Replies

The difference between the Jews and the Romans was that the Romans were not the Chosen People who were blessed with a Covenant with God for 4,000 years. I have always assumed that this is why Israel paid a terrible price for the rejection of Christ when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70 AD.

It is not a coincidence that the first "convert" after the crucifixion of Christ was the Roman centurion who stood guard at the foot of the cross.

There's substantial evidence that when the Romans sacked Jerusalem it had a substantial Christian minority ~ maybe as great as 30% of the population. And that didn't mean that the other 70% were entirely Jewish.

The sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans had nothing more to do with some sort of Divine Judgment on Jews than it did some sort of Divine Judment on Christians.

I have always assumed that this is why Israel paid a terrible price for the rejection of Christ when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70 AD.

You don't have to assume, the bible says exactly that. Contrary to grossly erroneous popular eschatology, the Olivet discourse is mainly concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem.

When Pilate is forced to go ahead with the crucifixion, he washes his hands literally and symbolicly while the Jews are shouting for Jesus' blood to be "on our heads and our children's heads."

It's a shame no one has read Josephus' account of the seige and destruction of Jerusalem. You can't read it without coming to the conclusion that an awful judgement came upon the Jews. I don't believe that slaughter has ever been repeated in history. While more have been killed, the killing stretched over years. In the sacking of Jerusalem, over a million Jews were killed in just a few hours time. So great and quick was the slaughter that Josephus records blood flowing to the extent that it put out house fires and was ankle deep in the streets.