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

[dshix]

I understand that you attend an Eastern Rite, and I do not know very much about them. It is possible that the tradition of Mary’s death is widely believed there, as I have never heard that prayer which you cited before.

As yet, the tradition of Mary’s death is just that; a tradition, and there is no dogma supporting it. Sure, there are many who believe in it, and writings which support it, but the fact remains that the idea of her death is incompatible with the fact that she was free from the effects of sin, and that includes death.

I don’t claim to say that this tradition is flat-out-wrong, but I also reserve the right to disbelieve it, given the facts of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

However, you have not yet said flat-out that you concur with this dogma. You have evaded it now… four times? Please resolve this, because if it turns out that you don’t believe this dogma I’m afraid there is no coherent discussion to be continued until you fix that part of the equation.

Again, I am not going to continue attacking your belief in Mary’s death, as it is a Tradition and you have a right to it.

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?

I already did. See post #33.

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

Thanks for playing

Please do not make snarky attempts to end the debate prematurely.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

For your consideration, Gaudium et Spes says this:

He Who is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15),(21) is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled,(22) by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice(23) and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.(24)

Also from Pope Leo the Great “The Mystery of our Reconciliation”:

True God, then, was born in the complete and perfect nature of true man; completely human and completely divine. By human, I mean that nature which the Creator founded in us at the beginning, and which he undertook to restore. For there was no trace whatever in our Saviour of those elements which were introduced into us by the deceiver, and to which man, when deceived, allowed entrance. Nor does it follow that because he undertook to share with us our weaknesses, he thereby shared our sins.

He took the form of a servant without stain of sin. He enhanced our humanity but did not thereby diminish his divinity. The emptying by which the invisible one made himself visible, and by which the Lord and Creator of all things willed to be one with mortal men, was a bending down in pity, not a failure of power. Accordingly, he who in the form of God was the maker of man, was himself made man in the form of a slave.

Regarding Mary, it is has been overwhelming believed throughout the centuries that she did die although there was no corruption in her death. The notion that she did not die because of the Immaculate Conception is a relatively recent development. John Paul II taught that it was his opinion that she died and if you read the linked letter you’ll see his clarifying remarks about the Dogma of the Assumption. Still, I believe that Catholics are not required to believe she died. Even though her death is referred to in several parts of the Dogma of the Assumption it is not in the final proclamation.

Very interesting discussion.

 

[dshix]

Regarding Mary, it is has been overwhelming believed throughout the centuries that she did die although there was no corruption in her death. The notion that she did not die because of the Immaculate Conception is a relatively recent development. John Paul II taught that it was his opinion that she died and if you read the linked letter you’ll see his clarifying remarks about the Dogma of the Assumption. Still, I believe that Catholics are not required to believe she died. Even though her death is referred to in several parts of the Dogma of the Assumption it is not in the final proclamation.

Very interesting discussion.

Very interesting indeed.

So what is your opinion on Jesus’ death, Prayer Warrior?

 

[Bezant]

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.

Do you have any good Christology reads?

 

[ConstantineTG]

St. John of Damascus writes wrote, “One must know that the Word assumed the ignorant and subjected nature…” Conclusively, Christ assumed a fallen human nature. BUT, he continues, “thanks to the identity of the hypostasis and the union, the Lord’s soul was enriched with the knowledge of things to come and other divine signs; similarly the flesh of human beings is not by nature life-giving, while the Lord’s flesh, without ceasing to be mortal by nature, became life giving thanks to the hypostatic union with the Word.”

In summary, yes, the human nature of Chirst is indeed the same exact nature each and every one of us has. Fallen. But it is because of his hypostatic union with his divine nature that his human nature could not have succumbed to any temptation of the flesh and sinned. Christ’s human will is in complete submission to His divine will.

 

[dshix]

Constantine, could you please, once and for all, answer my question?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you have any good Christology reads?

On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius is par excellance, THE Christology reading for the ages.

St. Maximus the Confessor is also a good source as he defended the Two Wills of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, could you please, once and for all, answer my question?

What does this do in light of all the evidences I have given you? Does it change anything?

 

[triumphguy]

prove it. Give me a source.

Prove it. Give me a source.

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?

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII: munificentissimus deus (defining the dogma of the Assumption)

in the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that Sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the Holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”(vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html)

this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

It’s well worth reading the whole document:thumbsup:

 

[ConstantineTG]

By the way, to give both sides a fair shake, I re-read the Dogma on the Immaculate Conception. There is nothing there that states that the Immaculate Conception happened so that Christ will not inherit Original Sin. Thus there is nothing in the teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ himself in his human nature is different from any one of us. This confirms the consistency of teaching from the First Millennium that Christ himself shared everything about us but sin (that is, he never committed any sin).

 

[Nan_S]

It was always God’s plan that Jesus die on the cross. We saw that in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus prayed that He not die that way if there was any other possible way for God’s plan to be fulfilled.

We know that God the Father always listened to Jesus on everything. This particular prayer was not granted.

Therefore, we MUST conclude that it was never possible for Jesus to die a natural death. Your question is illogical.

 

[Ron_Conte]

By the way, to give both sides a fair shake, I re-read the Dogma on the Immaculate Conception. There is nothing there that states that the Immaculate Conception happened so that Christ will not inherit Original Sin. Thus there is nothing in the teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ himself in his human nature is different from any one of us. This confirms the consistency of teaching from the First Millennium that Christ himself shared everything about us but sin (that is, he never committed any sin).

According to Pope John Paul II, fallen human nature lacks sanctifying grace:

“It is ‘fallen’ since it is deprived of sanctifying grace, and also of other gifts, which in the state of original justice constituted the perfection of this nature. Here we are dealing not only with immortality and exemption from many sufferings, gifts lost because of sin, but also with interior dispositions of the reason and will, that is, with habitual energies of the reason and will. As a consequence of original sin the whole man, body and soul, has been thrown into confusion”… (The State of Man in Fallen Nature)

If Christ had a fallen human nature, He would have lacked the state of grace. The Author of grace cannot lack grace in any way, so the claim that Jesus had a fallen human nature is false.

The immortality of the body is also a gift lost by original sin. So Jesus, the Author of Life, was not subject to death. He died only because He willed, in both His human and Divine wills, to accept death because of sins, to redeem us from original sin. But He could not rescue us from original sin and personal sin if He had either type of sin.

Also, the Council of Trent taught that original sin is inherited by propagation. But Mary did not have original sin to pass one to her Divine Son Jesus. Christ was therefore free from original sin, and all its effects.

 

[Fragile]

“He came in the likeness of sinful human flesh.”

He got tired, hungry, thirsty…seems He had all the weaknesses we had, save for a propensity to sin. He was also raised w/a body that was glorified, quite different from the one He had.

 

[dshix]

By the way, to give both sides a fair shake, I re-read the Dogma on the Immaculate Conception. There is nothing there that states that the Immaculate Conception happened so that Christ will not inherit Original Sin. Thus there is nothing in the teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ himself in his human nature is different from any one of us. This confirms the consistency of teaching from the First Millennium that Christ himself shared everything about us but sin (that is, he never committed any sin).

Constantine, you are missing the point as to why I bring up the Immaculate Conception.

I believe I can now assume that you somewhat agree with this doctrine, although you have used much hidden language to do so.

So we come to this problem: If Mary was perfect (having to do with sin), conceived without sin and without the effects of sin, what in the world would make you think that Jesus DID have sin, when he was conceived by Mary and the Holy Spirit?

Are you suggesting by all this that Jesus was less perfect than Mary?

This is a farcical suggestion, so I will not pin it on you. But you HAVE been suggesting that Jesus did have the effects of sin and a fallen nature. How can you reconcile this with the fact that Mary did not?

And, please don’t evade this question like you did the one on the Immaculate Conception. It’s such a waste of time.

 

[dshix]

It was always God’s plan that Jesus die on the cross. We saw that in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus prayed that He not die that way if there was any other possible way for God’s plan to be fulfilled.

We know that God the Father always listened to Jesus on everything. This particular prayer was not granted.

Therefore, we MUST conclude that it was never possible for Jesus to die a natural death. Your question is illogical.

Nan, I wholly agree with what you say; there is no way God’s plans could go “wrong” – but we are debating a theoretical situation.

 

[Della]

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

I am just as authortative as you or any other lay person who reads the teachings of the Saints might be. That’s my point.

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

No, I’m saying your interpretation is faulty.

St. John of Damascus writes wrote, “One must know that the Word assumed the ignorant and subjected nature…” Conclusively, Christ assumed a fallen human nature. BUT, he continues, “thanks to the identity of the hypostasis and the union, the Lord’s soul was enriched with the knowledge of things to come and other divine signs; similarly the flesh of human beings is not by nature life-giving, while the Lord’s flesh, without ceasing to be mortal by nature, became life giving thanks to the hypostatic union with the Word.”

In summary, yes, the human nature of Chirst is indeed the same exact nature each and every one of us has. Fallen. But it is because of his hypostatic union with his divine nature that his human nature could not have succumbed to any temptation of the flesh and sinned. Christ’s human will is in complete submission to His divine will.

What you have done is interpret John’s words to fit you rationale. He never says Jesus had a fallen nature, does he? You stated that.

St. John says Jesus “assumed the ignorant and subjected nature…” In other words, he accepted as his own lot the loss of full knowledge in his human nature and the loss of what Adam and Eve had before their fall–in other words, the consequences of the fall–but he never states the Christ had a fallen nature. It was the hypostatic union which made it possible for him to rise above the limitations he accepted in order to be like us in everything except sin. If he had had a fallen nature, he would have been conceived and born without saving grace, something St. John does not state because he is not saying Christ had fallen nature. He is saying what St. Paul did:

Phil. 2[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
[8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Hi, OP here.

A good discussion so far. But for those of you who say his body never would have died without Him giving it up, how do you envision this? We know that He aged. Are you suggesting that his aging would have capped off at a certain point? That he would have stopped physically growing older at say, 40? So He would not have had greys, His muscles would not atrophy, etc.

Much of this can be summed up by the question, did Jesus have any cavities. If you say yes, you are allowing for some measure of deterioration of his body. If You say no, that means that Jesus had perfect teeth, not subject to decay in any way, since His whole body is likewise incorruptible.

 

[dshix]

Hi, OP here.

A good discussion so far. But for those of you who say his body never would have died without Him giving it up, how do you envision this? We know that He aged. Are you suggesting that his aging would have capped off at a certain point? That he would have stopped physically growing older at say, 40? So He would not have had greys, His muscles would not atrophy, etc.

Much of this can be summed up by the question, did Jesus have any cavities. If you say yes, you are allowing for some measure of deterioration of his body. If You say no, that means that Jesus had perfect teeth, not subject to decay in any way, since His whole body is likewise incorruptible.

No one knows what would happen to a body that could age but never die until called by God to Heaven. We don’t know precisely because it has never happened. Adam and Eve fell before we found out, Mary was assumed and Jesus ascended.

I will not venture to make a guess, as this is out of my domain.

As to the question about bodily imperfections, we run into the same problem. We do not know if Jesus was ever sick. He could have permitted himself to be affeccted by some of the limits of the fall without being a fallen person, or he could have been absolutely perfect and unblemished.

I personally favor the latter, but we of course do not know for sure.

 

[Nan_S]

As to the question about bodily imperfections, we run into the same problem. We do not know if Jesus was ever sick. He could have permitted himself to be affeccted by some of the limits of the fall without being a fallen person, or he could have been absolutely perfect and unblemished.

I personally favor the latter, but we of course do not know for sure.

I think we CAN know for sure about this. Jesus had to have flawed skin and teeth.

Background: in fantasy stories about time travel the time-traveling characters have to figure out how to mingle with the locals. This includes more than clothes and language. They have to consider that as modern-day humans their bodies show none of the afflictions that were common in ancient times. They stand out precisely because they have perfect pearly teeth and no scars from the pox.

In Jesus’ day any man who was ruggedly good-looking with strong muscles, clear skin, and good teeth was considered especially favored by God. People sought him out because they wanted to be like this perfect-looking man.

But Isaiah says that Jesus did NOT stand out; that his appearance was nothing more than ordinary, and in some ways even less comely than ordinary.

Isaiah 53:2-3 He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.
He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

My conclusion: Jesus had as many scars, blemishes, and ugly teeth as any other ordinary man at that time, and more than some.

 

[dshix]

I think we CAN know for sure about this. Jesus had to have flawed skin and teeth.

Background: in fantasy stories about time travel the time-traveling characters have to figure out how to mingle with the locals. This includes more than clothes and language. They have to consider that as modern-day humans their bodies show none of the afflictions that were common in ancient times. They stand out precisely because they have perfect pearly teeth and no scars from the pox.

In Jesus’ day any man who was ruggedly good-looking with strong muscles, clear skin, and good teeth was considered especially favored by God. People sought him out because they wanted to be like this perfect-looking man.

But Isaiah says that Jesus did NOT stand out; that his appearance was nothing more than ordinary, and in some ways even less comely than ordinary.

My conclusion: Jesus had as many scars, blemishes, and ugly teeth as any other ordinary man at that time, and more than some.

That’s interesting, but not definitive.