Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christ Assumed Actual Flesh, Conceived and Born of The Virgin.
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 22) ^ | 185AD | St. Irenaeus

Posted on 12/12/2010 1:24:13 PM PST by marshmallow

Christ assumed actual flesh, conceived and born of the Virgin.

1. Those, therefore, who allege that He took nothing from the Virgin do greatly err, [since,] in order that they may cast away the inheritance of the flesh, they also reject the analogy [between Him and Adam]. For if the one [who sprang] from the earth had indeed formation and substance from both the hand and workmanship of God, but the other not from the hand and workmanship of God, then He who was made after the image and likeness of the former did not, in that case, preserve the analogy of man, and He must seem an inconsistent piece of work, not having wherewith He may show His wisdom. But this is to say, that He also appeared putatively as man when He was not man, and that He was made man while taking nothing from man. For if He did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, He neither was made man nor the Son of man; and if He was not made what we were, He did no great thing in what He suffered and endured. But every one will allow that we are [composed of] a body taken from the earth, and a soul receiving spirit from God. This, therefore, the Word of God was made, recapitulating in Himself His own handiwork; and on this account does He confess Himself the Son of man, and blesses "the meek, because they shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5 The Apostle Paul, moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, declares plainly, "God sent His Son, made of a woman." Galatians 4:4 And again, in that to the Romans, he says, "Concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 1:3-4

2. Superfluous, too, in that case is His descent into Mary; for why did He come down into her if He were to take nothing of her? Still further, if He had taken nothing of Mary, He would never have availed Himself of those kinds of food which are derived from the earth, by which that body which has been taken from the earth is nourished; nor would He have hungered, fasting those forty days, like Moses and Elias, unless His body was craving after its own proper nourishment; nor, again, would John His disciple have said, when writing of Him, "But Jesus, being wearied with the journey, was sitting [to rest];" John 4:6 nor would David have proclaimed of Him beforehand, "They have added to the grief of my wounds;" nor would He have wept over Lazarus, nor have sweated great drops of blood; nor have declared, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful;" Matthew 26:38 nor, when His side was pierced, would there have come forth blood and water. For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork.

3. Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul "the figure of Him that was to come," Romans 5:14 because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God; God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.

4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word." Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed," Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. Matthew 19:30, Matthew 20:16 And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, "instead of fathers, children have been born unto you." For the Lord, having been born "the First-begotten of the dead," Revelation 1:5 and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS:
"........so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race."

And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

Veneration of the Virgin is not some latter day Catholic fad. In 185AD, Irenaeus clearly outlines the importance of Mary's "yes" and her role as the new Eve. Irenaeus writes that "Mary became the cause of salvation...to the whole human race". Clearly a unique and pivotal figure in salvation history and most deserving of our love and honor.

The Catholic Church's veneration of Mary can thus be traced to a very early period in Church history and has extremely robust historical and theological roots.

1 posted on 12/12/2010 1:24:16 PM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; MilicaBee; Martin Tell; Salvation

Ping!


2 posted on 12/12/2010 1:25:28 PM PST by marshmallow ("A country which kills its own children has no future" -Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I believe in the birth of Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. Not doubting, but can it be explained in scientific terms how a woman can be impregnated by a spiritual being without sexual intercourse?


3 posted on 12/12/2010 1:38:27 PM PST by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames
Not doubting, but can it be explained in scientific terms how a woman can be impregnated by a spiritual being without sexual intercourse?

Pause to consider who it was that created science.

And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Luke 1:28-38

4 posted on 12/12/2010 1:46:59 PM PST by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames
“..but can it be explained in scientific terms...”

is there a scientific term for “miracle?”

5 posted on 12/12/2010 1:55:01 PM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Its always interesting to see the mere mention of Mary in the writings of antiquity exaggerated into full-blown “robust historical and theological roots” for her worship, veneration, reverance ... whatever you want to call it.


6 posted on 12/12/2010 2:17:34 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

**Not doubting, but can it be explained in scientific terms how a woman can be impregnated by a spiritual being without sexual intercourse?**

You say you are not doubting...but your post virtually reeks of doubt.

Where is your faith? Hiding behind you science?

Faith came a long time before science. LOL!


7 posted on 12/12/2010 2:40:41 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, Or To Place Anything on Record Until.........
The Heretics Follow Neither Scripture Nor Tradition
A Refutation of The Heretics, From The Fact That a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up.
The Truth is to Be Found Nowhere Else But in The Catholic Church, The Sole Depository of....
Christ Assumed Actual Flesh, Conceived and Born of The Virgin.

8 posted on 12/12/2010 2:42:32 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Its always interesting to see the mere mention of Mary in the writings of antiquity exaggerated into full-blown “robust historical and theological roots” for her worship, veneration, reverance ... whatever you want to call it.

Here's what Irenaeus says:

........so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race."

And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

You consider that "a mere mention"?

Comments?

9 posted on 12/12/2010 3:07:09 PM PST by marshmallow ("A country which kills its own children has no future" -Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

I assume that by “science” you mean “events reproducible in multiple experiments.” As far as I know, there has not been another experiment of this kind since the conception of Jesus.

The term for “believing in Jesus, but He was a regular human man” is “Arian.”


10 posted on 12/12/2010 3:50:14 PM PST by Tax-chick (He will be Peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

The Lord can miraculously shrink a tumor or heal an infection in the body. In fact, if He hadn’t healed us of a host of infections in our lifetimes, we would have died many years ago. The first common cold would have killed us. Cut your finger. Observe how elegantly it heals; it makes its own band-aid, in fact. Then a few days later, it sheds the band-aid. Without this, the first cut we got would have killed us. Scientific; yes. Miracles; yes. We put way too much emphasis on sexual intercourse when spiritually things occur of a miraculous nature within our bodies all the time no thanks to sex. I don’t think insemination would be too difficult with the Spirit.


11 posted on 12/12/2010 4:36:13 PM PST by Twinkie (Doing nothing is the most tiring job there is; you can't quit and rest . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
The term for “believing in Jesus, but He was a regular human man” is “Arian.”

No it is not. Arianism accepted that Christ was the son of God and that there was only one God. They differed with Rome about whether Jesus had always existed or was "created" by God. It was an "angels on the head of a pin" kind of thing that caused a lot of destruction.

12 posted on 12/12/2010 4:49:11 PM PST by HospiceNurse (Draft O'Donnell 4 President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse

Ah, I see I was confused.


13 posted on 12/12/2010 5:04:00 PM PST by Tax-chick (He will be Peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

So Mary can forgive sins/provide salvation?


14 posted on 12/12/2010 5:09:41 PM PST by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Cam may be a horrible human like Big Ben or Favre or Namath, but he is a great athelete. If we want to reward good conduct, let’s create a “But She Has a Great Personality Award.” There isn’t a single NFL team that wouldn’t kill to have Newton.


15 posted on 12/12/2010 5:28:54 PM PST by HospiceNurse (Draft O'Donnell 4 President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Sorry, I had 2 posts confused. I am an idiot. I thought I was responding this time about the Heisman. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.


16 posted on 12/12/2010 5:30:25 PM PST by HospiceNurse (Draft O'Donnell 4 President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Its been a while since I read Irenaeus, but I don’t recall him dwelling on Mary like the Catholics who post to this FR religious forum do. Catholics jump on this slight mention of Mary by Irenaeus as if he was RCC, he was not.

The trouble with the Patristic writings is you never know for sure if these people actually wrote what you are reading. There was an awful lot of after the fact interpolating going on. Catholics especially were unscrupulous about these sort of things. Doctoring up the text here and there to make it support their institution.

As can be seen by the RCC’s who post here, they do this all the time. They will go to any length to prove their Mary worship is Apostolic orthodoxy, for instance.

The Patristic writings, for this fact alone, suspicion of tampering with the text, should never be taken as the last word, the Bible is the last word on any theological question.


17 posted on 12/12/2010 5:59:06 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse

LOL - that was strange!


18 posted on 12/12/2010 6:04:39 PM PST by Tax-chick (He will be Peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; surroundedbyblue; shurwouldluv_a_smallergov; Judith Anne; rkjohn; PadreL; ...

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Scripture text: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.


19 posted on 12/12/2010 6:06:37 PM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

What are you claiming he is saying?

I see he is saying that Eve disobeyed, Mary didn’t.

As far as Mary causing salvation to come to man ... his analogy breaks down because Eve didnt cause death to come to man. The epistles clearly teach that it was Adams sin that brought sin into the world.

You find nothing like what he has said here in any of the gospels or epistles. He is either using illustration, analogy ... or he is just plain wrong.

Who is the higher authority in the RCC? The current vicar of Christ or Mary the Queen of Heaven?


20 posted on 12/12/2010 6:24:36 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Good...........so you disagree with St. Irenaeus.

That's all that needs to be said.

If you have no time for the writings of one of the Church Fathers, there's little likelihood of me changing your mind.

21 posted on 12/12/2010 7:23:15 PM PST by marshmallow ("A country which kills its own children has no future" -Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
If you have no time for the writings of one of the Church Fathers, there's little likelihood of me changing your mind.

Time is precious ... I choose to spend the vast majority of my study time in Gods word, not what some man who lived 1800 years ago thought about Gods word. What you are proclaiming is contrary to Gods word. You have to go to another source, such as the church fathers, to support your view because there is no Biblical support for it ... thus "doctrine of men" applies as an adequate descriptor here.

22 posted on 12/12/2010 7:37:27 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

A delightfully blithe dismissal of one of the great saints of the early Church.


23 posted on 12/12/2010 8:10:11 PM PST by marshmallow ("A country which kills its own children has no future" -Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

A man like you and me ... his opinion occured 1800 years before ours ... he read the Bible and commented on it ... you read the Bible and comment on it ... I read the Bible and comment on it.

Why do you insist on making these men more than they are?


24 posted on 12/12/2010 8:54:45 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Some hearts are hardened.


25 posted on 12/12/2010 9:19:34 PM PST by Jaded (Whatever.... really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Some may question my statement about the RCC being unscrupulous in falsifying the early writings. Well, there is good reason to say this. The Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals for example. Here is what one Bible handbook has to say about them.

“Nicolas 1 (858-867). First Pope to war a crown. To promote his claim of universal authority he used with great effort the ‘Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals,’ a book that appeared about 857, containing documents that purported to be letters and decrees of Bishops and Councils of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, all tending to exalt the power of the Pope. They were deliberate forgeries and corruptions of ancient historical documents, their spurious character was not discovered till some centuries later...

They (these false or pseudo documents) served their purpose in ‘stamping the claims of the medieval priesthood with the authority of antiquity.’

‘The Papacy, which was the growth of several centuries, was made to appear as something complete and unchangeable from the very beginning.’ The object was to antedate by five centuries the Pope’s temporal powers.’ ‘The most colossal literary fraud in history.’”


26 posted on 12/12/2010 11:06:52 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

ping


27 posted on 12/12/2010 11:09:24 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Why do you insist on making these men more than they are?

ROFL.............

I'm not "making" St. Irenaeus into anything. The Church Fathers, are "already made", so to speak. Their role in the formation of the early Church, the importance of their extensive writings and their links to the Apostles are nothing to do with my postings on FR, old chap.............LOL!!

Their importance in Christendom is universally acknowledged, save in some quarters of Protestantism which finds their writings..............shall we say ......*ahem*........inconvenient!!

I appreciate that it must be disconcerting to find that one's addiction to latter day heresy has no basis in the early Church but at least try to entertain the notion, hard as it may be to believe, that Irenaeus might actually be right and it might be you who is spouting nonsense.

28 posted on 12/13/2010 6:53:45 AM PST by marshmallow ("A country which kills its own children has no future" -Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

These three have a lot in common:

Islam, which puts Mohammed and his writings above the Bible.

The RCC, which puts the Patristic writings and RCC church “tradition” above the Bible.

And Mormonism, which puts Joe Smith’s writings and the book of Mormon above the Bible.

Neither Islam and their killing of infidels; nor the RCC and their worship of Mary, rosary beads, celibate priests and popes, infant baptism, etc.; nor Mormonism’s secret temple ceremonies, sacred underwear, etc., are in the Bible. Thee peas in a pod these three. We “heretics,” as you call us, think if far better to stick with the Bible, thank you.

Your words I’ve taken the liberty to correct a little bit:

I appreciate that it must be disconcerting to find that one’s addiction to RCC post-Apostolic and middle ages traditions such as Mary’s “immaculate conception,” rosary beads, etc., have no basis in the Bible, but at least try to entertain the notion, hard as it may be to believe, that the Bible might actually be right and it might be you who is spouting nonsense.


29 posted on 12/13/2010 9:47:19 AM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sasportas
The RCC, which puts the Patristic writings and RCC church “tradition” above the Bible.

Except that we don't. The Scriptures are absolutely authoritative. Sacred tradition is merely the Bible read within the church.

Now if you really mean that we put the Church Fathers above your own personal interpretation of the Bible, then ... guilty as charged.

By the way, by what authority do you know which books belong in the New Testament, and which don't?

30 posted on 12/13/2010 11:04:32 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Campion

If you believe the Scriptures are absolutely authoritative, then why on such things as the immaculate conception, rosary beads, celibate priests, popes,and nuns, etc., don’t you cite the Bible for your authority on these things?

“Now if you really mean that we put the Church Fathers above your own personal interpretation of the Bible, then ... guilty as charged.”

I mean the Bible is the word of God, the CF writers are not. They gave THEIR personal interpretations of the Bible.

“By the way, by what authority do you know which books belong in the New Testament, and which don’t?”

Not by the authority of the Mary worshippers and rosary bead counters, I’ll assure you. It wasn’t the RCC who decided which books belong in the NT. The RCC didn’t exist at that time.

The main reason the RCC included the Apocrapha was to have a Bible supposedly superior to the Protestant’s Bible. They were pulling a bit of one up-manship, an ill-advised move on their part, in my opinion. The Apocraphal books don’t belong in the Bible.


31 posted on 12/13/2010 12:43:57 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson