Why did God send Jesus at the time and place he did?

[esmith]

the timing of the Messiahs arrival had been pre determined many centuries earlier.

The prophet Daniel was given the word of when the Messiah would arrive. At the time of Daniels prophecy, Jerusalem was destroyed and many from the nation were in captivity in Babylon but others had been dispersed to neighboring nations.

“O Daniel, now I have come forth to make you have insight with understanding. 23 At the start of your entreaties a word went forth, and I myself have come to make report, because you are someone very desirable. So give consideration to the matter, and have understanding in the thing seen.

24 “There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25 And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes‧si′ah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times.

26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Mes‧si′ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.

The book of Daniel was written around 536 BCE

The going forth of the word to restore and rebuild jerusalem came in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the month of Nisan in the year 455 BCE.
The 'weeks' are 'weeks of years' according to the the Tanakh which are a total 483 years (im not explaining how the number is worked out here but PM me if you'd like the details)

from the year 455 BCE less 483 years = 29CE. This was the year Jesus was baptized and began his ministry.

First let me say that the Book of Daniel, in its final version was probably written in 165BCE. Because of the detailed nature of apocalyptic timetables, the dating of at least the last chapters of Daniel can be established precisely. Scholars consider the predictions in this book, as in other apocalypses, to be prophecies after the fact, purportedly written down centuries earlier and kept secret in order to give credence to other predictions about the end of history. The recounting of history, then, though symbolic, can be matched quite easily with history of the ancient Near East in the Greek period. The predictions are detailed and accurate until the end of the Maccabean revolt in 164BCE. At that point, however, they veer dramatically from what we know of the actions of the Seleucid king and scholars assume that the author lived and wrote at the precise time when the predictions become inaccurate. The scribal visionaries who produced Daniel were strongly opposed to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, yet they were probably not closely aligned with the Maccabees.

 

[Pegg]

First let me say that the Book of Daniel, in its final version was probably written in 165BCE.

even if this were true, the timing of the messiah according to Daniel is still correct 130 odd years before he appeared. How can that be explained?

Because of the detailed nature of apocalyptic timetables, the dating of at least the last chapters of Daniel can be established precisely. Scholars consider the predictions in this book, as in other apocalypses, to be prophecies after the fact, purportedly written down centuries earlier and kept secret in order to give credence to other predictions about the end of history. The recounting of history, then, though symbolic, can be matched quite easily with history of the ancient Near East in the Greek period. The predictions are detailed and accurate until the end of the Maccabean revolt in 164BCE. At that point, however, they veer dramatically from what we know of the actions of the Seleucid king and scholars assume that the author lived and wrote at the precise time when the predictions become inaccurate. The scribal visionaries who produced Daniel were strongly opposed to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, yet they were probably not closely aligned with the Maccabees.

Im aware that some scholars consider Antiochus the one being spoken of in the prophecies of Daniel, but their view is not the only view and is debatable.

The fact is that in Jesus day, he used part of Daniels prophecy and applied to it an event that was still to come in the future... it was applied to the destruction by Rome in 70CE which is just as plausible as the anitochus fulfilllment.
But what it certainly shows is that many jews of the first century, including Jesus himself, did not consider Antiochus to be the fulfillment of Daniels prophecy.

 

[esmith]

The fact is that in Jesus day, he used part of Daniels prophecy and applied to it an event that was still to come in the future... it was applied to the destruction by Rome in 70CE which is just as plausible as the anitochus fulfilllment.
But what it certainly shows is that many jews of the first century, including Jesus himself, did not consider Antiochus to be the fulfillment of Daniels prophecy.

And where do you see this?

 

[Pegg]

And where do you see this?

Matthew 24:1 Departing now, Jesus was on his way from the temple, but his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do YOU not behold all these things? Truly I say to YOU, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”...15 “Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) 16 then let those in Ju‧de′a begin fleeing to the mountains.

the parallel is found in Daniel 9:27 “And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And upon the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate.”

The destruction of jerusalem by Rome in 70ce was complete destruction. Over 1 million jews were killed within the city walls.

 

[Muffled]

If you believe Jesus was who you say he was, why did God send him at the time and place He did? It seems to me that the Jewish population in the area didn't seem to be having any major problems. That is unless you count the Roman occupation, which Jesus didn't seem to mind. If it was to redeem the Jewish population for their sins, that is if they accepted him as their savior, which they didn't, he missed the mark there. If it was to spread the new Christian religion among the pagans then wouldn't God have sent him to the pagans instead of the Israelites (who didn't appear to want him).

Just a thought, I'm sure someone out there has a logical answer.

The timing makes sense because the Roman Empire ruled most of the world. That meant that an evangelist could travel extensively and still be under the auspices and protection of Roman law.

This is not totally true. Thousansds of Jews became Christians.

God having chosen a people obligated Himself to offer Himself first to His people. Also there was a matter of fulfilling Jewish prophecy that pagans would not have been able to appreciate. It is difficult to get some people to leave a religion that they have been raised in but there evidently have been a sufficient number who found this to be good news since the church numbers in the millions and not all of that is a lack of birth control.

 

[esmith]

Matthew 24:1 Departing now, Jesus was on his way from the temple, but his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do YOU not behold all these things? Truly I say to YOU, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”...15 “Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) 16 then let those in Ju‧de′a begin fleeing to the mountains.

the parallel is found in Daniel 9:27 “And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And upon the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate.”

The destruction of jerusalem by Rome in 70ce was complete destruction. Over 1 million jews were killed within the city walls.

Unfortunately you only read part, try reading the entire chapter of Matthew 24:1-51; Mark 9:1, 13:1-37; Luke 21:6-36. Jesus started with John the Baptist who preached repentance in order to prepare for the coming apocalypticism. Jesus continued these views as you can see in the referenced Gospels. Jesus felt that the "end-of-time" was near. You can see in some of the passages the start of the "Rapture" beliefs. These beliefs were carried on to Paul's beliefs and whoever wrote Revelations.
So you can see Jesus was not prophesying just the destruction of the Temple but the "end-of-time"

 

[Pegg]

Unfortunately you only read part, try reading the entire chapter of Matthew 24:1-51; Mark 9:1, 13:1-37; Luke 21:6-36. Jesus started with John the Baptist who preached repentance in order to prepare for the coming apocalypticism. Jesus continued these views as you can see in the referenced Gospels. Jesus felt that the "end-of-time" was near. You can see in some of the passages the start of the "Rapture" beliefs. These beliefs were carried on to Paul's beliefs and whoever wrote Revelations.
So you can see Jesus was not prophesying just the destruction of the Temple but the "end-of-time"

the entire prophecy is not just about one event, true and im aware of that which is why i only included the part that referred to Daniels prophecy. Jesus includes events that were soon to happen upon Jerusalem but he also went further with what would happen in 'the last days'

this does not negate the fact that Jesus was applying Daniels prophecy to a future event which is why I disagree that the prophecy applies to Antochus.

 

[astarath]

So are you for the rapture?

 

[Pegg]

So are you for the rapture?

im not sure who you are asking, but we dont believe in the rapture, no.

The rapture is not a bible teaching, its a twisted interpretation of John Nelson Darby who founded the Brethren. He taught that Christ’s return would occur in two stages and would begin with a secret rapture, in which the “saints” would be taken to heaven before a seven-year period of tribulation for the earth. Then Christ would appear visibly, accompanied by these “saints,” and together they would rule on earth for a thousand years. Since Darby, others have modified the rapture teachings...which is easy to do when there is no clear scriptural teaching on the matter.

Basically the rapture teaching comes from 1 scripture which is clearly taken out of context.

 

[kylixguru]

Basically the rapture teaching comes from 1 scripture which is clearly taken out of context.

The parallel that I see is the period of concealment when the Bridegroom takes His new Bride into concealment with Him.

This also seems to correlate with the fall feasts which also setup the template for end times events. The unleavened barley is harvested first and endures very light threshing to remove its chaff. But, the wheat that requires much more threshing must not be spared the tribulation in order to have its chaff removed by far more intense threshing. Thus, the Barley goes into a concealment while the wheat suffers tribulation. The barley is 'raptured' but the wheat is not.

The part of the 'rapture' idea I dismiss totally is that it involves some kind of a supernatural hyperspace wisping away of people leaving their clothes behind, ala Tim LeHaye style.

 

[Pegg]

The parallel that I see is the period of concealment when the Bridegroom takes His new Bride into concealment with Him.

This also seems to correlate with the fall feasts which also setup the template for end times events. The unleavened barley is harvested first and endures very light threshing to remove its chaff. But, the wheat that requires much more threshing must not be spared the tribulation in order to have its chaff removed by far more intense threshing. Thus, the Barley goes into a concealment while the wheat suffers tribulation. The barley is 'raptured' but the wheat is not.

The part of the 'rapture' idea I dismiss totally is that it involves some kind of a supernatural hyperspace wisping away of people leaving their clothes behind, ala Tim LeHaye style.

'flesh and blood cannot inherit Gods kingdom' so any who are going to heaven must first die a physical death. It is then that they can be resurrected into the type of body that can live in heaven. So I dismiss the idea of the rapture entirely.

 

[kylixguru]

'flesh and blood cannot inherit Gods kingdom' so any who are going to heaven must first die a physical death. It is then that they can be resurrected into the type of body that can live in heaven. So I dismiss the idea of the rapture entirely.

Are you saying the Kingdom of God shall never exist as a political reality here upon the earth?

 

[Thief]

Really! Are you sure? What do you say about the following?

= The Alleged Sons of God =

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions under Pompey arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that's much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would
have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favour that he was rather a biological son of
Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

An entertaining distraction.

Flesh is flesh.
If you want to believe Jesus had a physical father?....fine.

Being a son of God is a spiritual event.
God's declaration came at the time of the Carpenter's baptism.

 

[waitasec]

Are you saying the Kingdom of God shall never exist as a political reality here upon the earth?

oui!!!
why do you think the middle east is constantly facing violent consequences of sectarian violence...?

 

[kylixguru]

oui!!!
why do you think the middle east is constantly facing violent consequences of sectarian violence...?

Your hand on your forehead, my eyes are rolling...

Idiots making a mess of things is irrelevant to my question.

I asked an honest question about what YOU believe.

 

[Pegg]

Are you saying the Kingdom of God shall never exist as a political reality here upon the earth?

exactly.

Jesus said 'my kingdom is no part of this world'

and we know that jesus went to be by Gods side in heaven..and the kingdom is situated where Gods throne is, so its a heavenly kingdom.

Its for that reason that the apostles spoke about them going to be with Christ in heaven...because that is where they will rule as kings and priests from.

 

[kylixguru]

exactly.

Jesus said 'my kingdom is no part of this world'

and we know that jesus went to be by Gods side in heaven..and the kingdom is situated where Gods throne is, so its a heavenly kingdom.

Its for that reason that the apostles spoke about them going to be with Christ in heaven...because that is where they will rule as kings and priests from.

I disagree, but we have strayed off topic...

You can have the last word.

 

[Pegg]

I disagree, but we have strayed off topic...

You can have the last word.

i dont want the last word

i'd be happy to start a new thread though and you can explain why you believe the kingdom will be earthly

 

[kylixguru]

i dont want the last word

i'd be happy to start a new thread though and you can explain why you believe the kingdom will be earthly

By all means, I'd be delighted. I have the rest of the day to burn.

 

[waitasec]

Your hand on your forehead, my eyes are rolling...

Idiots making a mess of things is irrelevant to my question.

I asked an honest question about what YOU believe.

you tell me of one, just one religious political system that has ever worked
i gave you an honest answer...