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

[tonyrey]

Even if Jesus had been the first man another member of the human race would have sinned and his descendants would have inherited an evil environment. Jesus would have chosen to sacrifice Himself for us regardless of when He was born. Divine love transcends time and space.

Although God foresees the need for salvation His knowledge has no effect on our power to choose good or evil. Our capacity for love implies the capacity not to love - which is the cause of evil. Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist, pointed out that without freedom we cannot be persons. Life in this world is not a test but an opportunity for development: in the words of John Keats, it is “a vale of soul-making”. Saints cannot be created ready-made!

Jesus didn’t “pay for our crimes” but liberated us from our ignorance, weakness and selfishness. Those who are unaware of the Incarnation still demonstrate who they love most. No divine fiat can determine our destiny: we alone choose whether to live for ourselves or live for others.

Love certainly doesn’t consist in saving ourselves a lot of trouble:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” John 15:13

 

[empther]

from NOXo1’s post 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther View Post
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

Interesting that NOX and everybody else ignores the critical point. It happens all the time.

Jesus was a divine person, therefore, he could not marry. It would be wrong. It would not be a marriage of equals. We don’t even have a word for what it would be.
What’s hard to understand about that?

It doesn’t matter that Jesus had two natures. The human nature could not have children because God can’t sin and marrying a human person would be wrong and sinful. Can’t happen.

 

[brian614]

from NOXo1’s post 17

Interesting that NOX and everybody else ignores the critical point. It happens all the time.

Jesus was a divine person, therefore, he could not marry. It would be wrong. It would not be a marriage of equals. We don’t even have a word for what it would be.
What’s hard to understand about that?

It doesn’t matter that Jesus had two natures. The human nature could not have children because God can’t sin and marrying a human person would be wrong and sinful. Can’t happen.

Also to your point

God begets God

Man begets Man

If Christ started the human race we would all be gods?

This whole question about being the first man makes little sense since he is God.

 

[empther]

brian601



Glad to see somebody gets it.

For the diehard believers in Jesus as Adam…

1. Jesus marries Eve
2. Jesus as God does not sin.
3. Eve sins.

Now what do we have? :bigyikes: :crying:

 

[vincent10395]

It doesn’t matter whether Adam would have been God or not. If Adam had made the right decision, all of his descendants would have instantly been present to the beatific vision from the moment they began to exist. Whether or not the first man had been God makes no difference.

You might just as well say that it is unfair for God to pay for our crimes. Since man got himself into that mess of original sin, it should be up to man to get himself out. But no, the man-God paid our fines for us.

If he can pay the fines of mankind, even though he is God, and thereby reopen the gates of heaven, I see no reason why he can’t also make our decisions and keep them from closing to man in the first place.

to put it another way, God gives the human race a general judgement at the end of time. Jesus’s Death on the cross has the power to change that general judgement, even though Jesus is God!

I think it is clear then, that judging the human race based on the actions of the God-man is not something God is opposed to. In fact, that is exactly what he has done. or, should I say, will do.

Now I understand where you are coming from, and I wonder about these things too, but if God would’ve been Adam we would know for a fact that He wouldn’t have disobeyed, and we would have all been sent to Heaven. But what you’re missing is the part that God wants us to make the decision. Yes God redeemed everyone by His cross, but people can still choose Heaven or hell. Yes God judges us by the actions of the God-man, but are we bound to go one way or the other, or do we have the choice? If the God-Man would have been Adam we all would have been sent to Heaven without any say. Hopefully you see where I’m coming from.

 

[mytruepower2]

from NOXo1’s post 17

Interesting that NOX and everybody else ignores the critical point. It happens all the time.

Jesus was a divine person, therefore, he could not marry. It would be wrong. It would not be a marriage of equals. We don’t even have a word for what it would be.
What’s hard to understand about that?

It doesn’t matter that Jesus had two natures. The human nature could not have children because God can’t sin and marrying a human person would be wrong and sinful. Can’t happen.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Jesus can’t marry. He just won’t marry any individual human being. Jesus will be wed to the Church; which is the bride of Christ, and so becomes one with him, to the point where he makes no distinction between the Church and Himself when speaking to Saul.

It’s also quite apparent that this is not a marriage between equals.

 

[empther]

It’s also quite apparent that this is not a marriage between equals.

But it is a possible marriage although a symbolic one ( the word being applied to the indissovable union of Christ to the people ).
While an actual marriage of Jesus to a human person is not only not a marriage between equals but impossible since it wouldn’t be a marriage at all and would be wrong.

 

[mytruepower2]

But it is a possible marriage although a symbolic one ( the word being applied to the indissovable union of Christ to the people ).
While an actual marriage of Jesus to a human person is not only not a marriage between equals but impossible since it wouldn’t be a marriage at all and would be wrong.

I assume by “symbolic” you mean “not literally the sacrament of matrimony as performed by a priest, etc…,” rather than “not real.”

I would say that not only is the marriage of Christ to his church real and unifying (at least this seems to be implied by the passages and works I’ve studied on the subject,) but it may actually be the very cause and basis for the sacrament of marriage as a whole, since all of God’s aspects exist timelessly.

 

[N0X3x]

Because in order to be in any kind of meaningful relationship with God, we must have the ability to choose to -not- be in that relationship. Now, we can’t reject God without doing evil, but he could withhold his grace from us without it being in any way an evil act, so our positions are simply not equal in this matter. We require the potential for evil in order to make a loving choice on behalf of God.

If that’s the case, then why is it that we can be in a meaningful relationship with God as long as we have the potential to do evil, but God needs no such potential in order to have a meaningful relationship with us? In other words, since God can’t choose not to be in that relationship, does that make the relationship less meaningful?

 

[N0X3x]

How could Christ be the first man???

He was begotten not made.

When we say that the Son was begotten, not made, we mean that the divine Son is Begotten of the father. his human nature was actually a creation God made.

Man was created by God, that is why Jesus had to be incarnate of the Virgin Mary… How could Jesus be incarnate of something that has not yet been created?

To be incarnate does not mean “to be born of”, it means “to take on flesh” There is no need for the god-man to have a mother in order to be incarnate.

 

[N0X3x]

Even if Jesus had been the first man another member of the human race would have sinned and his descendants would have inherited an evil environment.

That ultimately depends on whether or not there were actually other people around. if the God-man had been the only human alive at the end of the trial period in the garden of eden, then he, as the first man, would have secured the beatific vision for all of his descendants as soon as they come into existence.

Although God foresees the need for salvation His knowledge has no effect on our power to choose good or evil. Our capacity for love implies the capacity not to love - which is the cause of evil. Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist, pointed out that without freedom we cannot be persons.

By this logic, God is not a person, let alone three, because he is not capable of being unloving. He does not have that capacity.

Life in this world is not a test but an opportunity for development: in the words of John Keats, it is “a vale of soul-making”. Saints cannot be created ready-made!

But messiahs can be. It is possible to ready-make a sinless human being, if that human being also happens to be God.

Jesus didn’t “pay for our crimes” but liberated us from our ignorance, weakness and selfishness.

He did both.

No divine fiat can determine our destiny:

Perhaps not, but divine actions can. For evidence of this, we need look no further than the cross.

we alone choose whether to live for ourselves or live for others.

And yet the human person and his will is so closely bound with other human beings that we can be judged collectively. Ultimately, What matters is how many people experience the beatific vision, whether they get there through their own actions or through a representative.

Love certainly doesn’t consist in saving ourselves a lot of trouble:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” John 15:13

That’s exactly why It makes such little sense that God went for the pound of cure rather than the ounce of prevention. Love is not necessarily sacrificial, it only is if being sacrificial serves the purpose of love, which is wishing goodness on others. Love DOES actually consist in saving everyone a lot of trouble when the trouble falls on not only yourself, but also on the people you love.

 

[N0X3x]

from NOXo1’s post 17

Interesting that NOX and everybody else ignores the critical point. It happens all the time.

Jesus was a divine person, therefore, he could not marry. It would be wrong. It would not be a marriage of equals. We don’t even have a word for what it would be.
What’s hard to understand about that?

It doesn’t matter that Jesus had two natures. The human nature could not have children because God can’t sin and marrying a human person would be wrong and sinful. Can’t happen.

I’m not sure the fact that Jesus was God makes as much difference as you seem to imply. I think it is pretty clear from reading the gospels that Jesus didn’t give two figs about the fact that he was superior to everyone else. He acted as a servant, prayed, allowed himself to be killed, and was baptized by a regular human being. If John could baptise Jesus, surely a God-man and woman marriage is at least within the realm of plausibility. I see no reason why two people must be equal in order for a marriage to occur.

 

[N0X3x]

Also to your point

God begets God

Man begets Man

If Christ started the human race we would all be gods?

This whole question about being the first man makes little sense since he is God.

no, we would not. Only the God-man’s human nature would be begetting, not the divine nature.

 

[N0X3x]

brian601



Glad to see somebody gets it.

For the diehard believers in Jesus as Adam…

1. Jesus marries Eve
2. Jesus as God does not sin.
3. Eve sins.

Now what do we have? :bigyikes: :crying:

Answer:

1. Jesus is created in the garden of eden with the tree of knowledge.
2. the trial period passes and Jesus has not eaten of the tree. Sin is no longer possible since every human formed from here on out immediately experiences the beatific vision.
3. Eve is formed and does not sin, for the reasons explained above.
4. Jesus and Eve start the human race.

 

[TimothyH]

Julius Caesar had declared himself to be a God. His adoptive son, Augustus Caesar declared himself to be “Son of God”. This is when the real God decides to send the real Son of God into creation.

Some theologians think that God would have become man even if man had not sinned, simply to show his glory.

-Tim-

 

[N0X3x]

Now I understand where you are coming from, and I wonder about these things too, but if God would’ve been Adam we would know for a fact that He wouldn’t have disobeyed, and we would have all been sent to Heaven. But what you’re missing is the part that God wants us to make the decision. Yes God redeemed everyone by His cross, but people can still choose Heaven or hell. Yes God judges us by the actions of the God-man, but are we bound to go one way or the other, or do we have the choice? If the God-Man would have been Adam we all would have been sent to Heaven without any say. Hopefully you see where I’m coming from.

I think I do. You are emphasizing the importance that humanity chooses for itself its ultimate destination. I admit, God becoming man to make the decision for us does sit a little bit uneasily with me.

My issue is that there is no rational reason that I can see for this uneasiness to exist. my argument is ultimately based on two premises:

1. We’ve already established that one human being can affect the ultimate destination of every person by his individual decision. If Adam hadn’t sinned, everyone would experience the beatific vision, and we would bound to go to heaven, without any conscious decision making on the part of the individual. If Adam hadn’t sinned, we still would have been thrust into heaven without any say, whether Adam had actually been the God-man or not.
2. The God-man can, through his actions, change the fate of the human race. This has also been established. The only difference is that Jesus payed for the crimes of humanity, rather than making a representative decision for us. the God-man has the ability to act as a man, and these actions can be representative.

If those two premises are true, than the conclusion, that the God-man has the ability to make representative decisions for us as a human being, must be true.

 

[mytruepower2]

If that’s the case, then why is it that we can be in a meaningful relationship with God as long as we have the potential to do evil, but God needs no such potential in order to have a meaningful relationship with us? In other words, since God can’t choose not to be in that relationship, does that make the relationship less meaningful?

It’s because God is the source and true nature of objective morals, and we are not. Therefore, if we reject God, we also reject morals, and have committed evil, but if he rejects us, he has only rejected a created person; not a source of objective morals.

That said, if God were to reject -himself,- then that would be an evil act, but that’s simply not possible.

 

[empther]

N0X30’s post 54

1. We’ve already established that one human being can affect the ultimate destination of every person by his individual decision. not! ] If Adam hadn’t sinned, everyone would experience the beatific vision, not! ] and we would bound to go to heaven, without any conscious decision making on the part of the individual. not! ]

Interesting how NOX30 can make three really big theological errors in such a small space. It takes a special talent to do that.

1. The God-man can, through his actions, change the fate of the human race. This has also been established. The only difference is that Jesus payed for the crimes of humanity, rather than making a representative decision for us. ** that’s denial of free will again! ** :whacky: ] the God-man has the ability to act as a man, and these actions can be representative

.

If those two premises are true, ** they’re both false! ] ** than the conclusion, that the God-man has the ability to make representative decisions for us as a human being, must be true.

---

 

[Bahman]

Why put the damn tree there at the first place knowing that its existence would lead to original sin, human suffering, God incarnation, etc, just demolish it an all problem is solved. It is one tree isn’t it?

 

[mytruepower2]

Why put the **** tree there at the first place knowing that its existence would lead to original sin, human suffering, God incarnation, etc, just demolish it an all problem is solved. It is one tree isn’t it?

It’s the one tree, and that one tree was a sin so unnecessary, so avoidable, so pointless, and so undesirable for its own sake, that God can never be blamed for it.

Just by asking why God didn’t demolish the tree, what you’re really asking is why God created human beings with free will, because the moment the tree was removed, all opportunity for rejecting God would have vanished, and with it, any value to their love for him. That’s not the kind of relationship that God wanted with us. He didn’t create us to be his pets, and to keep our terrarium all nice, warm and accommodating. Man has intelligence and freedom for a reason; so that he can freely choose God over the alternative. This is far more meaningful than just being created as puppets who can’t say “no.”

Even the fact that the first man chose wrongly does nothing to obscure this; that in spite of those who were lost, many have already accepted God’s gift, and responded to him with voluntary charity. In other words, they have the kind of meaningful, free relationship that he created us to have.

Remember, God didn’t need to create man. He could have just stopped with the animals. If you’re going to create creatures with free will, and not give them the chance to exercise that freedom against you, it means nothing when they exercise it -for- you. They might as well have no free will at all.