Would Jesus have died a natural death had He not been crucified?

[dshix]

Hey guys,
Sorry I’ve been absent so long, Thanksgiving and stuff took me away from the computer for a while then I forgot about this thread for a day or two. I’m back!

Prove it. Where does it say in Infallibus Deus that the Immaculat Conception resulted in a different human nature for Mary, other than our own human nature?

You are putting words in my mouth, for maybe the fifteenth time. I never said Mary did not have a human nature. Quote where I said that. (And to be clear, when I say Mary did not have a fallen nature, that doesn’t mean I’m saying she did not have a human nature. There is a distinction.

Prove it.
There is nothing here that supports your point.

Either you didn’t read it all or you are stubborn.

Prove it.
It seems that you are the only one who is making stuff up because you have** produced nothing from official Church teachings **or any writings of any Church Father, Confessor and/or Saint that makes the claim that Mary’s and Christ’s humanity is a different humanity than ours.

this is false. The entire Encyclopedia from Catholic Answers has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. It is conformant to Church teachings. If you disagree with it, you disagree with the Church.

Prove it.
There is only one human nature. Whether Jesus sturggled on sin or not (and he did not, I made that very clear early on if you were paying attention) is besides the point. Jesus never existed with a human nature alone, he has 2 natures all the time from the time of the Incarnation. So whatever inherent weaknesses human nature has is already complemented and perfected by His divine nature. And this is our path to salvation, that is why it is taught, “God became man so that man may become gods.” The divine nature repairs and perfects the human nature and thus heals any and all sickness of that nature. Jesus had that which is why even in his humanity he is perfect and sinless. The problem with your argument is that you only want to focus on the human nature separate from the divine nature, which is your stumbling block into understanding how Theosis works and how the Incarnation actually worked. If Christ’s humanity is different from our humanity, his becoming human serves us no purpose. That is the teaching from the Fathers from the First Millennium, from St. Athanasius to St. Maximos the Confessor.

You put words into my mouth again. I never said I didn’t think Jesus had two natures. Of course He did!! What I am saying is that he did not have the qualities of a fallen person; he would not have died if he had not given up His own life (“Father, I commend my spirit.”)

Prove it.
I fully agree with what the Church teaches. You are the one with a misconception of what the Church teaches.

If you agree with the Church, you agree with me. If I find that I am flawed in Church teaching, I will change my viewpoint to remain in accordance with the Church. However, you have so far not succeeded in showing me my error, so I will not change as of yet.

What you consider untrue is the teaching of the Father of the faith. Too bad you don’t accept the true teaching of the Church.

I love how you try to use my own words against me and THEN put MORE words into my mouth. Please type out (or copy) the exact words of a Father of the Church that says that Jesus had a fallen nature, and give me a link proving its validity.

Take mind, what you think is undeniable evidence may just by your own mind twisting the words to mean what you want them to mean, as you have done multiple times before. You can’t just say, “St. Athanasius said this, and St. Maximos the Confessor said that…” because for all I know you misinterpreted it.

 

[dshix]

Jesus and Mary have elements of pre-fall humanity AND post-fall humanity.

Jesus and Mary did not suffer from concupiscence or inclination towards sin like Adam and Eve did AFTER the fall. They were like Adam and Eve BEFORE the fall in this respect.

As far as I know Mary and Jesus were subject to suffering and work which Adam and Eve were AFTER the fall but not BEFORE the fall.

I do not know if Mary was subject to suffering during the birth of Jesus which was the lot of women AFTER the fall.

Jesus worked as a carpenter–that was the lot of Adam (work) AFTER the fall.

Death was the lot of Adam and Eve AFTER the fall–as far as I know Jesus did not HAVE to die but CHOSE to lay down his life for us.

Most theologians but not all say that Mary died–if that is true then either she was subject to death AFTER the fall or wan’t subject to death AFTER the fall yet CHOSE to die as a favor from her Son Jesus so she could follow Him in this respect.

So in most respects I think it can be said that Jesus’ humanity that he inherrited from his mother was PRE-FALL humanity–the parts that were POST-FALL but without sin–such as suffering and work were things that He took upon Himself for our sake.

I do not know if it was possible for Jesus and Mary to get sick or catch a cold.

I have heard from some that Jesus and Mary might be different in that regard–that Jesus wouldn’t have ever caught a cold because it was important for Him to be an unblemished sacrifice though others argue that it would be possible.

Jesus wouldn’t have died a natural death without choosing to do so because the wages of sin is death and Jesus was sinless.

This looks accurate.

St. Thomas Aquinas notes in the Summa Part III that Christ assumed a perfected human nature from the moment of conception, the grace of union preceding habitual grace, both of which are present in Christ. It is incorrect to say that he assumed a “fallen” human nature, since that would entail that He assumed original sin. He did not. Further, to say that Christ “had a fallen nature” is to say that “he was fallen” and this is clearly incorrect. Parenthetically it is important to remember that the true nature of humanity is not “fallen,” it is not. This is a Protestant notion. The true nature of humanity, and our true destiny, is perfection and the beatific vision.

As far as sin, Christ was not conceived via carnal generation, which is necessary for the assumption of original sin. Christ was possessed of the beatific vision from the moment of His conception and therefore was not capable of actual sin either. For Him to be capable of sin, He would have had to have a “fallen nature,” which He did not. Christ was impeccable, i.e. incapable of sin. Christ had no sin nor did he have the fomes of sin. (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q.15, A.1-2.)

There is a nice summation of some of these points by Thomistic scholar Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange at thesumma.info/saviour/saviour45.php.

Nicely put.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Genesis 2:15 - The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

Mary didn’t suffer child birth, Ever Immaculate means before birth, during birth and after birth.

Mary “found favor with the Lord” can’t find favor and be cursed at the same time.

Jesus chose the Cross and Mary desired to follow not just on this issue, but all points, for that is Communion with Christ. That is why scripture states pick up your Cross and follow me for we are all called to Communion with the Lord.

 

[grannymh]

A priest and I got into a debate once about this topic. I maintained that had Jesus not died on the cross, He would have died a natural death in same way we all do. After all, He was like us entirely, except for sin. The priest, who is deeply into the Father of the Church, said no. He wouldn’t have died.

I say yes because Jesus did age; He went from being an infant, to 12, to 33. Why would this not continue? The priest, on the other hand, maintained that Jesus would not have died and was incorruptible since He had none of the effects of original sin.

I said, “Incorruptible? Completely? Do you think Jesus had any cavities? After all, if nothing in his body would erode, surely He would have had perfect teeth according to your thinking.”

The priest thought for a minute, and then was forced–for the sake of being consistent–that Jesus in fact had no cavities.

What do you say? Would Jesus have died a natural death had He not been crucified?

Has anyone linked the mystery of Jesus to the actual Original Sin of an actual first human person?

…

 

[grannymh]

. Original Sin wasn’t a widely accepted teaching until after the Great Schism, and it really only propagated in the West. My arguments are all soundly based on what the Council Fathers themselves taught.

Tiny historical correction. Affirmation of Original Sin dates to St. Paul, Romans 5: 12-21

 

[Paul_theApostle]

If mans sinful corrupt human nature is like a dirty cloak,

When God/Jesus became a man ,did he put on that filthy cloak ? or did he have a brand new clean cloak ?

perhaps Man fell and had on their back a heavy heavy cloak that no man could handle the weight and the weight of it pulled them down to hades

then Jesus being the only one strong enough to handle that weight puts it on and tells all men to follow his way of life and death also by way of the cross,when he dies and goes to hades as well the cloak comes off and he rises all the way back to heaven

and all who followed him and his way of life instead of staying in hades also go up to Paradise

Amen

 

[grannymh]

If mans sinful corrupt human nature is like a dirty cloak,

The Catholic Church does not teach that man has a corrupt human nature.
The Catholic Church teaches that man has a wounded human nature. Big, big difference.
(Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 405)