Related to the question of why the universe is old, the question arises as to why Jesus appeared in the flesh when he did. I’ll hold off on my answer and let you guys discuss, if you wish.
Also, why where he did may be interesting.
Interested to see what you come up with. I could talk about progressive revolution and nature and God being patient so that more can be saved but I think Galatians 4:4 is about the only answer I know of and it leaves a lot of questions unresolved.
4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
We could ask a lot of questions about why God did x or y instead of z or where and when. Sometimes x and y seem odd to us but I think as Christians we have enough to trust that z is the better plan. After all, if everything God revealed made perfect sense to me that would be a telltale sign that this anthropomorphic deity is a a figment of my imagination and just me believing in myself.
Vinnie
Without putting too fine a point on it, there is an optimum time period when Israel is cohesive but under Rule of another, and there is enough of “The other” to make it more than an internal figure. There needs to be culture and identity and respect for a prophet. Capitol punishment but preferably dubious for the “crime” of being God, and so on.
Much earlier and it would not have been noticed, much later and it would not have had the same corporate effect
Modern global communications would probably have worked against it as would modern journalism. There would be no room for doubt or faith.
Looking at it dispassionately, not Biblical or religiously, it would seem that the time was spot on
Richard
2 Likes
Because, as Galations 4:4 said: “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, . . .”
- Because that’s where Joseph and Mary were?
One thought I had was that 70 AD marked the end of temple worship, and a large diaspora happened, making the time ripe for the spread of the gospel, which had reached a point where it had developed enough for distribution.
4 Likes
That’s why, while not a perfect solution, the geographical location of Israel makes sense for why specifically there. You’re at the crossroads of the three most populous continents in the world and with the Roman Empire, you had a period of time where trade networks stretched all over the known world and that definitely helped the spread of the Gospel.
I agree with @RichardG that the modern age would be too skeptical to believe in anything Jesus did in the Gospels, especially in the age of AI and deep fakes. DeepFaking Jesus’ voice would really produce some nightmare results on the effectiveness of the Gospel message. And people are just likely to dismiss Him wholesale, especially if we are just implanting Jesus with our post-Enlightened world. It be much easier in my opinion to discount and discredit Jesus whole sale. At that rate, C.S. Lewis’ trilemma options would be seen in full force amongst the people.
1 Like
Perhaps so, but (as N.T. Wright is often fond of saying), the ancients already knew that dead people don’t come back to life. They didn’t need modernists to reach this “brilliant” realization. There was plenty of skepticism to go round back then too.
One thought I have is that the incarnation did happen during a brutal time for the hopes of the “nation” of Israel. And even despite that we seem to have a sort of avalanche of assumption among some evangelical quarters today that Jesus must have lived during some sort of “cozy time” when turning the other cheek or loving your enemies had a greater chance of being effective back then than it does now. (Like - I guess the Romans were just such ‘kind’ people back then - or so the delusional evangelical imagination thinks.) So imagine how much worse this all would be if Jesus really had shown up in cozier times with much less violence! He would stand even more accused of being surrounded by ‘softer’ or ‘gentler’ environs. As it is, and where he was, we see that love of enemies was applied and lived out during times that would be among the most difficult to do so.
So Jesus was born circa 4BC because of what happened in 70AD?
Or … I wonder if it’s plausible to think that Jesus’ influence on all the tinder-box issues may have contributed (in even any more causal kind of way) to what happened on 70AD? Though I’m not sure how that would have worked. Probably not since that would still be too soon, and his impact on history would not have been nearly so apparent as it would become just a few hundred years after that!
Just a thought that such may be the case. You have to lay the foundation before you can build the house, so the work of the cross and the maturation of the gospel through the apostles including Paul had to be in place before it could be spread through the events of 70 AD. Theologically, with no Temple, the Jewish segment of society were left with rethinking the presence of God, and how to worship, leaving them ripe for the gospel message. It may be a piece of the puzzle, though not the whole picture.
All just supposition of course.
2 Likes
Another related question is why was Jesus incarnated as male and not female? A typical response I’ve heard is that “women in that culture would have found it hard to gather disciples and to have their voice taken seriously”. I suppose that makes pragmatic sense. I heard another intriguing explanation, though….that in the form of a male in that culture, God more explicitly could demonstrate what it means to lay down power and to “wash another’s feet”. By voluntarily assuming those lowly tasks and non-violent manner which otherwise would have simply been the expected role of women and slaves, Jesus demonstrated the humility and self-sacrificial love inherent to God’s character.
4 Likes
The traditional interpretation of the Genesis Creation Story at least has a rational explanation for the incarnation of Jesus four thousand or so years after creation had occurred. The human race had been given a paradise in which to live and play with no worries or labor. They knowingly squandered away this perfection to rebel against God. God allowed humankind to suffer for this sin for four thousand years before sending his son to redeem them. Harsh, cruel some might say, but rational.
All of this gets turned on its head if evolution is true. There was no “Fall” in the garden. If evolution is true, the Creator God allowed all of creation to suffer horrifically for millions of years before finally sending his son to redeem humanity just 2,000 years ago. Why? Our ways are not His ways??
Says who? I could just as easily claim that God enjoyed millions of years of organisms living, breathing, mating, enjoying beauty, etc. The only thing left of all that for you to find now is fossil remains, since no organism lives forever. Using the fact that they died to reduce all such life to wretched misery would be like moseying through a graveyard and musing about how worthless all these lives must have all been in their own time since, well, look - they all died! Some of them maybe even in horrible circumstances. Reducing all life to the tombstone. Evolution can tell us a lot. What it can’t do for anyone, you included, is pass judgment on the value that any given organism (human or otherwise) places on life, even life with all its attendant sufferings that punctuate periods of joy and enjoyment too.
4 Likes
I mean, “his blood be on us and our children” kind of takes that on some extra nuance if Matthew was written post 70 CE. Even in Mark the release of a prisoner could be considered the Jews chosing their fate (a false messiah (Barabbas son of the father) over Jesus and suffering accordingly). Given historical concerns with a fickle crowd and granted we come to accept Pilate could have released a prisoner yearly, him releasing an insurrectionist (against ROME) and murderer over a man he found innocent is quite a historical stretch. Not to mention it was actually insurrection which the Jewish people chose that led to the temple being destroyed.
Some see the account as the Jews rejecting Jesus and as the audience would know at that time, suffering an extreme fate for doing so.
We still suffer. Jesus didn’t change that. He suffered. His apostles suffered. His church suffered and he specifically said if anyone wants to follow him they have to take up their cross.
Maybe if we were atheists and we thought death was the complete end of existence and there was no hope or chance of justice for anyone abused or mistreated in life, we could think like you. But such bleak nihilism and hopelessness is not a part of the Christian worldview. Eternity is infinitely greater than our finite existence.
Whether true or not, the atheist answer to “life sucks” and “starving children who die of hunger” or cancer is “tough luck, that is the cosmic hand you were dealt.” But for the Christian the answer is much more hopeful and optimistic:
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Considering how little atheism has to offer for people who live a life of suffering and who are used by others over and over, it is amazing how quick some of them are to critique God who offers eternal life. You can deny God exists but to logically whine about how mean the world is when eternity awaits is silly-- especially when you offer death, injustice and nothingness as the alternative and final answer to abused people. For the Christian, life isn’t fair and it’s not fair in the direction of us receiving far more than we deserve in the end.
Some militant atheists just want to convince us how miserable existence is…Misery loves company I guess.
Vinnie
4 Likes
There are any number of gurus in India who claim divine power and miracles. I suspect most Christians are skeptical of these claims. However, ancient cultures were usually more pluralistic than modern monotheistic Christian communities, so they may have been more open to miracles being performed through other deities. One of the aspects of Christianity that Romans had issues with was the exclusive monotheism at the foundation of Christianity.
1 Like
I think most conservatives might not necessarily feel that way, as they could attribute them to demonic powers. Since most Christians believe in angels and demons, outside of Cessationists, miracles need not be denied. I think us skeptical people are just naturally skeptical of supernatural claims at all times.
Vinnie
1 Like
Sure, every animal and human being has probably experienced at least some happiness/pleasure during their short existence, but why allow any suffering?
Talking to a friend the other day, I don’t understand why Christians feel like they have to deny every miracle or spiritual thing that happens in another religion. Nothing wrong with being skeptical, but as I’m slowly developing/evolving my beliefs, I’m learning that miracles and spiritual expierences in other religions don’t have to make me question my faith but rather really bolster the claim of a transcendent/ spiritual realm overall. For goodness sake, who are we to deny if God want to answer a prayer of a Hindu or a Muslim? It could be demons and that’s a answer my friend also suggested, but it could be God doing God things and I’m okay with that.
Also wanted to respond to this. Yeah I totally agree in any time and place, having a dead person come back to life on its own would be heavily scrutinized in any culture. I think though that the 1st century Jews would at least be familiar with some variety of miracles found in the OT that might have helped them reconcile with Jesus’ miracles. On the other hand, I think in modern times there would be much skepticism across of anything miraculous Jesus would have done. Even as @T_aquaticus said that Christians would be skeptical of other faith claims of miracles and divine action, would we really be any less skeptical as modern people if Jesus showed up for the first time in the 21st century? I think the 1st century Jews knew what they were looking for and I don’t know how translatable would that be to all cultures without us having hindsight of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
1 Like