"'It is manifestly true that as the Most Holy Theotokos, she did contribute to our salvation. The Church has always taught this.'
I have to admit that I wasn't expecting that answer. :) May I ask in what way?"
As the "God Bearer", the Theotokos, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The possibility of theosis came into the world through her, FK. That's a pretty central even vital role, wouldn't you say?
"'Please clarify for me if you indeed believe that Christ did not share fully our human nature and that we inherit the Sin of Adam and if so, your basis for these beliefs.'
I do believe that Christ was both fully human and fully God, but He could not have been born with the sinful nature, as the rest of us are, because that would have been a paradox. Since sin was brought to the whole world through the one MAN, it is inherited through the man. Jesus was the only one whose father was not subject to the original sin of Adam, which is also why He is the only one who could have been (and was) sinless. Therefore, Jesus was fully human to the best extent that was possible."
Ah, well your answer is in the distinction stripes1776 pointed out in #3758. Man's nature is not at all sinful. His created purpose is to be wholly like God by grace. The post Fall state of Man is not his true nature at all. Adam before the Fall represented Man's true nature and through him we were to have experienced theosis. His sin distorted our true nature so that we could not respond to God's uncreated energies, grace. Christ, through the Incarnation, restored that potential and thus our potential to become wholly like God. In this manner He represents, as the Creed says, "True Man" and thus also we call Him the 2nd Adam.
K, your original question of whether we believe that Christ fully shared our human nature is one that has very deep implications, and it is something that FK and I touched on but didn't discuss in detail several hundred posts ago.
We would agree that by becoming man and going through each of the stages of life (we Orthodox would agree, that is) from conception to birth to growing up to adulthood to death and then to resurrection -- through all of this, Christ made all things new and "renewed human nature", in the patristic phrase.
Prior to his resurrection, Christ felt hunger, pain, weakness, fatigue. He shed tears, he sweated, he bled. Angels were sent to minister to him after he was weakened from fasting and being tempted in the wilderness. I think we would agree (and now I am including FK here, as well) that none of these things will be part of the next life and of our resurrected bodies.
On Mt. Tabor, when Christ was transfigured, he revealed his glory to the Apostles "as far as they could bear it," as we sing in the troparion of the Feast of Transfiguration. Likewise, there was something so changed about him that on the road to Emmaeus and in some of his early appearances, those closest to him didn't recognize him.
I guess that what I am getting at is that Christ received his human nature not by de novo creation, but from his human mother. She had the result of Adam's sin in her -- i.e. corruption and death (for she did die) -- and would it not be true that she passed on that same human nature to Christ? Is this not why he hungered and thirsted, etc...?
To FK, I would point out that as K points out, we do not believe that human nature is intrinsically sinful, in the sense of guilty and deserving of the wrath of God by very definition -- we do believe that it is fallen, and that this fallenness results in both sin and death in our lives.
He was tempted in all ways as we were, except without sin. If he fully took on human nature, this had to be real temptation, as experienced by Christ in his human nature. It would be experienced as such because of the fact that he took on not a glorified and resurrected human nature, but rather the nature and body that he received from his mother.
For if he wasn't to receive his human nature from his mother, then why bother with being born -- why not just appear with a newly created glorified human body that would then go through the play-acting of pretending to suffer, thirst, hunger, cry, and need rest?
He took on *our* human nature, and transformed it, making it possible for us, as K puts it so well, to "respond to God's uncreated energies, grace."
Otherwise, was he not just a "superman" who was simply play-acting for 30+ years on earth?
I don't mean to be disrespectful of Mary, and yes her role was vital, but in terms of contributing to our salvation, couldn't the same thing be said about Judas? If he hadn't betrayed Jesus, then Jesus would never have died on the cross, etc.? (Isn't Easter a greater Holy day than Christmas, even though it was "vital" that Jesus be born?) We could say there were many actors who played a part in the way the life of Jesus played out. Or, we could say that God ordained and orchestrated the whole thing. That's why I don't see how Mary gets special credit for contributing to our salvation.
FK: "Since sin was brought to the whole world through the one MAN, it is inherited through the man. Jesus was the only one whose father was not subject to the original sin of Adam, which is also why He is the only one who could have been (and was) sinless."
Ah, well your answer is in the distinction stripes1776 pointed out in #3758.
I agree with you and I think Stripes said it well.
Man's nature is not at all sinful. His created purpose is to be wholly like God by grace. The post Fall state of Man is not his true nature at all. Adam before the Fall represented Man's true nature and through him we were to have experienced theosis. His sin distorted our true nature so that we could not respond to God's uncreated energies, grace. Christ, through the Incarnation, restored that potential and thus our potential to become wholly like God.
And I would say that man's nature is exactly as God ordained it to be. There was no mistake. Through Adam's sin, all humanity is born with a sinful nature totally incapable of coming to God, much less of even doing good. Christ, through the Incarnation, death, and resurrection, paid for the sins of the elect and made them fit for entrance into heaven. (Granted, that last part is a minority Western view, but I can only speak for myself. :)