Thoughts about the Gospels

[Yom]

I dislike Bush. Really really much, and though I have started threads that criticised him, and though I have engaged in countless discussions with his suporters here, it all seems like nothing compared to your battle against Christianity. If hate is too strong a word, dislike is too weak.

Maybe he hates Christianity, but loves Christians! He is only trying to save you.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't know what's more frustrating: the ignorance of the original poster, or the ignorance of some of the people defending Christianity.

You don't understand the concept of the Trinity. Jesus cannot be equal to his father because his father created him. God is three separate aspects of the supreme being. The son is separate from the father, who is the head of the trinity. Therefore, the son, who is said to sit at "the right hand of the Father" (obviously implying both separateness and the supremacy of the father) prays to the head, who is the father.

Christianity did away with supremacy within the Trinity in 400 AD. Are you bringing it back?

 

[Yom]

Christianity did away with supremacy within the Trinity in 400 AD. Are you bringing it back?

I was curious about that. He is implying that the three parts of the trinity are unequal, which certainly makes much more sense to me, but doesn't seem to be the general consensus.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I was curious about that. He is implying that the three parts of the trinity are unequal, which certainly makes much more sense to me, but doesn't seem to be the general consensus.

I think that fundamenatlists make no attempt to build a coherent theology. They rely soley on the bible text as the source of knowledge and cross link the text to support for otherwise untenable positions. In doing so they ignore all past christian thinking and treat it as wrong. Fundamentalisnm is so recent a creation that it needs to circle its wagons around a very inflexible doctrine and control what its followers believe very tightly in order to survive the pressure from outside forces that see it as a wacko religion.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I was curious about that. He is implying that the three parts of the trinity are unequal, which certainly makes much more sense to me, but doesn't seem to be the general consensus.

They are equal, but they have different functions. For the son to ask the father of his will is one of them.

 

[Yom]

They are equal, but they have different functions. For the son to ask the father of his will is one of them.

Take it to the Trinity thread.

 

[Dida]

Well, seens like there are disagreement among even the fundies about what the trinity is like.
I asked a fundie friend of mine, he said Jesus is less than the father, and he got his power from the father. Meaning father is the only god, and supreme.
My girlfriend, not a fundie, but a Christian nonetheless, said the son is equal to the father, and are just diff. aspects of the same god. (So when the son prays, he's talking to himself? or another part of himself???)

and about whether I hate christianity?
No i don't. Throughout my life, I am not known to hate any particular person or object. I only love, or don't love, never hated anyone. This concept of universal love is probably hard to grasp for fundies, who's mind is so polluted by the violent teaching of extremist religion. So come, stop hating gays, jews, or Atheists, or other people who's only crime was being different from you. Learn to love, and be different from your violent god, who would wipe out the whole population because they had too much sex.

 

[Dida]

Oh, and stop saying that I hate chrisianity? what have I done? some posts on an internet forum? I haven't blow up any churches or anything. posting online, that quality as hatred huh? hahaha..
It seems like the only group of people who would use violent crime against people with different opinion are christians (maybe muslims too). they have done so throughout history. burning of the knights templars comes to mind. or assination of aborption doctors.
You see, fundamentalists are taught to hate, they are thaught to hate muslims, atheists, jews, buddhist, pro-choice folks, the clintons, or even the catholics. We atheists do not hate, we love fellow atheists, as well as christians, even the most ridiculous nutcases.

 

[classical_hero]

- The first three gospels were very, very similiar to one another, it almost looked like the authors copied off each other, or someone edited their works to make them look uniform. They were describing the life of the same person - Jesus, there is bound to be some overlap, however, the events picked by the authors to be written down were almost the same, which is odd. Jesus lived to his 30's, and yet four books about his life only recorded a handful of identical events? There is nothing else about the man's life that is worth recording? Even the words used by the authors to describe the events were identical, which is highly usual if the works were actually from independent sources.

- The Gospels gave 2 different family trees of Jesus. Mathew traced him back to Abraham, while Luke traced him back to Adams. The explanation is that Luke was targeted at general audience, and has to trace Jesus back to the ancestor of all man, to show his universal appeal. So they can just make up stuff to suit their propaganda needs?

There is difference in the two that should be pointed out. There is one name that must be pointed out in the account of Mathew's Genealogy, Jechoniah or Jehoaichin, or Coniah. All refer to the same man. This name is crucial in pointing out the two differences in the Genealogies.

Jeremiah 22:24-26 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; 25 And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26 And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. 27 But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. 28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. 30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

As you can see, from the account of Matthew that Jesus is not a descendant of Joseph because a seed of Jehoiachin would never be on the throne of David. Whereas the account of Luke shows that Jesus is still from the line of David, but is the King that will rule. He is the seed of a woman and from the linage of David. This is another proof of the virgin birth.

- Countless other inconsistencies, such as giving 2 accounts of how Juda died, one said he hang himself, another, he fell on his belly and died.

As proven by others, this is not a contradiction.

- Juda really has no motive to betray Jesus. Betraying a teacher who has demonstrated to have great power, even capable of raising the dead for the reward of only 30 gold pieces, give me a break man. This is hardly make sense. Was Juda ******** or what? To make their lies sound more reasonable, Christians said Devil was working in Juda. Well, the whole point of Jesus was to be killed so that he can save mankind. If I were the Devil, I would protect Jesus, so that he will never got killed, thus preventing him from washing away the sin of man. The Devil shall not make Juda betray Jesus, that can only help God's cosmo plan. Only reasonable explanation??? God was working in Juda!?!

There is one explaination that could well be true. It could have been out of greed. Notice that when Mary anniots Jesus' feet, who was the one who criticised Mary, Judas Iscariot. He said that the ointment could have been sould for some money.

John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

- Jesus claimed that he has been sent to die for the sin of others, and from the Gospels it appeared that he knew before hand about his inevitable death in Jerusalem. But he appeared to be really tense, he asked his pupils to buy knife; he prayed right before he got arrested, and was trembling and sweating. Well, that doesn't look very godly to me, and it doesn't look like a behavior of a man who knows and controls everything.

This is a pointless point. The reason Jesus said that was because before hand when he sent them out, they were to carry nothing and accept any kindness from fellow Jews. Now they could have things they normally would have.

- About Jesus praying, who the hell does he pray to? I thought he is god. He is at least equal with his so call 'father'. It made no sense for him to pray.

It does make sense to pray. One was, to show a pattern that we should be doing every day. We should go to the Father and ask him for direction each and every day.

- Both Mathews and Lukes were said to be based on Mark, who has been said to be a pupil of St. Peter and has never personally been studying under Jesus.

Your point being?

- Jesus gave strikingly different opinion in Mathews and Luke, such as in Methew, he told his pupils not to go into the town of Gentiles or Samaritans, but only to the house of Israel. In Luke, he told his pupils specifically to go to everyone including Gentiles and Samaritans, Jesus even talked to a Samaritan woman and cured her himself. Clearly, Mathew was targeting Jewish audience, while Luke has a wider general audience. Meaning, the authors of the Gospels made up stuff to suit their own needs. Jesus could not possible hold two opposing views.

You must notice when he said these statements. One was early in his ministry, and the other was towards the end.

- One of the funniest things is when Jesus went up a tree to find fruits, and yet the tree bears no fruit. So he cursed the tree and caused it to wither. Was it the crime of the tree for not having fruits????? He could have just use his magic and make fruits for himself, or make the tree instantly grow fruits. Does he care about growing things?

As pointed out before, Jesus was teaching a lesson.

- Mark, the earliest Gospel never talked about virgin birth, and yet, in Mathew and Luke both talked about Angels and virgin birth and all that magical stuff. Sounds like fabrication huh? you bet. Mathew even said that the fact that Mary was a virgin fulfilled an OT prophecy.. Sounds like he created stuff out of the blue just to fix the prophecies.

That is just a stupid thing to say. You must remember that these are eyewitness accounts. They will never be ecaxtly the same. One witness will always focus on one thing and the other another thing. It is not unreasonable for eyewitnesses to add to the account of others because they could have remembered more than the first account.

- Luke talked a great deal about Jesus's youth. and yet he has never met Jesus. Sounds like outright lies? You bet.

Again you are just saying something as fact without backing it up. Jesus was not just someone that only the Jews would have heard about Jesus.

- Jesus was not well-received in his hometown, even his family members, his mother, brothers didn't believe him and thinks he is crazy. Why? Because people who is closest to him knows him best, and they obviously observed nothing special about Jesus, and were wondering why everyone think he is so great.

That is not always true. Family members can be very wrong about each other. Have you not heard of a show called "The Jerry Springer Show"? Talk about dysfuncional families. Families can be wrong about other family members. The people closest to you can be those who know you least because they have preconceived Ideas about who you are and that can cloud judgement.

- Now, the biggest flop of all time? Jesus himself suggested his 2nd coming will not be long after his own death: (Mathew 16:28) "Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Mark 13:30) "This generation will certainly not have passed away before all these things have happened." Well, 2 thousand years has passed, all those Jesus spoke to are long dead. Where is the son of god?

This has been sorted out already, so I do not need to add anything

- Paul wrote half of the new testament himself, and inspired large portion of the rest. Luke for example, was an associate of Paul. We have to ask whether this version of Xian was really the teaching of Jesus or the teaching of Paul, a man who has never met Jesus.

This is absolute rubbish. Paul easily would have contact with Jesus because he was a Pharisee and would have been part that mob an no doubt would have had some form of contact with Jesus. He would have heard Jesus speak against the Pharisees many times. It was not until on the Road to Damascus that he truly understood what Jesus was about.

- In many point, Jesus's position as son of David was stressed, making him the heir of the Isareali throne. I think he was the leader of a group of rebels against Roman occupation, and worked for an indepdent Isareal. Claiming he is decendent of an ancient hebrew king, gives him an edge. That's the only reasonable explanation why the Romans would want to kill him.

- The bible suggested that the Roman governor didn't want to kill Jesus, it was the priests who forced it upon him. Well, back in the days of the Romans, I don't see how a group of priests can force a decision upon a governor. This was done, obviously, after christianity saw the need to convert the romans and started shifting blame to the Jews.

The only reason the Romans killed Jesus was for political reasons. They did not want a rebellion to occur. They had enough problems but since the Jews caused so many problems, in 70AD, the Romans had to destory Jerusalem, because of the continual unrest in Jerusalem. It is easy for a mob to get going, if you give them the right reasons for rioting. The Bible says that everyone is guilty for the death of Jesus. The Romans are guilty for doing the deed. The Jews are guilty for turning their back on God.

- Jesus looked completely human in the bible. Well, if you really can make youself believe this, he actually healed desease and raised some dead. That is probably made up anyways. His behavior does not fit in which a god.

He is 100% man and 100% God. Enough said about that.

- Talking about healing, I notice large number of people during the days of Jesus were possessed by demom. About half of all illlness that he cured were related to demom possession. Looked like demoms were a lot more active in the days of Jesus than the modern era. Ancient people had the tendency to associate unknown desease to demoms. What is interesting is Jesus actually drives demom out of these people by yelling things like 'come out of her' or 'leave her'. Sounds like Benny Hinn? You bet.

No, it does not sound like Benny Hinn. Jesus actually cured people, he made the free from the illnes that they had. Benny Hinn cannot do that.

All in All. This was a complete waste of time by you. You seem to have nothing esle but to bad mouth Christianity.

 

[Dida]

anytime someone says something intelligent about Xianity, they call it 'bad mouthing'. And those lame defenses I have heard 100 times.
Do not make the wrong conclusion that I know less about your religion than you. Your defenses do not make sense. Pastors give them out to questioning church goers all the time. I have a friend who worked as a pastor for a fundi church in NYC, you know.

 

[MeteorPunch]

and about whether I hate christianity?
No i don't. Throughout my life, I am not known to hate any particular person or object. I only love, or don't love, never hated anyone. This concept of universal love is probably hard to grasp for fundies, who's mind is so polluted by the violent teaching of extremist religion. So come, stop hating gays, jews, or Atheists, or other people who's only crime was being different from you. Learn to love, and be different from your violent god, who would wipe out the whole population because they had too much sex.

Christians don't hate anyone. You must be getting them confused with right-wing conservatists.

 

[Dida]

Christians don't hate anyone. You must be getting them confused with right-wing conservatists.

Come one brother, right wing conservatives are, without exception, very pious christians.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is difference in the two that should be pointed out. There is one name that must be pointed out in the account of Mathew's Genealogy, Jechoniah or Jehoaichin, or Coniah. All refer to the same man. This name is crucial in pointing out the two differences in the Genealogies. As you can see, from the account of Matthew that Jesus is not a descendant of Joseph because a seed of Jehoiachin would never be on the throne of David. Whereas the account of Luke shows that Jesus is still from the line of David, but is the King that will rule. He is the seed of a woman and from the linage of David. This is another proof of the virgin birth.

And how exactly does a family tree support a supposition that mary did not have sex? BTW, there is no proof that Mary was a virgin. There is only belief. An intact hymen prior to birth is as close as you are going to get to proof of virginity and I don't believe that even the catholics have that as a relic.

This is absolute rubbish. Paul easily would have contact with Jesus because he was a Pharisee and would have been part that mob an no doubt would have had some form of contact with Jesus. He would have heard Jesus speak against the Pharisees many times. It was not until on the Road to Damascus that he truly understood what Jesus was about.

Be careful here. The Bible doesn't say paul and jesus talked or had contact. If you allow yourself the freedom to interject personal opinion or logical assumptions into interpretation of the bible, you should allow others to do the same.

The only reason the Romans killed Jesus was for political reasons. They did not want a rebellion to occur. They had enough problems but since the Jews caused so many problems, in 70AD, the Romans had to destory Jerusalem, because of the continual unrest in Jerusalem. It is easy for a mob to get going, if you give them the right reasons for rioting. The Bible says that everyone is guilty for the death of Jesus. The Romans are guilty for doing the deed. The Jews are guilty for turning their back on God.

The romans destroyed Jersusalem in 70 AD because the city had been taken over by rebels. They had to recapture it in a bloody siege. The destruction of the temple was payback.

Jesus had to die, god willed it. No one was responsible except god. People just acted according to god's plan. They had no choice. God new what had to happen to redeem mankind and he made it happen. Stop blaming the wrong people.

 

[cegman]

Dida: You are as bad as the right wing conservatives. Not all are christian. Many of them could be using God like the Cardinals and Popes of the past have, for their own gain. You are generalizing on one person's point. Remember there are a lot of different christian churches that believe different things. You cannot lump all Catholics with all Lutherans and expect all their beliefs to be the same.

 

[Dida]

I realize there are difference in the belief. I have to say that my dislike only extends to the conversative wing of the christian religion.

 

[storealex]

I realize there are difference in the belief. I have to say that my dislike only extends to the conversative wing of the christian religion.

I wish you would have said that before. Everybody dislike conservatives, be it politics or religion or what ever.

 

[classical_hero]

And how exactly does a family tree support a supposition that mary did not have sex? BTW, there is no proof that Mary was a virgin. There is only belief. An intact hymen prior to birth is as close as you are going to get to proof of virginity and I don't believe that even the catholics have that as a relic.

You will nowhere find me saying the Mary did not have sex in here entire life. She was a virgin when she had Jesus. Why do you think that Joseph was think to get rid of her. They never had sex at that point.[/quote]

Be careful here. The Bible doesn't say paul and jesus talked or had contact. If you allow yourself the freedom to interject personal opinion or logical assumptions into interpretation of the bible, you should allow others to do the same.

Lets have a look at Acts chapter Nine.

Acts 9:1-8 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

Notice the bit I bolded and enlarged. Now tell me that Paul and Jesus never met. Obviously you need to research more before you make some statements. The Bible clearly stated that Paul and Jesus met. This is the only offical time that it is recorded in God's word. What I said is most probably true, since Paul was a man of great authority and no doubt whould have been part of the group of Pharisees that had many verbal stouches with Jesus.

The romans destroyed Jersusalem in 70 AD because the city had been taken over by rebels. They had to recapture it in a bloody siege. The destruction of the temple was payback.

There had been many uprising in that region and the Romans had enough of the Jewish Rebellion. The Roman knew that if the Jews had a temple, they would have a rallying point. Get rid of this that and you will destroy the Jewish people and make them less of a threat.

Jesus had to die, god willed it. No one was responsible except god. People just acted according to god's plan. They had no choice. God new what had to happen to redeem mankind and he made it happen. Stop blaming the wrong people.

While Jesus' deah was part of a plan, everyone still needs to face up to the choices that they made at the time. Everyone who condemned Jesus is guilty for what they did. They are without excuse for their actions. They had a choice but the choose to condemn Jesus to die the death of a common Criminal.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You will nowhere find me saying the Mary did not have sex in here entire life. She was a virgin when she had Jesus. Why do you think that Joseph was think to get rid of her. They never had sex at that point.

There is not agreement within christiantiy over mary's virginal state. Some christians limit her viginitiy, like you, to prior to Jesus' birth, others have her remain in or return to a virginal state all the rest of her life. We could discuss the virgin birth bit, but it boils down to belief and liitle else. Such a thing is not possible without breaking the laws of the universe as we know them.

Lets have a look at Acts chapter Nine. Notice the bit I bolded and enlarged. Now tell me that Paul and Jesus never met. Obviously you need to research more before you make some statements. The Bible clearly stated that Paul and Jesus met. This is the only offical time that it is recorded in God's word. What I said is most probably true, since Paul was a man of great authority and no doubt whould have been part of the group of Pharisees that had many verbal stouches with Jesus.

We are missing on the nature of "meeting". I was talking about a physical face to face where Saul/paul met with jesus during his time as a teacher. Conversion experiences where one is confronted by the presence of god independent of a physical being are a whole othe matter entirely. Your post implied that Paul was in the crowds when jesus preached. That is the part I objected to as your personal interpretation:

This is absolute rubbish. Paul easily would have contact with Jesus because he was a Pharisee and would have been part that mob an no doubt would have had some form of contact with Jesus. He would have heard Jesus speak against the Pharisees many times. It was not until on the Road to Damascus that he truly understood what Jesus was about.

And as you have stated, the only biblical record of their "meeting" was on the road to Damascus when Paul was converted. Anything else is speculation. I will accept your biblical speculation as fact, if you will accept mine.

There had been many uprising in that region and the Romans had enough of the Jewish Rebellion. The Roman knew that if the Jews had a temple, they would have a rallying point. Get rid of this that and you will destroy the Jewish people and make them less of a threat.

the point was not to destroy the temple, but to put down a rebellion. The destruction of the temple was just one small event in the siege and ensuing war. Doyou have any evidence taht thetemple was their primary target. I'll add a lengthier description of the revolt in another post.

While Jesus' deah was part of a plan, everyone still needs to face up to the choices that they made at the time. Everyone who condemned Jesus is guilty for what they did. They are without excuse for their actions. They had a choice but the choose to condemn Jesus to die the death of a common Criminal.

Wait a minute. If god's plan calls for jesus to be condemed as a common criminal, how can anyone but god be responsible? God has to be directing the action if he's making the events unfold to his liking. If the plan called for jeuss to be betrayed by one of his followers, then a suitable follower had to included in the group. If it was "written from the beginning" then god orchestrated it. I don't see how you can claim an event was pre-ordained then claim all the participants had free choice in the matter of how they particpated.

It's kind of like saying that the outcome of a basketball game is predetermined: the Bulls will win. And then say that the players all have complete control over their play. They don't; no matter how each player performs or how well they shoot the ball, the game's outcome is already determined. The bulls are going to win. No matter how well the other team shoots, the Bull's players will shoot better. The Bulls can foul all they want and they still will win. Individual action makes no difference in the outcome or in determining what the outcome will be.

 

[Jack the Ripper]

Ignorant atheism....

Even if you're an athiest and you beleive all of Jesus' miracles were crap, you have to admit he was a pretty good philosopher...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Apocalypse: The Great Jewish Revolt against Rome, 66-73 CE
Magazine article by Neil Faulker; History Today, Vol. 52, October 2002

The popular movement of 66 CE amounted to a fusion of Apocalypse and Jubilee, the radical minority's vision of a revolutionary war to destroy corruption having become inextricably linked with the peasant majority's traditional aspiration for land redistribution and the removal of burdens. This was the potent mixture which exploded in an urban insurrection in Jerusalem in May 66. The catalyst was the Roman procurator's demand for 100,000 denarii from the Temple treasury, probably to make up a shortfall in revenues caused by a tax strike. To enforce this demand, troops were sent into Jerusalem to disperse demonstrators, resulting in a massacre. The whole city then erupted in a fierce street battle and drove the Romans out. Jewish conservatives spent the summer attempting to restore order, first by persuasion and political maneuver, subsequently in an armed counter-revolution spearheaded by King Herod Agrippa's troops. With their failure, the stage was set for a full-scale invasion by the Roman army from Syria.

The revolt might have got no further. Cestius Gallus marched his army of 30,000 men all the way from Antioch to the borders of Judaea, and then inland to Jerusalem, leaving the land behind him laid waste by fire and the sword. But the Jews had mainly kept away, retreating into the hills, allowing the enemy to pass by, and watching in anger as their farms were burned. Now they came back in their thousands, closing in on the Roman communications between Jerusalem and the coast, lightly equipped irregulars armed with slings and javelins, preparing to fight not in the Roman way, in the head-on collision of pitched battle, but in the Eastern way, in the manner of skirmishers and guerrillas. Gallus found that the peasants of Judaea had risen en masse to his rear, and he had no choice but to call off his attack on Jerusalem and beat a retreat to the coast. Thus was the scene set for the battle of Beth-Horon.

From November 4th to 8th, 66, as the Roman column trudged back through the hills north-west of Jerusalem, it was engulfed in a hail of shot from the slopes above. Every time the Romans counter-attacked, the Jewish light infantry scurried away to safety, easily out-distancing their enemies on such broken ground. And every time, as the Romans fell back on the column, the Jews returned to resume the barrage of javelins and slingshot. Gallus eventually got his army away in the night, but he left behind 6,000 dead and all of his artillery and baggage. It was the greatest Jewish victory for 200 years, and it sounded through the villages of Palestine like a clarion call to holy war. This, surely, was God's work, the beginning of the long-awaited End of Days, the inaugural event of the Rule of the Saints.

Beth-Horon transformed an urban insurrection into a national revolution. A provisional government of high-priestly aristocrats was set up in Jerusalem; military governors were appointed to different parts of the country; coins were issued with the inscriptions `Shekel of Israel', `Holy Jerusalem' and `Year One' (of the liberation, that is); and there were attempts to raise an army to defend the territory of the new Jewish proto-state. But the real strength of the revolutionary movement lay elsewhere, in the plethora of independent armed militias which now sprang up across the country. Some were established groups of bandits or terrorists, which now swelled into large guerrilla units. Others were newly formed, perhaps on the initiative of local radicals, a charismatic leader, or a would-be messiah. They varied greatly in size and readiness for war, their membership tended to fluctuate over time, and they formed unstable and shifting alliances with other groups. The government was keen either to incorporate the militias into the regular army or, where they proved unruly, to suppress them. The militias--despite the offer of government pay--generally remained aloof, reluctant to surrender their independence, and the relationship between the two parties quickly soured. The roots of this conflict were deep, and it would culminate in the revolutionary overthrow of the aristocratic regime and its replacement by a government of militia leaders in the winter of 67-68.

This revolution within a revolution has been much misunderstood, thanks largely to the almost complete absence of sociological insight in Josephus' account. The aristocratic regime had been looking in two directions. It wanted to win a strong bargaining position on the battlefield and then to negotiate peace with the Romans, perhaps involving the re-establishment of a Jewish-ruled puppet kingdom of the kind that had existed before 6 CE and briefly again in 41-44 (when the Emperor Claudius had experimented with Herodian restoration). In this way, order and the security of property could be quickly restored. For the government was also embroiled in a conflict with the militias, many of whose members were actively working for the Apocalypse and the Jubilee. Yet it was precisely the radical enthusiasm of the militias --men who believed that they were engaged in a holy war to build heaven on earth--that gave the revolution its strength. The peasant-soldiers were fighting not for kings and high priests, but for God, the overthrow of the corrupt, and for the right to land. To crush these hopes would be to kill the spirit of revolt. At root, the struggle between aristocratic dunatoi and popular stasiastai--which Josephus describes--was a struggle between those who would halt the revolution to defend property and those who favoured a `Jacobin' policy of `public safety', one prepared to sacrifice the interests of the rich to advance the common cause.

The fate of the aristocratic government was sealed by its defeats in 67, above all in Galilee, when Vespasian's massive army of invasion, perhaps 60,000 strong, captured a string of Jewish strongholds, including the lynchpin fortress of Jotapata, which had held out for a month under the leadership of Josephus himself. Many of the defeated were killed or enslaved, and many more slunk away; but some thousands headed for Jerusalem, determined both to settle accounts with treacherous leaders and to continue the fight in defense of the holy city. The Roman siege of Jerusalem was delayed for another two years after the radical seizure of power, however, since Rome was at war with itself over the Imperial succession in 68-69. The victor was Vespasian, so when the Romans finally came for Jerusalem, they were led by his son Titus, to whom fell the task of defeating 25,000 veteran fighters defending some of the strongest fortifications in the world.

Here’s the siege of Jerusalem part.

The attackers built ramps, employed battering rams to knock down walls, and mounted massed armoured assaults through the breaches. The defenders hurled missiles from the battlements, sallied forth to burn ramps and engines, and rushed to fill the breaches and throw back the enemy's assaults. The struggle descended into an abyss of horror: men fought each other with bitter savagery; hundreds of prisoners were crucified on the hills around the city; the bodies of famine victims were tossed over the walls to rot in the sun; and as the Romans broke into the city there was mayhem and massacre. The siege was a collision of two worlds: on one side, the military imperialism of Rome guarding the power and property of the rich; on the other, the rage of land-starved peasants from whom the wealth to build `civilization' was stolen. There was no middle way, no possibility of compromise, and the collision of these worlds was fought with primal ferocity. The siege culminated in a three-month struggle for control of the Temple Mount, ending when, in mid-August 70, as fighting raged on the great concourse all around it, the Temple itself caught fire. In the confusion, Roman troops burst through the gates, and once inside the complex they cut down everyone they caught and looted the vast treasures stored there. Even then, resistance continued for another month in the Upper City, the remaining militiamen opting to fight on rather than surrender themselves and face a life of slavery.

The liquidation of the `Jewish Commune' was followed by a relentless campaign to exterminate the Zealot bacillus in the province. The network of cisterns and sewers beneath Jerusalem were combed for fugitives. Some who escaped were eventually run down and destroyed as far away as Egypt and Libya. Several years of counter-insurgency drives destroyed the remaining guerrilla bases in the deserts of southern Palestine, culminating in the siege and capture of Masada in 73. Perched on a rock surrounded by cliffs in the depths of the desert, a community of 960 men, women and children had maintained their `alternative lifestyle' for six or seven years, while the young warriors formed a guerrilla band that continued to fight for national and social liberation after all others had been defeated. Finally, though, the Romans came for them, 15,000 strong, building an impenetrable siege wall to cage the Zealots in, and then a huge siege ramp from which to bring their engines and assault troops into action. Once the walls were breached, neither victory nor flight was possible for the defenders. But when the Romans stormed the fortress, they faced no resistance and were confronted by an eerie emptiness. In a final, chilling act of revolutionary defiance, the Zealots had cheated their conquerors of the fruits of victory by destroying their possessions and committing mass suicide.