Why didn't God send his son nowadays?

[David Handeye]

Why did God decide to send his own son just 2000 years ago? I don't think that world, that time, that humanity, was more corrupt than ours. Being God omniscient, He should have known the time when his sons and daughters were more in need of help. Nowadays, most of Jesus' teaching have been forgotten. Maybe the best time to send his son would have been during WWII as to stop the holocaust of his people, I think that was the right time, to save his people and to introduce his glory in the world by his son. Contemporary humanity could have been much better than it actually is. Being omniscient God should have known, I think. So why in I century? Is there a particular, religious reason that I ignore?

[Immanuel Can]

We might well ask, why not earlier? Were not many people alive before? Or why not today? Or why not when the world's population finally reaches 10 billion? What's the magic figure, or the magic trigger? Whenever it happened, there would be some people before and some living after.

So we really don't know why the right time was when it was. But the Bible calls it "the fulness of time," (Galatians 4:4) which suggests that God knew when the best time was, and picked it. We do know that the precise time had already been prophesied by Daniel in the Old Testament (Dan. 9:26), and that there were certain prophetic markers that had to be hit before the time was right. But what God knew, or what criteria make it "full" or "best," we don't really know.

And I suggest that if Jesus' teaching has been forgotten in our day, that's not God's fault. We take the rap for that. It's available -- more freely available than at any time in human history. Anyone who can read this message has access to multiple copies, along with concordances, commentaries and a history of scholarship that would have been the envy of the ancient world. We even have videos depicting every word he ever spoke.

So if we don't know, or if we've forgotten, who's to blame?

John says, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." The Light has come. Anyone who loves truth can find it. (John 6:37)

[David Handeye]

We might well ask, why not earlier? Were not many people alive before? Or why not today? Or why not when the world's population finally reaches 10 billion? What's the magic figure, or the magic trigger? Whenever it happened, there would be some people before and some living after.

So we really don't know why the right time was when it was. But the Bible calls it "the fulness of time," (Galatians 4:4) which suggests that God knew when the best time was, and picked it. We do know that the precise time had already been prophesied by Daniel in the Old Testament (Dan. 9:26), and that there were certain prophetic markers that had to be hit before the time was right. But what God knew, or what criteria make it "full" or "best," we don't really know.

And I suggest that if Jesus' teaching has been forgotten in our day, that's not God's fault. We take the rap for that. It's available -- more freely available than at any time in human history. Anyone who can read this message has access to multiple copies, along with concordances, commentaries and a history of scholarship that would have been the envy of the ancient world. We even have videos depicting every word he ever spoke.

So if we don't know, or if we've forgotten, who's to blame?

John says, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." The Light has come. Anyone who loves truth can find it. (John 6:37)

Ciao Immanuel,
You reported Galatians 4:4, suggesting that God knew the best time,
now, in your opinion, why I century should have been the best time? I mean, from God's perspective.
If you were to choose, when would have you sent Jesus on Earth?

[Skip]

Personally, I would never send any kid of mine into a war-zone.

[David Handeye]

Personally, I would never send any kid of mine into a war-zone.

Yes, of course. I remember a sentence of Jesus, «I send you like lambs among wolves».

[Immanuel Can]

Good question, David. But I don't really know.

I suppose that I'd need total knowledge of the variables involved to make such a decision, and I can't pretend to have that.

But in deference to your question, I'll try my hand anyway. I'm only speculating, so don't hold me to it.

If one were going to send a Saviour to the world, one would have to allow some period of time for the problems from which salvation was required to fully bloom. After all, who would want a Saviour if there is not a problem to be "saved" from? And the problem in question would have to become pretty bad; for until its true nature was seen, the need for a Saviour would be proportionally less obvious. So sin would have to be revealed in its true nature, the injustice of the world would have to become pretty serious, the need for rescue would have to become quite pressing, and the whole situation would have to be quite an unequivocal mess before the Saviour arrived. And there would have to be adequate time and occasion to certify the authenticity of the Saviour through things like direct revelation and prophecy, so that His identity would be very clear.

But equally, you would wish that people could derive maximum benefit from the revelation of the Saviour. Perhaps it would be best if the majority of the world's population had not yet been born. Perhaps it would be best if the majority of people were in the best position to fully understand what was being offered to them; and retrospect, rather than prospect, would give them that. So at some point, the right time would come.

Was circa 30 AD the right balance? It seems so. God knows. I surely don't.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

If Jesus' miracles were real, it was probably some kind of magic trick that only worked at certain times for unknown reasons. To preserve the illusion, the Je-bus only stops every once and a while, usually at the wrong time, like american public transportation.

[Immanuel Can]

Wow.

That was about the stupidest thing I've read all day....and for a great time before that.

[HexHammer]

Why would he send him once more? He already enlightened us, repeating the same words won't do much.

Try look at our world, we already got hospitals, we have the knowledge, we have the technology, just need to implement it.

[ReliStuPhD]

Being God omniscient, He should have known the time when his sons and daughters were more in need of help

If that follows, it would also follow that First-century Palestine was when humans were most in need of help. It's almost like saying "Why does the subway come at 2:12? You would think it would come when it's most needed." See the mistake there?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Wow.

That was about the stupidest thing I've read all day....and for a great time before that.

How is science stupid? Only magic tricks could explain away the contradictions in most religious bable, I mean Bible. phew

[Blaggard]

You're asking a question that cannot be answered by religious people.

Religion is full of such questions, hence the apologetics movement in any religion. Suffice to say Jesus came to save mankind, from what in that time and why, and even how who alone knows? he just did, as to whether any such man did it who was the son of God, or even existed in history lacks any detail. I do think though in a land which is waiting for a saviour, self fulfilling prophecy is very easy. As to whether it was fulfilled, I am aware I have no right to ask the faithful, who believe it must of, no right at all, and never should, it is true by default regardless of any historical evidence. I have the right to question history, I have the right to question knowledge and reason, I do not apparently have the right to question belief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70IAwHTzrHI

Stop saying ahhhhh for once in your Jesus life.

[David Handeye]

Good question, David. But I don't really know.

I suppose that I'd need total knowledge of the variables involved to make such a decision, and I can't pretend to have that.

But in deference to your question, I'll try my hand anyway. I'm only speculating, so don't hold me to it.

If one were going to send a Saviour to the world, one would have to allow some period of time for the problems from which salvation was required to fully bloom. After all, who would want a Saviour if there is not a problem to be "saved" from? And the problem in question would have to become pretty bad; for until its true nature was seen, the need for a Saviour would be proportionally less obvious. So sin would have to be revealed in its true nature, the injustice of the world would have to become pretty serious, the need for rescue would have to become quite pressing, and the whole situation would have to be quite an unequivocal mess before the Saviour arrived. And there would have to be adequate time and occasion to certify the authenticity of the Saviour through things like direct revelation and prophecy, so that His identity would be very clear.

But equally, you would wish that people could derive maximum benefit from the revelation of the Saviour. Perhaps it would be best if the majority of the world's population had not yet been born. Perhaps it would be best if the majority of people were in the best position to fully understand what was being offered to them; and retrospect, rather than prospect, would give them that. So at some point, the right time would come.

Was circa 30 AD the right balance? It seems so. God knows. I surely don't.

You know what? I think if you were God, you would have made better, perhaps.
I find very clever your thought, to allow some period of time for the problems to be required for salvation, but don't you think we already have the problems in question requiring salvation? If you don't, you are a very optimistic person.
I think the injustices of our world have become much more than pretty serious, maybe we need a Saviour much more than people of 30 AD, and the only problem there is, I think, is that we would kill Him antoher time, so He should make very powerful miracles again. Ciao

[Ginkgo]

Why did God decide to send his own son just 2000 years ago? I don't think that world, that time, that humanity, was more corrupt than ours. Being God omniscient, He should have known the time when his sons and daughters were more in need of help. Nowadays, most of Jesus' teaching have been forgotten. Maybe the best time to send his son would have been during WWII as to stop the holocaust of his people, I think that was the right time, to save his people and to introduce his glory in the world by his son. Contemporary humanity could have been much better than it actually is. Being omniscient God should have known, I think. So why in I century? Is there a particular, religious reason that I ignore?

Interesting question.

People in that particular period of time lived and died according to their political, social, philosophical and ethical beliefs. This applied to Roman and non-Roman citizens. Gladiators also lived and died according to their particular level of skill.

In ancient Rome, if you are going to make a statement of any kind then you better make it a good one because it will probably be the last statement you will ever make.

Jesus was a man for that particular time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's a fashion thing. Messiahs were all over the place in those days. They were the 'rock stars' of the day. Certain people feel the need to follow someone else around, salivating over their every word. The whole jebus story is beyond silly, and only an idiot would believe it.