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

[mytruepower2]

thanks for the clarification.

No problem.

 

[umgriz932001]

Hazcompt, Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood about angels.

I’m having a tough time following this topic. The angels thing was just something that seemed to stick in my head.

I think that the reason God didn’t have Jesus become Incarnate at the being of human creation is for the final judgment at the end of time. I think the whole of human creation is a story. We have the characters, the narrator, the events unfolding, we had the climactic event and now the end is being written. There is a reason, purpose for having original sin, Jesus’ Incarnation at the time that it took place. I am having a hard time getting my points out, i understand them in my head but can’t voice them well.

I do think that the importance of God sacrificing His Son on the cross in a human body plays into it. Jesus was the perfect mediator between humans and God. He was both with the two natures meaning that He had both persons interests to complete the sacrifice. He wanted what was best for the human race while wanting what was best for appeasing God and making things right. I don’t think if Jesus had been Incarnate at the beginning of human existence (because there would have been no sacrifice from either side) we would not have to take up our Crosses to follow Christ. But i think that we would be facing God’s wrath like they did before Jesus came to Earth. The Jewish people of old were constantly getting punished and so were others, for that fact. Not that they had beautific vision, but i think there is something tied to that on why God waited to have Jesus Incarnate himself at the time he did and not earlier or later.

Not sure if that makes sense…

 

[tonyrey]

Atonement means “at-one-ment”, **not **

God doesn’t need a scapegoat. That is a very primitive concept rejected by Jesus when he quoted Hosea “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice”. He chose to let Himself be tortured and crucified because that was the most powerful expression of His love for us:

“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

 

[Qoeleth]

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?

For God, everything is eternal. Creation, the Fall, the Redemption- are all part of an immense ‘now’ for God, who is in Himself changless.

It is only from our point of view that time passed, that things happened. From the point of view of God, time, and therefore history, does not exist.

God in Himself is in an eternal, unchanging state of blissful Beatific Vision. This is the truly real. It is only because of a erroneous senses that we see things as taking place historically.

 

[mytruepower2]

God doesn’t need a scapegoat. That is a very primitive concept rejected by Jesus when he quoted Hosea “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice”. He chose to let Himself be tortured and crucified because that was the most powerful expression of His love for us:

Jesus didn’t come down and die for our sins just because he wanted to show us he loved us. That’s wrong.

The scripture passage you quoted doesn’t say that there are no authentic demands of justice. What it says is that in interpersonal conduct, it’s better to be merciful to others, than to try to make up for a lack of mercy through burnt sacrifices, as many of the pharisees did.

However, authentic justice still exists, and still has some nasty demands associated with it. Each person who sins incurs a just punishment for that sin, and as Jesus proved, that punishment may be taken by someone else. The innocent can suffer on behalf of the guilty.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus didn’t come down and die for our sins just because he wanted to show us he loved us. That’s wrong.

I did not state that Jesus came down and die for our sins** just** because He wanted to show He loved us. There are several reasons, such as His determination to fulfil His mission and not descend to the level of His accusers.

The scripture passage you quoted doesn’t say that there are no authentic demands of justice. What it says is that in interpersonal conduct, it’s better to be merciful to others, than to try to make up for a lack of mercy through burnt sacrifices, as many of the pharisees did.

Indeed. It rules out the need for scapegoat.

However, authentic justice still exists, and still has some nasty demands associated with it.

There is no element of nastiness in divine justice. That is a very primitive human notion.

Each person who sins incurs a just punishment for that sin, and as Jesus proved, that punishment may be taken by someone else.

Every vice and every sin incurs its own punishment. Jesus chose to suffer to deliver us from evil, i.e. to liberate us from our ignorance, blindness, weakness and selfishness. He certainly did not suffer because the Father demanded the sacrifice of His own Son.

The innocent can suffer on behalf of the guilty.

The innocent can and do suffer as the result of sin. They can and do offer their suffering to expiate their own sins and the sins of others - but not to propitiate the imagined “wrath of God”. Divine justice does not entail an arbitrary demand for a bloody sacrifice. It consists in giving us what we deserve:

“Forgive us **as **we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Alexander Pope summed it up elegantly:

"To err is human; to forgive, divine.”

Sins, of course, are not errors but acts of forgiveness are blessings - both for those who forgive and those who are forgiven. No one could have imagined how divine justice, mercy and love can be reconciled but Jesus has shown us that with God all things are possible…

 

[N0X3x]

I don’t think if Jesus had been Incarnate at the beginning of human existence (because there would have been no sacrifice from either side) we would not have to take up our Crosses to follow Christ. But i think that we would be facing God’s wrath like they did before Jesus came to Earth. The Jewish people of old were constantly getting punished and so were others, for that fact. Not that they had beautific vision, but i think there is something tied to that on why God waited to have Jesus Incarnate himself at the time he did and not earlier or later.

Not sure if that makes sense…

I think so…

The only thing I’d like to point out is that, if the God-man had become incarnate as the first man, God would never have to display any wrath, as no human would ever sin. They would be personally responsible for any sin they would have commited, but since none of them would have commited any sins, They wouldn’t have needed to be punished.

 

[N0X3x]

For God, everything is eternal. Creation, the Fall, the Redemption- are all part of an immense ‘now’ for God, who is in Himself changless.

It is only from our point of view that time passed, that things happened. From the point of view of God, time, and therefore history, does not exist.

God in Himself is in an eternal, unchanging state of blissful Beatific Vision. This is the truly real. It is only because of a erroneous senses that we see things as taking place historically.

How does that connect to this topic?

 

[brian614]

I think so…

The only thing I’d like to point out is that, if the God-man had become incarnate as the first man,

The point I keep trying to make (probably not doing a good enough job) Is that God had to first create Human beings before he could be incarnate in one…

 

[N0X3x]

The point I keep trying to make (probably not doing a good enough job) Is that God had to first create Human beings before he could be incarnate in one…

Did you see post #95?

I’m confused. this is the third time I’ve addressed that exact issue.

 

[brian614]

Did you see post #95?

I’m confused. this is the third time I’ve addressed that exact issue.

Thanks I just looked at post #95

My point is what would Christ be incarnate in?

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks I just looked at post #95

My point is what would Christ be incarnate in?

Presumably a prototype of the human body! Then He wouldn’t have shared our humanity but created it - which leads to so many imponderables it cannot form the basis of a reasonable alternative to the orthodox interpretation of the Redemption. Put simply, it is a sterile hypothesis.