Why did Jesus come when He came?

[spauline]

Why did Jesus come when He came?

I do not think it is because the Roman Empire had good transportation. For eventually Rome fell, and with it Technology.

Rather, I say it was because the People of Old had to journey to spiritual MATURITY. And what is spiritual maturity except that they complete the stages of the Catholic saint, the purgative, the illuminative, and the unitive. And the last part of the unitive way is martyrdom, and in the Catholic religion, the last historical book of the Bible is the Maccabees, the story of the great Jewish martyrdom under the Greek King Antiochus.

Doesn’t this make sense, then, that Jesus came neither at the end of the Egyptian enslavement, which was a purgation, nor after the exile, which punished the dark night of the soul for the prophet’s illuminative way, but only after the Jews walked in relative spiritual love of God and then opened their arms to the ultimate sacrifice of that unitive way, the great persecution of OT Antichrist, who horribly tortured and killed the Jews if they did not deny their God and His Law.

Isn’t it all the more suitable that we know that Jesus will not come again until the Church goes through the same martyrdom, under NT Antichrist!

 

[NotWorthy]

I think you are partially right, regarding the Jews. One needs to simply read the Deuterocanonicals to see that the Jews were understanding God’s relationship with them more clearly.

But you can’t discount the fact that, for once, the stars were aligned that provided the Church to spread more easily throughout the World.

Think about it: The Greeks gave us a universal language that allowed the ideas of Christianity to be discussed without the barriers of languages. The Romans gave us two things: A road system to allow Missionaries to get from here to there more easily and a peace throughout the Civilized world that was unknown before that time which allowed those Evangelists to get there more safely.

 

[nordskoven]

The times were propitious for blowback into the Roman Empire, no question. But Christ was expected because there was a man not of the line of David who presumed to call himself “king.” King Herod was an Idumean, so while there were kingless times, none had dared call themselves king as Herod did. The promise to King David was that the scepter would not depart from his household until the time of Messiah. So prophetic clock-wise, Jesus came when He did because Herod was not of the House of David.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The times were propitious for blowback into the Roman Empire, no question. But Christ was expected because there was a man not of the line of David who presumed to call himself “king.” King Herod was an Idumean, so while there were kingless times, none had dared call themselves king as Herod did. The promise to King David was that the scepter would not depart from his household until the time of Messiah. So prophetic clock-wise, Jesus came when He did because Herod was not of the House of David.

There were other non-Davidic Jewish kings before Herod: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean

 

[DianaCC]

His career had to coincide with the brief period in history during which crucifixion was the penalty for sedition. Otherwise we would be making the sign of the electric chair.

 

[spauline]

His career had to coincide with the brief period in history during which crucifixion was the penalty for sedition. Otherwise we would be making the sign of the electric chair.

I do believe the crucifixion is mystical and necessary to convey the theological meaning of Our Redemption, yes. So I would add that. But I would say God predestined that to coincide with the spiritual maturity.

Perhaps I should say, there are other reasons that His timing is appropriate. But I would say that the spiritual maturity is the most essential, since, for me at least, the spiritual journey of purgative, illuminative, and unitive, is itself a mystery that must be journeyed by ANY People of God, and that, therefore, must be the key that will open the Jews eyes at the end of the New Covenant history: that if Christ fulfilled in Himself the ways of the saint, and hence of the Jewish People, but it could NOT open the eyes of the Jews to Him, so what is lacking in His flesh will be filled up by the Church, so that in seeing the history of the Jews, and therefore the saint, worked out in CHURCH history, the Jews will finally convert when the signs are at their end, in this case, at the Church’s martyrdom, which will mirror Macabees, the final history of Judaism until the great heartache of a Messiah that didn’t show up hit them, or so they thought.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Because of the spread of the Roman Empire.

 

[fhansen]

Why did Jesus come when He came?

I do not think it is because the Roman Empire had good transportation. For eventually Rome fell, and with it Technology.

Rather, I say it was because the People of Old had to journey to spiritual MATURITY. And what is spiritual maturity except that they complete the stages of the Catholic saint, the purgative, the illuminative, and the unitive. And the last part of the unitive way is martyrdom, and in the Catholic religion, the last historical book of the Bible is the Maccabees, the story of the great Jewish martyrdom under the Greek King Antiochus.

Doesn’t this make sense, then, that Jesus came neither at the end of the Egyptian enslavement, which was a purgation, nor after the exile, which punished the dark night of the soul for the prophet’s illuminative way, but only after the Jews walked in relative spiritual love of God and then opened their arms to the ultimate sacrifice of that unitive way, the great persecution of OT Antichrist, who horribly tortured and killed the Jews if they did not deny their God and His Law.

Isn’t it all the more suitable that we know that Jesus will not come again until the Church goes through the same martyrdom, under NT Antichrist!

Perhaps man had struggled long enough with trying-and failing- to obey the law under the Old Covenant. Also, I think it’s interesting that mankind, via Greek philosophy, had by then independently arrived at the existence of a creator god by the use of reason alone. Christianity could then fill in the missing pieces via revelation.

 

[Nita]

St. Thomas Aquinas talks about the timing of Our Lord’s Incarnation. For any who like to read Aquinas, here are a couple of links to the Summa Articles where he addresses the following questions:

Article 5. Was it fitting for God to become incarnate from the beginning of the world?
**Article 6. ** Should His Incarnation have been deferred to the end of the world?
newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article5

Article 8. Whether Christ was born at a fitting time?
newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm#article2

 

[spauline]

St. Thomas Aquinas talks about the timing of Our Lord’s Incarnation. For any who like to read Aquinas, here are a couple of links to the Summa Articles where he addresses the following questions:

Article 5. Was it fitting for God to become incarnate from the beginning of the world?
**Article 6. ** Should His Incarnation have been deferred to the end of the world?
newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article5

Article 8. Whether Christ was born at a fitting time?
newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm#article2

My stuff and book will build and go far deeper than Thomas Aquinas. Doctrine develops, wisdom develops. Thomas is just beginning the tip of an iceberg. You can argue the whole template of a salvation history of a world that happens to fall, let alone when the Messiah should come. My coming book is going to address it. It is cutting edge, no one has anything like it that I am aware of.