Who Would Christ "Have Been" If Man Did Not Fall?

[Ben1445]

Another point (not mentioned yet) is God would not be God without man falling short of His glory.

Is that what you meant to say?

It sounds like God is only God because man sinned.

Although created in God's image man was still created flesh. Flesh and blood simply will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Flesh is sinful at present and there is no rewind button.

I don’t see any reason that perfect people could not.
But this is 100% hypothetical question. Flesh and blood not inheriting is a post fall statement.

There are many hypothetical questions we could ask.


Would man have fallen had God chosen not to take him from where he was created and place him in the Garden (where God would dwell with him).

Would man be complete without needing a spiritual birth?

He did not die until after sin. I would say that he would not need a spiritual birth without dying.
And there is no indication that while man was made lower than angels, he could not have been made to take on different responsibilities at some point. God could accomplish a similar end without the fall of men.

Was the Fall one step in God's creation process, like a seed that must fall to the ground (so that Christ would be the Firstborn among many brethern)?

These questions lean toward determinism. Unless you have changed your view on that,…
But God can create whatever He wants without starting from seed.

Just my thoughts.

 

[JonC]

Is that what you meant to say?

It sounds like God is only God because man sinned.

Yes. God would not be the God described in the Bible, anyway.

It is not that God is only God because man sinned but that because God is God man falls short of His glory.

Adam (man) was created in the image of God, but not possessing the glory of God. Man falls short.