Why didn't the son of God incarnate himself as the first man, saving the world and himself a lot of trouble?

[N0X3x]

I’m wondering why the second person of the trinity chose to incarnate himself as the son of a Jewish carpenter at the particular moment in history that he did.

One could say that he had to choose some time, and that time works just as well as any other. Some religious historians suppose, for various reasons, that the particular time he arrived was the best in human history.

That might be true from a redemptive perspective, but I have my doubts that it is true overall. Consider what would have happened if he had incarnated himself as the first human being. If he had waited until the trial period in the garden was over before forming a female companion and having children, original sin would never have been a problem in the first place, suffering and the crucifixion would never have happened, and the the beatific vision may well have been secured for all humanity from that point on.

Does anyone have any ideas?

 

[vincent10395]

I’m wondering why the second person of the trinity chose to incarnate himself as the son of a Jewish carpenter at the particular moment in history that he did.

One could say that he had to choose some time, and that time works just as well as any other. Some religious historians suppose, for various reasons, that the particular time he arrived was the best in human history.

That might be true from a redemptive perspective, but I have my doubts that it is true overall. Consider what would have happened if he had incarnated himself as the first human being. If he had waited until the trial period in the garden was over before forming a female companion and having children, original sin would never have been a problem in the first place, suffering and the crucifixion would never have happened, and the the beatific vision may well have been secured for all humanity from that point on.

Does anyone have any ideas?

The Incarnation was only necessary because of the fall of man.

 

[mytruepower2]

I’m wondering why the second person of the trinity chose to incarnate himself as the son of a Jewish carpenter at the particular moment in history that he did.

One could say that he had to choose some time, and that time works just as well as any other. Some religious historians suppose, for various reasons, that the particular time he arrived was the best in human history.

That might be true from a redemptive perspective, but I have my doubts that it is true overall. Consider what would have happened if he had incarnated himself as the first human being. If he had waited until the trial period in the garden was over before forming a female companion and having children, original sin would never have been a problem in the first place, suffering and the crucifixion would never have happened, and the the beatific vision may well have been secured for all humanity from that point on.

Does anyone have any ideas?

This creates the same problem as just creating a whole universe with no free will. Namely, if people don’t -choose- God, it’s not an act of charity, and that’s what we need in order to be brought to God. All love must be voluntarily chosen, and choice involves something to choose between.

 

[MJford]

First, I do not believe that God would have made Himself the first human because, well, it probably would not have made sense for Him to marry and have children like ordinary men. Notice that Christ was never married. God must have had a reason for that. I think there was a reason for this. And as to why Christ came to Earth at the time He did, well, let us simply trust that God saw that as the bet time for that action to take place. Also, as a previous reply stated, God let humanity make a choice about how they would live as part of the free will he gave us so we could love Him.

 

[Della]

First, I do not believe that God would have made Himself the first human because, well, it probably would not have made sense for Him to marry and have children like ordinary men. Notice that Christ was never married. God must have had a reason for that. I think there was a reason for this. And as to why Christ came to Earth at the time He did, well, let us simply trust that God saw that as the bet time for that action to take place. Also, as a previous reply stated, God let humanity make a choice about how they would live as part of the free will he gave us so we could love Him.

Yes. And what would those children be? Demi-gods? Would they have had free will and be able to love God as a choice instead of as something inherent? And what human woman would be made for him? Would she have free will or not? There are just too many complications for Christ to have been “Adam.”

Besides this, Jesus was born because he was incarnate of Mary. Without Mary he would not have been a human being. If he had been made a human being without a human mother, the devil could always claim foul–because there would never be any doubt that the first man would love God and be faithful to him.

 

[zro_x]

The Incarnation was only necessary because of the fall of man.

The incarnation was necessary to redeem mankind, but I’d think that God, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin, would rather incarnate himself as the first man rather than have original sin come into existence in the first place.

 

[zro_x]

This creates the same problem as just creating a whole universe with no free will. Namely, if people don’t -choose- God, it’s not an act of charity, and that’s what we need in order to be brought to God. All love must be voluntarily chosen, and choice involves something to choose between.

The first man, in this case, would choose God, rather than the tree.

I fail to see how the free will of mankind is violated. it is generally accepted that Jesus was a true man and that he had free will.

 

[N0X3x]

The Incarnation was only necessary because of the fall of man.

The incarnation was necessary to redeem mankind, but I’d think that God, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin, would rather incarnate himself as the first man rather than have original sin come into existence in the first place.

 

[N0X3x]

This creates the same problem as just creating a whole universe with no free will. Namely, if people don’t -choose- God, it’s not an act of charity, and that’s what we need in order to be brought to God. All love must be voluntarily chosen, and choice involves something to choose between.

The first man, in this case, would choose God, rather than the tree.

I fail to see how the free will of mankind is violated. it is generally accepted that Jesus was a true man and that he had free will.

 

[N0X3x]

Yes. And what would those children be? Demi-gods? Would they have had free will and be able to love God as a choice instead of as something inherent? And what human woman would be made for him? Would she have free will or not? There are just too many complications for Christ to have been “Adam.”

those are tricky questions. From my understanding, after a certain finite trial period in the garden, God would have admitted Adam and Eve, along with their descendants, into the beatific vision. it seems to be generally accepted that those experiencing the beatific vision can’t sin, but this is exactly what God wanted.

Besides this, Jesus was born because he was incarnate of Mary. Without Mary he would not have been a human being. If he had been made a human being without a human mother, the devil could always claim foul–because there would never be any doubt that the first man would love God and be faithful to him.

I don’t see how having a human mother makes any difference as to how devoted to God a person is. Satan himself never had a mother, and look at him.

 

[vincent10395]

The incarnation was necessary to redeem mankind, but I’d think that God, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin, would rather incarnate himself as the first man rather than have original sin come into existence in the first place.

That would take away Free will, which God wants us to have. God was with them in Eden, but what happened, they fell anyway. God hates sin, but he wanted us to choose him freely. That being said People misuse the gift of free will and some will reject God.

 

[N0X3x]

First, I do not believe that God would have made Himself the first human because, well, it probably would not have made sense for Him to marry and have children like ordinary men. Notice that Christ was never married. God must have had a reason for that. I think there was a reason for this.

hmmm, this might be the case, but I can’t see any reason why preserving God’s singleness would be a sufficient reason when weighed against Original sin, the crucifixion, and all human suffering.

 

[N0X3x]

That would take away Free will, which God wants us to have. God was with them in Eden, but what happened, they fell anyway. God hates sin, but he wanted us to choose him freely. That being said People misuse the gift of free will and some will reject God.

I don’t think it would. Jesus, as a true man, using his own free will, died on the cross for our sins. I see no reason why God becoming incarnate in the first man violates our free will to any degree.

 

[vincent10395]

I don’t think it would. Jesus, as a true man, using his own free will, died on the cross for our sins. I see no reason why God becoming incarnate in the first man violates our free will to any degree.

How would Jesus becoming incarnate as the first man stop sin from coming into the world? People would still reject God.

 

[N0X3x]

How would Jesus becoming incarnate as the first man stop sin from coming into the world? People would still reject God.

Not if the first man hadn’t eaten of the tree and introduced sin, they wouldn’t. After a certain time without the first man eating of the tree, God would have bestowed the beatific vision upon him and all his descendants, making sin impossible.

 

[Richard_White]

Jesus could not have been the first man, because there was no sin before Adam and Eve, and therefore no need for salvation yet. The question doesn’t even make any sense.

 

[empther]

Jesus was a divine person, not a human person, and therefore could not marry and have kids.
Marriage is between two human beings, not between one human being and God.

Therefore, Jesus could not start the human race.

 

[N0X3x]

Jesus could not have been the first man, because there was no sin before Adam and Eve, and therefore no need for salvation yet. The question doesn’t even make any sense.

But, since God is timeless, he could have forseen the need for salvation, and stopped the need before it existed.

Besides, who says there has to be a need for salvation in order for God to become incarnate? I suspect he would have done so whether or not our first parents ate of the tree.

 

[N0X3x]

Jesus was a divine person, not a human person, and therefore could not marry and have kids.
Marriage is between two human beings, not between one human being and God.

Therefore, Jesus could not start the human race.

By my understanding, Jesus was a person with both a divine and human nature, so he could have had kids with other human beings.

Besides, he did other actions out of his human nature. for example, he prayed. Prayer is usually considered to be between man and God, not God and God

 

[mytruepower2]

The first man, in this case, would choose God, rather than the tree.

I fail to see how the free will of mankind is violated. it is generally accepted that Jesus was a true man and that he had free will.

The problem is that God, being perfect, -cannot- choose evil, so this is not the same thing as a free choice. If God could choose evil, he would be imperfect, and therefore not God.