Siege of Jerusalem 70AD

[SWalt]

Thought I post this here since its relevant today (who land is it?) and for Christianity as a whole.
The beginning of the Jewish Diaspora when Rome completely crushed the Jews and destroyed the Temple. The video covers how long it took and how brutal it was. Its long (45 minutes) but worth it, very well done if you want a deeper understanding of what happened.




https://youtu.be/y741QbT1YEo?si=KWHfO8uMeLgGMfL5

[RAMCLAP]

If people understood this they would understand the Olivet Discourse and maybe a lot of Dispy nonsense would end.

[SWalt]

Just knowing history in general is good. Knowing this about the Jews gives a good idea of why they were in Europe and other countries. Just the fact the Jews are still around today speaks volumes. Other than Hinduism the religions of the ancient world are pretty much gone. And Hindus weren't crushed and chased out of their land unless you count Muslim Pakistan.

[2761377]

Acts 17:11-21

11 The people of Berea were more open-minded than the people of Thessalonica. They were very willing to receive God's message, and every day they carefully examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true.
12 Many of them became believers, and quite a number of them were prominent Greek men and women.
13 But when the Jews in Thessalonica found out that Paul was also spreading God's word in Berea, they went there to upset and confuse the people

[Subotai]

So...where were the Palestinians?

[Barang]

Originally Posted by Subotai

So...where were the Palestinians?

exactly!

[2761377]

Judea become the Roman province Syria Palaestina in AD132.
The people were the gentiles who did not revolt, and early Christians.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by SWalt

Thought I post this here since its relevant today (who land is it?) and for Christianity as a whole.
The beginning of the Jewish Diaspora when Rome completely crushed the Jews and destroyed the Temple. The video covers how long it took and how brutal it was. Its long (45 minutes) but worth it, very well done if you want a deeper understanding of what happened.




https://youtu.be/y741QbT1YEo?si=KWHfO8uMeLgGMfL5

Cool video. Point of consideration. The diaspora after the Roman sacking of Jerusalem was roughly the third major diaspora event. The first was under Assyria, second was Babylon. Then the Persians took over the Babylon &, under Darius, allowed the elites to go back to rebuild their homelands & stay. Plenty remained abroad for several hundred years, with communities all along the Mediterranean & Eastward under the Greek occupation. Among the big ones were Alexandria & several cities in Asia Minor. The Greeks "defiled" the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar. Some say it was an attempt of peace -- sharing gods was a standard practice for the Greeks and the Romans. But it wasn't received well, obviously. The Maccabean revolt and subsequent temple purification is what Hanukkah is about. All that was before the Roman empire. Obviously, the sacking of Jerusalem by Rome was an event in itself. But it was among many diaspora events over about 600 years.

What a lot of people fail to realize is just how heated everything was in the few decades before Jerusalem was sacked. It was that ultra-heated environment where Judeans were angry, impoverished, ready to rebel as soon as they could organize themselves, when one particular young Jewish boy started gathering a crowd. He was a no-name from a backwater town to the north. He was one among scores of people hopelessly trying to organize against the ruling powers, including Rome. Most of his chatter was internal (among the Jews) & religious in nature. But he also started talking smack against the ruling elites and even threw in some stuff about taking back the throne of David. It is exactly that kind of talk that gets Rome's attention -- something neither the Sadducees nor the Pharisees wanted any part of. For the good of the people, they had to shut him up. Then, that young man made a spectacle of himself by parading himself on a donkey through the eastern gate (donkeys were ridden by royalty -- commoners walked). What was he trying to do? Get everybody killed? There are consequences to that kind of nonsense. Attracting the attention of Rome was in nobody's interests. So, yea, let him be crucified and hope that people can calm down before things got ugly.

So, to me, the sacking of Rome was proof that, to a degree, the Pharisees and Sadducees were right. It probably would have happened sooner if they had given Jesus of Nazareth any leeway to grow his base of followers. Rome tolerated a lot of craziness -- it was a very permissive culture. But insurrection was strictly punished.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by Subotai

So...where were the Palestinians?

Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. Or maybe a Jewish Palestinian... Palestine is a more modern word, as is Jew. Ethnically, they are the same -- both are Semitic. Jesus and all his ancestors are dead. He left no progeny (that we know of). But if he did, those descendants would have lived under Ottoman rule and would speak Arabic. Many would have converted to Islam. You'd call them Palestinians today.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by SWalt

Just knowing history in general is good. Knowing this about the Jews gives a good idea of why they were in Europe and other countries. Just the fact the Jews are still around today speaks volumes. Other than Hinduism the religions of the ancient world are pretty much gone. And Hindus weren't crushed and chased out of their land unless you count Muslim Pakistan.

To me, Judaism is strange. I don't get it. But I respect it and I respect that it's a big part of a lot of people's history. One of the features of Judaism that I most respect is just how adaptable it is. Putting the fundamentalists (Orthodox) aside as we all should since they're in the minority, the Rabbinical traditions & interpretations are extremely adaptable and constantly evolving. That's where a lot of religions get lost -- being stuck in the past rather than evolving as everything on earth must do to survive. I think it's pretty cool. American Christians can learn a lot there. At least the old dude sitting in the Vatican is working on that, to some degree. Agree or disagree, he's trying.

[2761377]

The Jews killed Jesus. It's more 19th century revisionism to claim the Romans did it.
Pilate literally washed his hands of the whole affair. The crucifixion was to satisfy the Jewish mob.

[Garand Hunter]

#9 CVShooter MALARKY !

Psalm 1

[RAMCLAP]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

To me, Judaism is strange. I don't get it. But I respect it and I respect that it's a big part of a lot of people's history. One of the features of Judaism that I most respect is just how adaptable it is. Putting the fundamentalists (Orthodox) aside as we all should since they're in the minority, the Rabbinical traditions & interpretations are extremely adaptable and constantly evolving. That's where a lot of religions get lost -- being stuck in the past rather than evolving as everything on earth must do to survive. I think it's pretty cool. American Christians can learn a lot there. At least the old dude sitting in the Vatican is working on that, to some degree. Agree or disagree, he's trying.

Compromising the Gospel is not trying. It's quitting.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by 2761377

The Jews killed Jesus. It's more 19th century revisionism to claim the Romans did it.
Pilate literally washed his hands of the whole affair. The crucifixion was to satisfy the Jewish mob.

they asked for his death and the romans executed him.

in spiritual context, we all (our sin) killed Jesus. He came willingly to sacrifice His life to save (us from hell) those who will accept Him as their Lord and Savior.

[Garand Hunter]

Ditto Barang.

Psalm 1

[2761377]

Originally Posted by Barang

they asked for his death and the romans executed him.

in spiritual context, we all (our sin) killed Jesus. He came willingly to sacrifice His life to save (us from hell) those who will accept Him as their Lord and Savior.

that's ridiculous.

"But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."

[Dezrat]

If you want to place responsibility, I am responsible for Jesus death. It was as an atonement for MY sin that he died. I am both responsible and eternally grateful.

[Garand Hunter]

True Dezrat, as well mine.

Psalm 1

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by RAMCLAP

Compromising the Gospel is not trying. It's quitting.

Thank you for proving my point.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by Barang

they asked for his death and the romans executed him.

in spiritual context, we all (our sin) killed Jesus. He came willingly to sacrifice His life to save (us from hell) those who will accept Him as their Lord and Savior.

Agreed -- they asked for his death. Mostly on the grounds of blasphemy. "Son of God" is a slap in the face to the idea of monotheism. It's also political, not just religious. You can't separate those two back then. But Rome couldn't care less about blasphemy. It might get you stoned under Jewish law but Jewish law didn't handle executions, according to John at least. The Romans executed plenty of common criminals but they didn't crucify them. Crucifixion was a special form of execution reserved for insurrectionists. The sign above his head said it all: "King of the Jews." Rome would put its crucifixion victims on display on the way into town so that everybody would know not to cross Rome.

Even the "thieves" that hung along side Jesus of Nazareth were likely highwaymen who either robbed from Roman soldiers (capturing arms, perhaps?) or disrupted the system like Jesus did with the moneychangers and likely pocketed some of the loot ala Robin Hood style. Sure, common thieves were punished. Maybe even executed. But not crucified. I think they probably stole from Rome somehow for political reasons. But that's just an opinion.

So, no. Jesus received the exact form of death that the Romans dealt him for the crime he was accused of. Was he falsely accused? Not really. He was asking for it. You can't do a royal entrance through the eastern gate & start gathering crowds without attracting the attention of the authorities.
Granted, the Pharisees & Sadducees probably over-hyped that part of his message to prevent him from gaining much of a following before Rome could intervene. Wannabe Messiahs were a dime a dozen back then. Those in charge feared crowds but they feared Roman intervention even more. Messiah talk was like terrorism talk today -- you don't go threatening the order without consequences.

Maybe Pilate & Herod thought he wasn't really a credible threat so crucifixion was too extreme in his case. But peace is a fragile thing. And Jesus was threatening the peace. He even said so -- Matthew records him saying he didn't come to bring peace but a sword. The dude was definitely stirring the pot. And to what end? A purely religious revival? Unlikely. Religion was political. And Messiah wasn't a purely religious title -- it was much more political than religious.

John records the Sadducees saying, "We have no king but Ceasar," which, to me, says they were really concerned about proving their loyalty to Rome. Likely, it just delayed the inevitable. They couldn't squash all the Messiahs fast enough. Things got out of hand and Rome stepped in to squash them.

[Barang]

^^^ yeah! it's blasphemy to them but they're more interested in fame and outward appearances. pharisees and sadducees were jealous of Jesus. they were losing followers while people following Jesus was growing more and more so they had to get rid of Him .

pilate didn't think Jesus was a threat and not a concern of violent uprising. he even said so that he didn't find any fault of what they were accusing him of.

pilate was the same as rinos who don't have fortitude to defend their conviction. the chief priests and the older men were the ones fomenting chaos, turmoil and uprising that is why pilate gave in to their wishes.

Jesus death sentence had nothing to do with anything politics but a jealous religious groups who wanted people's approval, ooos and ahhhs for their own aggrandizement.

[SWalt]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

Cool video. Point of consideration. The diaspora after the Roman sacking of Jerusalem was roughly the third major diaspora event. The first was under Assyria, second was Babylon. Then the Persians took over the Babylon &, under Darius, allowed the elites to go back to rebuild their homelands & stay. Plenty remained abroad for several hundred years, with communities all along the Mediterranean & Eastward under the Greek occupation. Among the big ones were Alexandria & several cities in Asia Minor. The Greeks "defiled" the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar. Some say it was an attempt of peace -- sharing gods was a standard practice for the Greeks and the Romans. But it wasn't received well, obviously. The Maccabean revolt and subsequent temple purification is what Hanukkah is about. All that was before the Roman empire. Obviously, the sacking of Jerusalem by Rome was an event in itself. But it was among many diaspora events over about 600 years.

What a lot of people fail to realize is just how heated everything was in the few decades before Jerusalem was sacked. It was that ultra-heated environment where Judeans were angry, impoverished, ready to rebel as soon as they could organize themselves, when one particular young Jewish boy started gathering a crowd. He was a no-name from a backwater town to the north. He was one among scores of people hopelessly trying to organize against the ruling powers, including Rome. Most of his chatter was internal (among the Jews) & religious in nature. But he also started talking smack against the ruling elites and even threw in some stuff about taking back the throne of David. It is exactly that kind of talk that gets Rome's attention -- something neither the Sadducees nor the Pharisees wanted any part of. For the good of the people, they had to shut him up. Then, that young man made a spectacle of himself by parading himself on a donkey through the eastern gate (donkeys were ridden by royalty -- commoners walked). What was he trying to do? Get everybody killed? There are consequences to that kind of nonsense. Attracting the attention of Rome was in nobody's interests. So, yea, let him be crucified and hope that people can calm down before things got ugly.

So, to me, the sacking of Rome was proof that, to a degree, the Pharisees and Sadducees were right. It probably would have happened sooner if they had given Jesus of Nazareth any leeway to grow his base of followers. Rome tolerated a lot of craziness -- it was a very permissive culture. But insurrection was strictly punished.

All very true but the Jews never came back after the Romans as in having control over Judea. Romans had it until Rome became "Christian" and then after 637 or so its been controlled by Muslims, other than a brief period during the Crusades. All which makes the State of Israel the outlier during the whole time period since Herods temples was destroyed. 1948 until now isn't much time considering Israel stopped existing in 70 AD and finally in 135 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt

In his account of the revolt, Roman historian Cassius Dio (c. 155?235) wrote that:[13]

"50 of their most important outposts and 985 of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. 580,000 men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out, Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate."

? Cassius Dio, History of Rome, 69.14.1-2
Every village in the region of Judea whose remains have been excavated so far had been destroyed in the revolt.[18] The majority of Roman-period settlements in Judea that have been excavated exhibit destruction or abandonment layers, and there is a settlement gap above these layers. It appears that Jewish settlement in Judea had been almost completely eradicated by the end of the revolt

...

Jerome provides a similar account:

"in Hadrian's reign, when Jerusalem was completely destroyed and the Jewish nation was massacred in large groups at a time, with the result that they were even expelled from the borders of Judaea."

? Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (translated by Gleason L. Archer), III, ix, 24

...

Jews were expelled from the area of Jerusalem.[65] Mor writes that Jews were expelled from the districts of Gophna, Herodion, and Aqraba.[66]

Artistic, epigraphic and numismatic findings from post-revolt Judea, in Klein's assessment, indicates that the Roman authorities replaced the departing and slain Jews with a mixed population that was made up of a mixture of Roman veterans and immigrants from the western parts of the empire who settled in Aelia Capitolina, its surroundings, administrative centers, and along the main roads, as well as immigrants from the coastal plain and neighboring provinces from Syria, Phoenicia, and Arabia who settled in the Judean countryside.[67][68][69]

In the vicinity of Jerusalem, villages were depopulated, and arable land owned by Jews was confiscated. The lack of an alternative population to fill the empty villages led Roman and later Byzantine authorities to seek a different approach to benefit the nobles and finally the church by constructing estate farms and monasteries on the empty village lands.[70] The Roman legionary tomb at Manahat, the ruins of Roman villas at Ein Yael, Khirbet er-Ras, Rephaim Valley and Ramat Rachel, and the Tenth Legion's kilns discovered near Giv'at Ram are all indications that the rural area surrounding Aelia Capitolina underwent a romanization process, with Roman citizens and Roman veterans settling in the area during the Late Roman period

...

Sources indicate that Jewish captives were sold into slavery and sent to various parts of the empire.[12] A chronicle written in the 7th century CE, which was based on lost ancient sources, states that "Jewish captives were sold for the price of one ration of food for a horse."[72] This number indicates that the slave market was flooded with new slaves. According to Harris, the overall number of enslaved captives taken in the revolt must have been much higher than 100,000.[73] Captives who were not sold as slaves were deported to Gaza, Egypt and elsewhere, greatly adding to the Jewish diaspora.[72]

Punitive measures against Jews

After the suppression of the revolt, Hadrian promulgated a series of religious edicts aimed at uprooting the Jewish nationalism in Judea.[6][18] He prohibited Torah law and the Hebrew calendar and executed Judaic scholars. The sacred scrolls of Judaism were ceremonially burned at the large Temple complex for Jupiter which he built on the Temple Mount. At this Temple, he installed two statues, one of Jupiter, another of himself. These proclamations remained in effect until Hadrian?s death in 138, which marked a significant relief to the surviving Jewish communities.[18]

A further, more lasting punishment was also implemented by the Romans.[18] In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea or Ancient Israel, the name Judaea was dropped from the provincial name, and Provincia Iudaea was renamed Syria Palaestina.[74][75][76] Despite such name changes taking place elsewhere, rebellions have never resulted in a nation's name being expunged.[18] Similarly, under the argument to ensure the prosperity of the newly founded Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina, Jews were forbidden to enter, except on the day of Tisha B'Av.[77] By destroying the association of Jews with Judea and forbidding the practice of the Jewish faith, Hadrian aimed to root out a nation that had inflicted heavy casualties on the Roman Empire.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. Or maybe a Jewish Palestinian... Palestine is a more modern word, as is Jew.

If you?re talking about His race and suggesting “Arab” roots, that’s a complete falsehood and that lie was dug up years ago by a few who evidently were out exploring a now closed landfill.

If you?re talking about geographics and the general name of a specific region only, that?s debatable. Aristotle would have us believe that term ?Palestine? morphed from a name indicating an area including the land of Israel. The opposing and historical viewpoint however is that Arabs never entered the land of Israel until about 700 years AFTER the cruxifixction.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by TrailerparkTrash

If you?re talking about His race and suggesting ?Arab? roots, that?s a complete falsehood and that lie was dug up years ago by a few who evidently were out exploring a now closed landfill.

If you?re talking about geographics and the general name of a specific region only, that?s debatable. Aristotle would have us believe that term ?Palestine? morphed from a name indicating an area including the land of Israel. The opposing and historical viewpoint however is that Arabs never entered the land of Israel until about 700 years AFTER the cruxifixction.

Nope. Lots of people confuse Arabs and the Middle East with Levantine people and the Near East. Very different, though many share a common language. Ethnically, Palestinians are closer to Syrians, Armenians, Lebanese, etc. They're Mediterranean & Near East, not Arab & Middle East.

My understanding was that, as best as we can figure, Palestine is a name given by some outlander power (Greece? Rome? I forget) as a kind of slap in the face to the Judeans. The Judeans rarely got along all that well with foreign rulers. But the Levantine people, being traditionally merchants, traders & more pragmatic in their approach to foreign powers, got a nod by the authorities. So they took the name of Philistine and somehow that became Palestine. Linguistically, it certainly fits since Levantine languages (Aramaic being one of them) have implied vowels, not written. Calling Judeans Philistines or even implying that they were related would have been a bit of a slap in the face even though it was mostly true. Culturally, they're different. But the shoe fits, going back to the Hapiru in Egypt, the intermarriage with genocide during the conquest and the constant intermingling with Canaanites even during the Davidic monarchy. Different cultures. Same genes.