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

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheAdvocate

Guest
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?
 
He still could have chosen When to die like his Mother Mary may have.

Shalom
God bless
 
Catholic teaching is that death, and the possibility of injury or illness, entered the human race due to original sin. In the case of the Virgin Mary, her Immaculate Conception preserves her from “immune from every stain of original sin”. The stain of original sin includes the effects on body as well as on soul. Jesus, too, had no stain of original sin. And so Jesus and Mary were not subject to death, injury, or illness. Jesus suffered and died because it was the will of God, to which he consented in His human will as well. Otherwise, he could not have been injured or killed.
 
I agree with the OP because if Jesus could not be injured or killed–how did he sustain injuries and how did the Romans manage to kill him? Certainly, he wouldn’t have remained dead–as fully divine that would not be possible, but he did allow his human body to be injured and killed.

Scripture tells us Jesus was like us in all things except sin. This means he felt hunger and cold and warmth and every other sense we humans can experience. He also aged, as the OP pointed out. If he had not be able to change, he could not have aged. His humanity was just like ours–with the same likelihood for aging and death. I have no doubt he would have arisen from the dead because of who he was if he had died a natural death, but as we know, that was not God’s will for him.

Jesus laid down his life at the peak of his manly perfection/age. And he left us so the Holy Spirit could empower us to take his message to the whole world. I’m sure there were times when those who knew and loved him wished he could have remained to share his wisdom and his love with them, but if he had we wouldn’t be who we are and there’d have been no offering to God for the justice due him because of our sins.
 
Jesus’ whole ministry was to die for us.

The only way Jesus would have failed is not to have been killed for our sins.

Since it was impossible that he could have failed in his ministry it is impossible that he would not have been executed.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Catholic teaching is that death, and the possibility of injury or illness, entered the human race due to original sin. In the case of the Virgin Mary, her Immaculate Conception preserves her from “immune from every stain of original sin”. The stain of original sin includes the effects on body as well as on soul. Jesus, too, had no stain of original sin. And so Jesus and Mary were not subject to death, injury, or illness. Jesus suffered and died because it was the will of God, to which he consented in His human will as well. Otherwise, he could not have been injured or killed.
Click to expand...
Which is why this view is against Patristic teaching. If Jesus did not take the flesh that we have, how did his dying save us?

And by the way, Mary did die.
 
I thought it was taught that He was incarnated in an unfallen body but willed to subject it to death and such? If that’s the case, then it would be up to Him whether to die of old age. But we all know what choice He made.
 
WoundedIcon said:
I thought it was taught that He was incarnated in an unfallen body but willed to subject it to death and such? If that’s the case, then it would be up to Him whether to die of old age. But we all know what choice He made.
Click to expand...
His humanity is the same as our humanity. Any claim otherwise is heretical. All the heresies in the First Millennium that the Ecumenical Councils battled at that time were questions about Christ’s humanity and divinity. There heresies were ranging from, either God is not divine enough (such as Arianism) or he is not human enough (Gnosticism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism). The affirmation of all Ecumenical Councils is the orthodox faith of the Church from day 1, that is Christ is fully human (everything like us except sin, that is he did not commit any personal sin) and that he is fully divine. Also, St. Maximos the Confessor taught that “only what is assumed is what is saved.” So Christ assumed everything about us including our fallen nature so that he may unite it with his perfect divine nature, that our entire nature may be saved. If there is an aspect of Christ’s humanity that is not the same as our humanity, then we are not saved. This is the doctrine of Theosis.
 
triumphguy said:
Jesus’ whole ministry was to die for us.

The only way Jesus would have failed is not to have been killed for our sins.

Since it was impossible that he could have failed in his ministry it is impossible that he would not have been executed.
Click to expand...
:amen: :amen:
 
TheAdvocate said:
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?
Click to expand...
The answer to this is definitive and complete.

When Adam and Eve had the Fall, and lost all those graces associated with it, they gained suffering, death, and concupiscence. If they had not fallen, they would have never “died,” but rather would have been called up into heaven at the proper time.

The same applies for Mary and Jesus. They had no original sin, so they could not “die” in the same way as we do. There is speculation about Mary’s “death,” but what I personally believe is that she just fell asleep and was assumed in her sleep. There was no “deathbed” because she had no sin; this is the same reason why she had no pain in childbirth.

Therefore, Jesus would not have died for this same reason. Of course, he intended to offer up His life, and it’s really stupid to speculate what would happen if God’s plan didn’t carry out (since it always will, unfailingly). If you take a close look at scripture, you can see clearly that it wasn’t the crucifixion that killed Jesus; he released himself into death.

He said, “Father, I commend My Spirit.” He directly permitted His body to die.

My hypothesis that if he had not done this, he would have gone on living, much to the bewilderment of the Roman soldiers.

This is supported by a documentary I watched on the Passion. The host went through a detailed search on the Passion, using the Shroud of Turin for much of his evidence.

I don’t remember exactly how many strokes Jesus received at the Scourging at the Pillar, but I believe it was just under 200 (this is determined by the Shroud of Turin, which has the markings all over His body.)

Going back to the history of the kind of lash that was used for this particular torture, the host of this documentary learned that a *single *stroke from the scourge the Romans used was enough to put a man into shock; a staunch man would not survive over 60 or so lashes.

The fact that Jesus lived through that, then was forced to carry the cross such a long distance, THEN ***SURVIVED ***on the cross for so long, I think is proof that death could not overcome Him without his own choice.

Therefore, if Christ had not died on the cross, He would have gone on to live indefinitely until he chose to pass on.
 
ConstantineTG said:
So Christ assumed everything about us including our fallen nature so that he may unite it with his perfect divine nature, that our entire nature may be saved. If there is an aspect of Christ’s humanity that is not the same as our humanity, then we are not saved. This is the doctrine of Theosis.
Click to expand...
Christ DID NOT assume our fallen nature. This is false, and I’d suggest checking your Catechism on this.
 
dshix said:
Christ DID NOT assume our fallen nature. This is false, and I’d suggest checking your Catechism on this.
Click to expand...
Of course he did. How else could we have been saved? I’ve been reading extensively on the teachigns of the Fathers especially on the Seven Ecumenical Councils and all the issues of the Christology of the time. If Christ has a humanity different from our humanity, then he has saved none of us. Humanity is perfected by communion with divinity, as manifested by Christ himself, who has taken our humanity and fully and completely combined with his divinity, one person existing with two natures and two wills.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Of course he did. How else could we have been saved? I’ve been reading extensively on the teachigns of the Fathers especially on the Seven Ecumenical Councils and all the issues of the Christology of the time. If Christ has a humanity different from our humanity, then he has saved none of us. Humanity is perfected by communion with divinity, as manifested by Christ himself, who has taken our humanity and fully and completely combined with his divinity, one person existing with two natures and two wills.
Click to expand...
I think you are rather confused. If Christ had had a fallen nature, he would have suffered the effects of original sin, including concupiscence and a darkened intellect. He may have even sinned!

I’d suggest checking the catholic answers quick questions on this topic.

catholic.com/quickquestions/jesus-had-a-human-nature-so-wouldnt-he-also-have-had-a-naturally-sinful-nature
 
dshix said:
I think you are rather confused. If Christ had had a fallen nature, he would have suffered the effects of original sin, including concupiscence and a darkened intellect. He may have even sinned!

I’d suggest checking the catholic answers quick questions on this topic.
Click to expand...
He could have sinned, yes. That is why the devil tempted him. But because he has 2 natures, human and divine, his human will is perfectly submitted to his divine will, thus he couldn’t have sinned.

To imply that Christ has a different human will other than the human will everyone of us has is against the teaching of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and is heresy. The problem with your claim is that you are assuming that Christ only had one will while he was on earth, his human will. Thus if his human will is fallen then he would have sinned. Which is true. But again because he also has a second will, his divine will, thus he is able to resist any and all temptations by the devil. For us we need grace to fight sin. Christ is grace himself by virtue of his divine nature, thus his human nature, fallen as it may, could not have sinned. But it doesn’t make his human nature any different than ours.
 
ConstantineTG said:
He could have sinned, yes. That is why the devil tempted him. But because he has 2 natures, human and divine, his human will is perfectly submitted to his divine will, thus he couldn’t have sinned.

To imply that Christ has a different human will other than the human will everyone of us has is against the teaching of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and is heresy. The problem with your claim is that you are assuming that Christ only had one will while he was on earth, his human will. Thus if his human will is fallen then he would have sinned. Which is true. But again because he also has a second will, his divine will, thus he is able to resist any and all temptations by the devil. For us we need grace to fight sin. Christ is grace himself by virtue of his divine nature, thus his human nature, fallen as it may, could not have sinned. But it doesn’t make his human nature any different than ours.
Click to expand...
I made no assumption that Christ had only one will. I am challenging your assumption that Christ had a fallen nature, like anyone else. Are you denying the Immaculate Conception? Are you denying that Christ was free from Original sin?
 
dshix said:
I made no assumption that Christ had only one will. I am challenging your assumption that Christ had a fallen nature, like anyone else. Are you denying the Immaculate Conception? Are you denying that Christ was free from Original sin?
Click to expand...
Are you denying that Christ assumed a human nature similar to ours?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Of course he did. How else could we have been saved? I’ve been reading extensively on the teachigns of the Fathers especially on the Seven Ecumenical Councils and all the issues of the Christology of the time. If Christ has a humanity different from our humanity, then he has saved none of us. Humanity is perfected by communion with divinity, as manifested by Christ himself, who has taken our humanity and fully and completely combined with his divinity, one person existing with two natures and two wills.
Click to expand...
No, he didn’t assume our fallen nature. What he assumed was the limitations of our physical nature which had been brought about by the fall of Adam and Eve–the possibly of injury and death. There’s a fine distinction there. He had to do all the same things we have to do to maintain a healthy life, but he did not have a desire to sin or a darkened intellect or a weakened will.
 
CCC 460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top