Reasons for the incarnation

[whag]

A popular reason for the incarnation is that God could experience human temptation and suffering. According to Richard Swinburne:

There are three reasons why an omnipotent and perfectly good God might choose to become incarnate (to become human, as well as divine). The first is to provide atonement for our sins. All humans have wronged God, and the resulting guilt requires repentance, apology, and reparation. We can repent and apologize, but we have not the time or the will to ‘make it up’ to God. He must himself provide the reparation in the form of a perfect life of the kind that we should have lived. The second reason is to identify with our suffering, and the third is to reveal to us moral and theological truths that we need for living.

https://oxford.universitypressschola...7461-chapter-3

I don’t know offhand the scriptural support for this but acknowledge there must be NT verses saying Jesus needed to experience what it feels like to be tempted and suffer. The reason I find it problematic is because an omniscient creator would/should already identify with and fully know the experience of his creatures before making them.

[seer]

A popular reason for the incarnation is that God could experience human temptation and suffering. According to Richard Swinburne:



https://oxford.universitypressschola...7461-chapter-3

I don’t know offhand the scriptural support for this but acknowledge there must be NT verses saying Jesus needed to experience what it feels like to be tempted and suffer. The reason I find it problematic is because an omniscient creator would/should already identify with and fully know the experience of his creatures before making them.

I'm not sure that Jesus needed to experience what it felt like. I think it is more the idea that God puts Himself under the same conditions, so we could better identify with Him.

[Bill the Cat]

1. It Demonstrated His Humanity

• The temptations gave proof of His true humanity. The Bible says: [*=1]Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted (Hebrews 2:18).
• The fact that He could be tested showed that Jesus was genuinely human.

2. It Is An Example To Us

• It is part of His example to us. We are told to walk as He walked: [*=1]Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did (1 John 2:6).

3. It Formed Part Of His Personal Discipleship

• The temptation formed part of His own personal discipline. In some sense Jesus learned obedience through the temptation. [*=1]During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him (Hebrews 5:7-9).

[Sparko]

I'm not sure that Jesus needed to experience what it felt like. I think it is more the idea that God puts Himself under the same conditions, so we could better identify with Him.

^That.

[tabibito]

A popular reason for the incarnation is that God could experience human temptation and suffering. According to Richard Swinburne:



https://oxford.universitypressschola...7461-chapter-3

I don’t know offhand the scriptural support for this but acknowledge there must be NT verses saying Jesus needed to experience what it feels like to be tempted and suffer.

The "letter" to the Hebrews is the go-to for that sort of information.
Observing another's suffering from outside and understanding that it is suffering promotes sympathy. Having personally experienced what it is like to suffer promotes empathy. One of the (quite contentious) relevant points:
Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

The reason I find it problematic is because an omniscient creator would/should already identify with and fully know the experience of his creatures before making them.

The theological definition of omnipotent might be flawed (I am convinced that it is). An emperor can be termed omnipotent, and while God's power exceeds that limited concept by orders of magnitude, there is no scriptural cause to assume that the term should be considered absolute. Making war against, or even hindering God would be impossible under the theological definition of omnipotence.

[Ronson]

A popular reason for the incarnation is that God could experience human temptation and suffering. According to Richard Swinburne:

https://oxford.universitypressschola...7461-chapter-3

I don’t know offhand the scriptural support for this but acknowledge there must be NT verses saying Jesus needed to experience what it feels like to be tempted and suffer. The reason I find it problematic is because an omniscient creator would/should already identify with and fully know the experience of his creatures before making them.

My understanding from scripture is that the incarnation was necessary for the sentence to be carried out. God sentenced mankind, so a man had to serve the sentence. I don't believe it had anything to do with omniscience.

[whag]

I'm not sure that Jesus needed to experience what it felt like. I think it is more the idea that God puts Himself under the same conditions, so we could better identify with Him.

So it’s probably better for Christians to avoid using Swinburn’s reason.

[seer]

So it’s probably better for Christians to avoid using Swinburn’s reason.

Swinburn did not say what you said. He said: The second reason is to identify with our suffering. Was that for God's benefit (so He could learn something new) or ours (so that we could better relate to God)?

[whag]

Swinburn did not say what you said. He said: The second reason is to identify with our suffering. Was that for God's benefit (so He could learn something new) or ours (so that we could better relate to God)?

I directly quoted him and didn’t add to what he said. In that sentence, Jesus is the subject doing the identifying. If we were the subject, he’d have phrased it “The second reason is for us to identify with Jesus’ suffering.”

Clearly, he meant the experience of the incarnation helped him identify with the human experience, which, being the creator, he should have already known.

[tabibito]

I directly quoted him and didn’t add to what he said. In that sentence, Jesus is the subject doing the identifying. If we were the subject, he’d have phrased it “The second reason is for us to identify with Jesus’ suffering.”

Clearly, he meant the experience of the incarnation helped him identify with the human experience, which, being the creator, he should have already known.

A call to the accurate assessment of the grammar.






Gutsy play.

[seer]

I directly quoted him and didn’t add to what he said. In that sentence, Jesus is the subject doing the identifying. If we were the subject, he’d have phrased it “The second reason is for us to identify with Jesus’ suffering.”

Clearly, he meant the experience of the incarnation helped him identify with the human experience, which, being the creator, he should have already known.

No, it doesn't have to mean that at all. Yes Jesus is identifying with our suffering - but for who's good, or benefit? His or ours?

Swinburne

If, further, God’s purpose of identifying with our suffering and providing an example and instruction of how to live is to be fulfilled, he must show us that he is doing this. For God to bring to life someone condemned for certain teaching would be to express his approval of that teaching.

https://afterall.net/quotes/richard-...-resurrection/

[tabibito]

No, it doesn't have to mean that at all. Yes Jesus is identifying with our suffering - but for who's good, or benefit? His or ours?

Swinburne

If, further, God’s purpose of identifying with our suffering and providing an example and instruction of how to live is to be fulfilled, he must show us that he is doing this. For God to bring to life someone condemned for certain teaching would be to express his approval of that teaching.

https://afterall.net/quotes/richard-...-resurrection/

What comes before the "if, further"?

[seer]

.

What comes before the "if, further"?

I don' know that is where the piece starts. Whag's piece also had a limited context.

[tabibito]

I don' know that is where the piece starts. Whag's piece also had a limited context.

is the start of a new section; yours is a continuation of a developing thought.
Other comparisons:
Whag's piece - Chapter 3 (General Background Evidence);
Your piece - Chapter 12 (Posterior Historical Evidence: The Significance of the Resurrection: The Resurrection as God's Signature) - Different topics, and different subjects. Chapter 12 does not address the reasons for God to become human.

However - to expand on the citation from Chapter 3: "A perfectly good God would judge it a good thing to share the pain … by becoming incarnate in a life that ends … badly … it seems to me highly plausible to suppose that … it would be a unique best act to share that sort of life, including … crisis."

In short, one of the reasons for God to become human is - it seemed like a good idea at the time. (well, not quite.)

[seer]

is the start of a new section; yours is a continuation of a developing thought.
Other comparisons:
Whag's piece - Chapter 3 (General Background Evidence);
Your piece - Chapter 12 (Posterior Historical Evidence: The Significance of the Resurrection: The Resurrection as God's Signature) - Different topics, and different subjects. Chapter 12 does not address the reasons for God to become human.

However - to expand on the citation from Chapter 3: "A perfectly good God would judge it a good thing to share the pain … by becoming incarnate in a life that ends … badly … it seems to me highly plausible to suppose that … it would be a unique best act to share that sort of life, including … crisis."

In short, one of the reasons for God to become human is - it seemed like a good idea at the time. (well, not quite.)

The point is why God was identifying with our suffering - Whag suggested that Jesus needed to experience what it feels like to be tempted and suffer. But Swinburne never says that. Though I think he leans towards Open Theism...


https://godisopen.com/2015/01/21/swi...s-omniscience/