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

[dshix]

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.

Exactly.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

As per St. Maximos the Confessor and accepted by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, only what is assumed is saved. If there is anything in man that is not assumed by Christ, that aspect of man is not saved. So are you saying there is something in man not assumed by Christ contrary to the teachings of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly.

You said “exactly” to a heresy condemend by the 6th ecumenical council.

 

[dshix]

Constantine, you are interestingly evading my question. Do you deny that Mary was conceived without sin, and was therefore free from the effects of sin, and that Jesus was as well?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, you are interestingly evading my question. Do you deny that Mary was conceived without sin, and was therefore free from the effects of sin, and that Jesus was as well?

What do you mean free from the effects of sin? The effect of sin was death, and both of them died. So they are not free from the effects of sin.

 

[dshix]

What do you mean free from the effects of sin? The effect of sin was death, and both of them died. So they are not free from the effects of sin.

You know perfectly well what the effects of sin are, come on.

There is no proof that Mary died; there are two traditions which the Church has that either she “died,” and was assumed, (a person free from the effects of sin can’t really die) or just fell asleep then was assumed.

Jesus did not die directly from his Passion, he let himself die. I will quote a previous post I made in this thread.

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.

 

[Della]

As per St. Maximos the Confessor and accepted by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, only what is assumed is saved. If there is anything in man that is not assumed by Christ, that aspect of man is not saved. So are you saying there is something in man not assumed by Christ contrary to the teachings of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council?

And we’re supposed to accept without question that you are properly understanding the teachings of the Fathers on this matter? Why should we when your understanding contradicts Christ’s very nature?

 

[dshix]

Here is a quote from a catholic answers tract.

Here’s the link if you want to check me:
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

Given this, can you say that Jesus had a corrupt nature while Mary did not?

 

[jimdi3]

Exactly so … well put. He could not have had a conditional acceptance of our human nature …"and being as all men are … " If not then there has been no salvation as the sacrifice would have been imperfect.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You know perfectly well what the effects of sin are, come on.

There is no proof that Mary died; there are two traditions which the Church has that either she “died,” and was assumed, (a person free from the effects of sin can’t really die) or just fell asleep then was assumed.

Jesus did not die directly from his Passion, he let himself die. I will quote a previous post I made in this thread.

There is proof that Mary died. It is the unquestionned Tradition of the Church from its earliest days. There is no “two traditions”, the opinion that she did not die is only fairly recent, thus it is not a tradition at all. To say that the East believes she died and the West didn’t is also wrong. Many Western saints taught that Mary died. Even the Transalpine Redemptorists (who are Roman Catholics) celebrate the feast of her dormition papastronsay.blogspot.ca/2012/08/around-her-funeral-couch.html

 

[ConstantineTG]

And we’re supposed to accept without question that you are properly understanding the teachings of the Fathers on this matter?

And you’re saying you are more authoritative on the matter than I am?

Why should we when your understanding contradicts Christ’s very nature?

No, it doesn’t. The teachings of the Fathers are very clear.

 

[ConstantineTG]

St. Athanasius writes in “On the Incarnation”

Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.

 

[dshix]

There is proof that Mary died. It is the unquestionned Tradition of the Church from its earliest days. There is no “two traditions”, the opinion that she did not die is only fairly recent, thus it is not a tradition at all. To say that the East believes she died and the West didn’t is also wrong. Many Western saints taught that Mary died. Even the Transalpine Redemptorists (who are Roman Catholics) celebrate the feast of her dormition papastronsay.blogspot.ca/2012/08/around-her-funeral-couch.html

There is zero proof that Mary died, this tradition is not doctrine.

Your claims are false, to convince me they are true, give me a reliable source.

Furthermore, please be aware that the more you evade my question about the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s freedom from the effects of sin, the less credible your argument is.

 

[dshix]

St. Athanasius writes in “On the Incarnation”

Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.

That is correct. He surrendered His body, it was not killed by natural means.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is zero proof that Mary died, this tradition is not doctrine.

Of course its doctrine, it is professed in the Liturgy of our Churches. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Your claims are false, to convince me they are true, give me a reliable source.

My claims are not false. Read the dogmatic declaration on the Assumption. Mary’s death is mentioned many times throughout the entire document.

Furthermore, please be aware that the more you evade my question about the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s freedom from the effects of sin, the less credible your argument is.

The credibility of my argument is from the teachings of the Fathers, they are not any less credible for whatever reason you may claim. Unless you want to say Ecumenical Councils are not credible.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is correct. He surrendered His body, it was not killed by natural means.

I forgot to highlight the first part, which is that we all have our bodies liable to the corruption to death. And Christ surrendered his to death. This means that he became human in every way like us.

 

[dshix]

Of course its doctrine, it is professed in the Liturgy of our Churches. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Prove it. Give me a source.

My claims are not false. Read the dogmatic declaration on the Assumption. Mary’s death is mentioned many times throughout the entire document.

Prove it. Give me a source.

The credibility of my argument is from the teachings of the Fathers, they are not any less credible for whatever reason you may claim. Unless you want to say Ecumenical Councils are not credible.

Prove it. Give me a source.
You are still evading the question. Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception, a dogma of the Church, or not?

 

[dshix]

I forgot to highlight the first part, which is that we all have our bodies liable to the corruption to death. And Christ surrendered his to death. This means that he became human in every way like us.

You do not get to highlight a part of a quote by someone else to prove your own point; you must take it with the emphasis they intended.

You seem to have the same problem with the Ecumenical Councils; you can’t interpret their teachings perfectly, and a lot of your ideas are flawed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Prove it. Give me a source.

You don’t go to Church?

dailycatholic.org/issue/04Aug/aug15pom.htm

Subveniat, Domine, plebi tuae Dei Genetricis oratio: quam etsi pro conditione carnis migrasse cognoscimus, in coelesti gloria apud te pro nobis intercedere sentiamus. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, Filium Tuum, Qui Tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus,

May the prayer of the Mother of God aid Thy people, O Lord: and although wé know, her, to have passed out of this life, fulfilling the lot of the flesh, may we experience her intercession for us with Thee in Heavenly glory. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God

And the introduction of the Feast reads:

The Double of the First Class Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven. Blessed Mary lived, cared for by St. John, for twelve years after Our Lord’s Resurrection. Her life was spent in helping the Apostles and in praying for the conversion of the world. On the third day after Mary’s death, when the Apostles gathered around her tomb, they found it empty. The sacred body had been carried up to the celestial paradise. Jesus Himself came to conduct her thither the whole court of heaven came to welcome with songs of triumph the Mother of the Divine Word. Why was Mary’s body received into heaven instead of remaining in the earth, like the rest of mankind? The grave had no power over one who was immaculate. Her flesh could not see corruption. Her body had been over shadowed by the Holy Ghost. It had been the sacred temple in which had dwelt God Incarnate, and so it had a claim to ascend whither the Body of her Son had already gone before. But the chief reason was that as she had shared in each detail in the sorrows and agony of her Son, so it was right that she should take part in His triumph. Let us ask of God, through Mary’s intercession, the grace of a happy death.

Prove it. Give me a source.

ercf.blogspot.ca/2012/01/immaculate-misconception.html

Prove it. Give me a source.

You are still evading the question. Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception, a dogma of the Church, or not?

And if I give you an answer, you will just use it as a polemic. You haven’t proven any of your points yes aside from passing comments. Why don’t you come up with your own proofs to your claims as I did mine?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You do not get to highlight a part of a quote by someone else to prove your own point; you must take it with the emphasis they intended.

You seem to have the same problem with the Ecumenical Councils; you can’t interpret their teachings perfectly, and a lot of your ideas are flawed.

Ad hominem, the last resort of someone utterly and souldy defeated in a debate

Thanks for playing