tired! Sorry I seemed so snappy.

It seems, however, that death was a natural part of life and that it would only have been avoided if the ate from the tree of eternal life. So I don’t view death as part of the original curse.

What would you then do with the verses I quoted? The Scriptures very clearly teach that Adam had to return to dus(part of the curse) and also in Romans that through Adam death entered into the world. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture does it say that one had to eat from the Tree of Eternal Life in order not to die. It seems instead that death is/was a part of the curse for man’s disobedience.

 

[Valke2]

No problem. Believe me I understand about being tired! Sorry I seemed so snappy.

What would you then do with the verses I quoted? The Scriptures very clearly teach that Adam had to return to dus(part of the curse) and also in Romans that through Adam death entered into the world. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture does it say that one had to eat from the Tree of Eternal Life in order not to die. It seems instead that death is/was a part of the curse for man’s disobedience.

Never read Romans and it isn’t part of my scripture, I won’t argue it one way or the other. So I’ll stick with Genesis.

I don’t think the dust to dust portion of the curse is really part of the curse. It is addressed specifically to Adam and yet we all believe that both man and woman are returned to dust. The curse seems to be that man will have to sweat for his bread until he returns to the ground.

There’s some support for this if we read a little further. After God curses the serpent, Eve and Adam, we read in Gen. 3:22-23:

“And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden, to till the soil form which he was taken.”

It seems clear that without eating cfrom the tree of life, Adam and Eve would not have lived forever. However, I can also see how the resignation to being mortal came about from the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since this resulted in Adam and Eve being denied the opportunity to eat from the tree of life.

 

[st_ignatius110]

Never read Romans and it isn’t part of my scripture, I won’t argue it one way or the other. So I’ll stick with Genesis.

Oh ok. I had no clue that you are Jewish. I am a little slow and also new to the board!

I don’t think the dust to dust portion of the curse is really part of the curse. It is addressed specifically to Adam and yet we all believe that both man and woman are returned to dust. The curse seems to be that man will have to sweat for his bread until he returns to the ground.

I don’t think you can seperate the returning to dust from the curse as it is obviously a part of it. We believe that through Adam sin entered into the world although the woman had everything to do with it. So through Adam death spread to the world.

There’s some support for this if we read a little further. After God curses the serpent, Eve and Adam, we read in Gen. 3:22-23:

“And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden, to till the soil form which he was taken.”
It seems clear that without eating cfrom the tree of life, Adam and Eve would not have lived forever. However, I can also see how the resignation to being mortal came about from the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since this resulted in Adam and Eve being denied the opportunity to eat from the tree of life.

I have not really thought about this as well as I should have so let me know what you think. I would say that this came after the “fall” and this realization is very important. This statement says nothing about them eating of the Tree of Life before the “fall.” Being now in sin if Adam were to live forever this would not be right. Which assumes that if he were not in sin his living forever would be a part of his blessing. You say that Adam and Eve were denied the opportunity of eating from the Tree of Life. Would this be because of the curse? I am not convinced that in order not to die they had to eat of this Tree but I am convinced that IF this were the case they were not allowed to eat of it because of the fall which would then lead us to say that death, and no choice in death, would be a part of the curse.

 

[NotWorthy]

This sounds a bit like Teshuva in Judaism. The act of turning back toward God – which requires that one first turn away from God. One obvious difference being that Teshuva applies to adults who make a conscious act as part of the process, whereas baptism is genearlly done to infants.

Don’t tell that to some of our Protestant brethren. Some of them (but not all) tend to baptize only after the age of reason. Though all Christians (with maybe a very few exceptions) teach that Baptism replaces Circumcision, not all Christians teach that the practice can be done on infants, due to the “turning back to God” that you referred to (repentence). Catholics teach that the parents can stand in for the infant on the decision to become a “child of God”, which is what happens in Baptism.

Obviously, the process is radically different, but the intent seems to be similar, if I am understanding your post.

I think the intent IS similar. The biggest difference is that, when we are baptized, the Holy Spirit actually resides in our soul with us.

I’m pretty sure our Jewish brothers do not teach this !

 

[Valke2]

I have not really thought about this as well as I should have so let me know what you think. I would say that this came after the “fall” and this realization is very important. This statement says nothing about them eating of the Tree of Life before the “fall.” Being now in sin if Adam were to live forever this would not be right. Which assumes that if he were not in sin his living forever would be a part of his blessing. You say that Adam and Eve were denied the opportunity of eating from the Tree of Life. Would this be because of the curse? I am not convinced that in order not to die they had to eat of this Tree but I am convinced that IF this were the case they were not allowed to eat of it because of the fall which would then lead us to say that death, and no choice in death, would be a part of the curse.

I think yes, they were denied because of the curse, in that, had they not been eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would have had the opportunity to eat from the tree of life. I think your reasoning here is sound (which is another way of saying that it is similar to my own )

There’s a midrash (story meant to highlight a specific teaching found in Torah) that says the creation of Man was not complete unitl after he ate from the tree of knowledge of good an evil (from now on, I’m just going to refer to it as “the tree”). That, technically, there’s nothin in Genesis that says this all happened after the sixth day. In other words, God never intended us to remain in the Garden.

 

[st_ignatius110]

Hmmm…very interesting stuff! This is something I will have to look into further. I do see where you are coming from.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think yes, they were denied because of the curse, in that, had they not been eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would have had the opportunity to eat from the tree of life. I think your reasoning here is sound (which is another way of saying that it is similar to my own )

There’s a midrash (story meant to highlight a specific teaching found in Torah) that says the creation of Man was not complete unitl after he ate from the tree of knowledge of good an evil (from now on, I’m just going to refer to it as “the tree”). That, technically, there’s nothin in Genesis that says this all happened after the sixth day. In other words, God never intended us to remain in the Garden.

I think that’s an area that we teach differently. God did intend for us to remain in the state that Adam and Eve were originally created. They just managed to screw it all up.

That’s why Jesus was incarnated (?) and died, so that we could attain that same state (of Sanctifying Grace, or eternal life) that Adam and Eve were originally created.

 

[nguyencongbinh]

I would like to use the term PURITY
Jesus accepted to be a human, subject to all human tendencies, except sin - and he was born of a Pure Mother. Purity pre-ordained before and after his birth. She lost her physical hymen when she gave birth she did not lost her purity. She suffered during the birth the same way her Son suffered death on the cross. She was intended becoming a wife but Joseph was never sexually knowing her (Mt1:25 . In the other term: ***She Ever Remained Pure. ***

We used to read And he knew her not until she delivered her son. Then we discussed about her physical virginity, about her sexual life, about other verses saying she had other children… People then claimed there was no Bible verse confirming Her Whole Purity. I found that Pope John Paul now reads Mt1:25 as an independent sentence. Et non cognoscebat eam (PAUSE) .
And the Bible now, as I read, clearly affirms Her Purity.

This issue may be long, I will start a sub-topic **And he knew her not until she delivered the child. **

 

[DCD]

I would like to use the term PURITY
Jesus accepted to be a human, subject to all human tendencies, except sin - and he was born of a Pure Mother. Purity pre-ordained before and after his birth. She lost her physical hymen when she gave birth she did not lost her purity. She suffered during the birth the same way her Son suffered death on the cross. She was intended becoming a wife but Joseph was never sexually knowing her (Mt1:25 . In the other term: ***She Ever Remained Pure. ***

We used to read And he knew her not until she delivered her son. Then we discussed about her physical virginity, about her sexual life, about other verses saying she had other children… People then claimed there was no Bible verse confirming Her Whole Purity. I found that Pope John Paul now reads Mt1:25 as an independent sentence. Et non cognoscebat eam (PAUSE) .
And the Bible now, as I read, clearly affirms Her Purity.

This issue may be long, I will start a sub-topic **And he knew her not until she delivered the child. **

I prefer to believe Mary gave birth the same way light comes through a window pane. So I would have to disagree with the above statement.

Peace,
David

 

[KathleenElsie]

I was told there is no set teaching on Mary and birth pain. This leaves the possibility of pain open to interpretation.

Would it be possible for Mary to have experienced great pain but not in the sense we know it in child birth?

Anguish at the thought of her son Jesus being the future sacrifice for the worlds sins. As a young devout Jewish woman she knew full well the prophesies that her son was to fulfill. So the birth was both a great joy and a great sorrow at the same time.

 

[Shoshana]

I prefer to believe Mary gave birth the same way light comes through a window pane. So I would have to disagree with the above statement.

Peace,
David

I have also heard that Jesus was born in the same way thatJesus went tthrough he wall to wish his apostles peace after his death and resurrection. The wall=hymen…