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

[tonyrey]

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.

Impeccable logic.

 

[mytruepower2]

Impeccable logic.

Thanks.

 

[Bahman]

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.

It is about love or obedience? They could practice their free will in the garden not being puppet as angels did practice their free will in heaven without tree.

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.

Need? Based on Christian theology God knew everything, including man fall at the point of creation, which means they were part of creation and necessary.

 

[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.

Our destiny cannot be secured for us: we determine it by the way we live.

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.

God is Love! And not in the same category as His creatures.

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.

There can be only one Messiah. (Occam’s Razor).

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

He did both.

Unselfish love is not a form of payment. Money is a human invention!

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.

Our destiny is not determined by the Cross but by our response to 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.

Numbers are irrelevant where free will is concerned. We are not statistical units but persons!

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.

We cannot be saved from trouble if we inflict it on ourselves. If we insist on being selfish we get what we deserve - and have no reason to complain. Otherwise we are living in a fool’s paradise…

 

[N0X3x]

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.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are claiming that God does not have the capacity to do evil, and so he could not act as the God-man for the human race?

hmmm…That actually makes a lot of sense. The God-man can redeem the human race because the act of redemption does not require the freedom to do evil, But he can’t make the original free will decision for us, becuase that act does require the capacity to do evil.

I almost wrote, “I think you’ve answered my question, thanks!” but I thought of one more possible wrinkle to your idea: the trinity. If what you say is true, then no person in the trinity can have a meaningful relationship with any other person of the trinity, because rejecting the relationship is equivalent to rejecting God, which is in turn equivalent to rejecting morality, which is not something God has the freedom to do.

And it seems to me that the trinity is the most intimate of *all *relationships!

 

[N0X3x]

N0X30’s post 54

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

.

---

All three statements are basically saying the same thing. So if I am making a theological error, I am only making one.

That said, I am not sure that I am making a theological error. according to a catholic theologian I’ve read, God originally planned to test the whole human race through the actions of one person. If that person chose rightly, the whole human race would be saved, and if he chose wrongly, the whole human race would be damned. The second one happened, and thus, original sin came into being.

Are you suggesting that God set up a situation in which the actions of one person could damn the whole human race, but not save them?

 

[Della]

All three statements are basically saying the same thing. So if I am making a theological error, I am only making one.

That said, I am not sure that I am making a theological error. according to a catholic theologian I’ve read, God originally planned to test the whole human race through the actions of one person. If that person chose rightly, the whole human race would be saved, and if he chose wrongly, the whole human race would be damned. The second one happened, and thus, original sin came into being.

Are you suggesting that God set up a situation in which the actions of one person could damn the whole human race, but not save them?

Yes, God set up that very situation–because it was necessary to see if man would trust in God and be obedient or if he would follow Satan into disobedience.

If it had ended there it would be the ultimate tragedy for all mankind, but the story didn’t end there and God didn’t intend that it should. Rather, he humbled himself to take the punishment for Adam’s sin by the Incarnation, death and resurrection of the Second Adam, Christ Jesus.

St. Paul tells us that “where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.” The redemption Christ gained for us outweighs to the nth degree the loss of Adam because in Christ we have a share in the divine and eternal life of God.

It seems that God knew that this would be the only way we would truly be one with him. Otherwise, the next generation after Adam and the ones following that would always be in danger of falling, creating a sharp divide between the righteous man and the sinful man. As it was, Israel was called to be the righteous man in the midst of the sinful men of the world. But they failed at it. But, in the fullness of time, God sent his Son, and created the truly righteous one who is to be the light of the world–that is his Church. In her divine life, which Christ has given her, the Church is the perfectly righteous man, but in her humanity, she still strives for perfection. When Christ returns, perfection will be attained and our life in eternity will be one of everlasting joy united to Christ.

 

[N0X3x]

Our destiny cannot be secured for us: we determine it by the way we live.

See my reply to empther.

God is Love! And not in the same category as His creatures.

I agree, but I have a feeling that Jean-Paul Sarte was making a general claim about all persons, not just human beings.

There can be only one Messiah. (Occam’s Razor).

Perhaps true (though I don’t see how it would be true because of Occam’s Razor), but the God-man might have come down at the start of human history and prevented original sin in the first place, instead of coming down in the middle of the roman empire to save us from our sin. As I’ve said, God decided on the pund of cure rather than an ounce of prevention.

Unselfish love is not a form of payment. Money is a human invention!

I am speaking figuratively here. I do not mean that Jesus literally gave a wad of cash to God or the devil. or perhaps you meant that “payment” is not an accurate way of looking at the cross? The crucifixion is called the atonement because Jesus is atoning for our sins, and justifying the human race before God once again. Paying a fine was the analogy I created on the spot, and it seems to be somewhat appropriate.

Our destiny is not determined by the Cross but by our response to the Cross.

The destiny of the general human race is determined by the cross. Because of it, God will deem the human race worthy of salvation at the end of time.

Numbers are irrelevant where free will is concerned. We are not statistical units but persons!

Numbers may be irrelevant where free will is concerned, but they are NOT irrelevant where love is concerned. Love desires the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. The greatest good is the beatific vision, and God manipulates events so that as many people as possible experience it. if that means moving moral decisions from each individual person to one representative of the human race, than that is exactly what God will do.

We cannot be saved from trouble if we inflict it on ourselves. If we insist on being selfish we get what we deserve - and have no reason to complain. Otherwise we are living in a fool’s paradise…

The whole idea behind Jesus’s crucifixion is that we can be saved from trouble that we inflict on ourselves.

 

[vincent10395]

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.

“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” --Romans 11:34

I think that we’re trying to understand something that we will never be able to in this life. We can ask all of these “what if’s” but they are distracting us from reality, and reality is that there are some things we must accept with Faith. It was good to talk about this with you, but I think it is time we stop looking back, and it is time we look forward toward the goal. I’m mean hey at least we can still get to Heaven by the Grace of God!

God Bless you!

 

[N0X3x]

Yes, God set up that very situation–because it was necessary to see if man would trust in God and be obedient or if he would follow Satan into disobedience.

If it had ended there it would be the ultimate tragedy for all mankind, but the story didn’t end there and God didn’t intend that it should. Rather, he humbled himself to take the punishment for Adam’s sin by the Incarnation, death and resurrection of the Second Adam, Christ Jesus.

St. Paul tells us that “where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.” The redemption Christ gained for us outweighs to the nth degree the loss of Adam because in Christ we have a share in the divine and eternal life of God.

It seems that God knew that this would be the only way we would truly be one with him. Otherwise, the next generation after Adam and the ones following that would always be in danger of falling, creating a sharp divide between the righteous man and the sinful man. As it was, Israel was called to be the righteous man in the midst of the sinful men of the world. But they failed at it. But, in the fullness of time, God sent his Son, and created the truly righteous one who is to be the light of the world–that is his Church. In her divine life, which Christ has given her, the Church is the perfectly righteous man, but in her humanity, she still strives for perfection. When Christ returns, perfection will be attained and our life in eternity will be one of everlasting joy united to Christ.

Although Man will regain its perfection at the end of time, we are not better off then we would have been if Adam had never eaten the apple at all. Furthermore, God could have set up a situation that still tested man’s obedience that also would have saved everyone if Adam had made the right choice. If God can damn the whole human race because of the actions of one individual, I see no reason why he couldn’t save the human race in the same way.

 

[brian614]

Perhaps true (though I don’t see how it would be true because of Occam’s Razor), but the God-man might have come down at the start of human history and prevented original sin in the first place, instead of coming down in the middle of the roman empire to save us from our sin. As I’ve said, God decided on the pund of cure rather than an ounce of prevention.
.

I guess I am confused how Jesus could have come down to save humanity at the beginning of History?

If you are implying that he take Adam’s place, that means Eve would have been made out of Christ, making her share in his Divinity and thus all of their descendants… In effect God would be creating something other than Man.

 

[Della]

Although Man will regain its perfection at the end of time, we are not better off then we would have been if Adam had never eaten the apple at all. Furthermore, God could have set up a situation that still tested man’s obedience that also would have saved everyone if Adam had made the right choice. If God can damn the whole human race because of the actions of one individual, I see no reason why he couldn’t save the human race in the same way.

No. We wouldn’t have been better off. How do we know that? Because God knew it, otherwise, he would not have allowed man to be tested in the first place. No, in some way we don’t yet fully understand, having Christ give his life for us did something for us that simple innocence could not. We can certainly wonder how it is better. That might be a better exercise of our imaginations than to question why God didn’t do what we think he should have done, IMHO.

I believe God ennobled us by having Christ come among us in humility to redeem and save us, not only in becoming a human being–just think how condescending for the God who created everything–but also in dying, and not only in suffering death, but the cruelties of death on a cross and the torture he suffered before, physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. And then to be raised into the Glorified One so that we can be justified and be like him in glory–it’s beyond our comprehension. What we gained far outweighs what we lost, AFAICS.

 

[N0X3x]

“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” --Romans 11:34

I think that we’re trying to understand something that we will never be able to in this life. We can ask all of these “what if’s” but they are distracting us from reality, and reality is that there are some things we must accept with Faith.

Although that is the reality, I think that we can not know, while still in this life, what those things are. We can’t know the limits of reason until we test them, and asking the “what if” questions is how we do that. It seems to me that they help us discover reality, rather than distract from it.

It was good to talk about this with you, but I think it is time we stop looking back, and it is time we look forward toward the goal. I’m mean hey at least we can still get to Heaven by the Grace of God!

God Bless you!

thanks for helping me with this question.

God bless you as well!

 

[N0X3x]

I guess I am confused how Jesus could have come down to save humanity at the beginning of History?

If you are implying that he take Adam’s place, that means Eve would have been made out of Christ, making her share in his Divinity and thus all of their descendants… In effect God would be creating something other than Man.

Eve was made from Adam’s physical nature. If Eve had been made from the God-man, then she would have only have shared in Christ’s divinity if God had wanted her to. God is perfectly capable of forming Eve out of only the God-man’s human nature

 

[N0X3x]

No. We wouldn’t have been better off. How do we know that? Because God knew it, otherwise, he would not have allowed man to be tested in the first place. No, in some way we don’t yet fully understand, having Christ give his life for us did something for us that simple innocence could not. We can certainly wonder how it is better. That might be a better exercise of our imaginations than to question why God didn’t do what we think he should have done, IMHO.

I believe God ennobled us by having Christ come among us in humility to redeem and save us, not only in becoming a human being–just think how condescending for the God who created everything–but also in dying, and not only in suffering death, but the cruelties of death on a cross and the torture he suffered before, physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. And then to be raised into the Glorified One so that we can be justified and be like him in glory–it’s beyond our comprehension. What we gained far outweighs what we lost, AFAICS.

That idea implies that God wanted, that is to say, willed, that man eventually eat of the tree and sin! I find that idea untenable. God never wants us to sin, no matter the circumstances.

I think that by sinning, man has the ability to meddle in the ultimate plan of God. As is shown on the cross, God has the ability to recover almost everything he has lost, but he can not make the situation better than it would have been without sin.

 

[brian614]

Eve was made from Adam’s physical nature. If Eve had been made from the God-man, then she would have only have shared in Christ’s divinity if God had wanted her to. God is perfectly capable of forming Eve out of only the God-man’s human nature

Ok but who would Eve had procreated with?

Remember man begets man and God begets God… So the offspring of Jesus would be divine (or am I missing something)

 

[N0X3x]

Ok but who would Eve had procreated with?

Remember man begets man and God begets God… So the offspring of Jesus would be divine (or am I missing something)

The offspring of Jesus would work the same way Eve does. They would inherit a divine nature only if God wanted them to. He is quite capable of keeping his kids from being divine.

 

[brian614]

I don’t know, I am just going to trust that God’s plan is better than anything that we can speculate about… Questioning God’s judgement doesn’t sit well with me.

Either way interesting topic you brought up N0X3x, even if I think you are off base on a few things.

 

[Della]

That idea implies that God wanted, that is to say, willed, that man eventually eat of the tree and sin! I find that idea untenable. God never wants us to sin, no matter the circumstances.

No, it doesn’t. No teacher who gives his students a test “wills” that his students fail. Merely presenting Adam with a choice does not translate to God wanting him to make the wrong choice.

I think that by sinning, man has the ability to meddle in the ultimate plan of God. As is shown on the cross, God has the ability to recover almost everything he has lost, but he can not make the situation better than it would have been without sin.

Of course man tries to meddle in God’s ultimate plan, but God is always one step ahead. And who says he can’t make the situation better than if we had not sinned? St. Paul disagrees with you on that one.

 

[tonyrey]

Our destiny cannot be secured for us: we determine it by the way we live.

We still determine our own destiny with the help of God’s grace. No one is compelled to go to heaven or hell.

God is Love! And not in the same category as His creatures.

I agree, but I have a feeling that Jean-Paul Sarte was making a general claim about all persons, not just human beings.

God didn’t come into the picture for Sartre because he was an atheist.

There can be only one Messiah. (Occam’s Razor).

Perhaps true (though I don’t see how it would be true because of Occam’s Razor)…

More than one Messiah was not predicted nor needed.

…but the God-man might have come down at the start of human history and prevented original sin in the first place, instead of coming down in the middle of the roman empire to save us from our sin. As I’ve said, God decided on the pund of cure rather than an ounce of prevention.

If God prevented sin it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will.

Unselfish love is not a form of payment. Money is a human invention!

I am speaking figuratively here. I do not mean that Jesus literally gave a wad of cash to God or the devil. or perhaps you meant that “payment” is not an accurate way of looking at the cross? The crucifixion is called the atonement because Jesus is atoning for our sins, and justifying the human race before God once again. Paying a fine was the analogy I created on the spot, and it seems to be somewhat appropriate.

Atonement means “at-one-ment”, by means of a scapegoat but with the power of love.

Our destiny is not determined by the Cross but by our response to the Cross.

The destiny of the general human race is determined by the cross. Because of it, God will deem the human race worthy of salvation at the end of time.

We can never be worthy of salvation. Nothing we do can merit sharing God’s life in heaven. We are redeemed by the Cross but we saved by our love in response to His love.

Numbers are irrelevant where free will is concerned. We are not statistical units but persons!

Numbers may be irrelevant where free will is concerned, but they are NOT irrelevant where love is concerned. Love desires the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people.

That is the flawed theory of Utilitarianism which would sacrifice individuals for the sake of the majority. No formula can replace our conscience. God’s Love desires the greatest possible good for everyone. We all have an equal right to life, liberty and happiness.

The greatest good is the beatific vision, and God manipulates events so that as many people as possible experience it. if that means moving moral decisions from each individual person to one representative of the human race, than that is exactly what God will do.

The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience. No one else can ever be responsible for our moral decisions.

We cannot be saved from trouble if we inflict it on ourselves. If we insist on being selfish we get what we deserve - and have no reason to complain. Otherwise we are living in a fool’s paradise…

The whole idea behind Jesus’s crucifixion is that we can be saved from trouble that we inflict on ourselves.

That idea is diametrically opposed to the injunction of Jesus that we should take up our cross and follow Him: there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another person.