Why do you think the Messiah was so important for the Jews who were living in judea under roman rule?

Answer 1

The idea that "because the Romans were pagan" is an oversimplification. Prior to Rome, the moment the Kingdom of David fell, Israel was conquered by the Assyrians, and then the Babylonians, and then the Persians although the Persians were not seen as conquerors, and then after that, the Greeks under Alexander the Great, and then after that, the Romans. This, is what all conquerors of Israel had in common;

1) They all worshiped many gods, all were pagan.

2) Yes, they all engaged in orgies and all manner of debauchery and "immoral behavior."

3) They were all cruel, sadistic, total bastards and all that.

4) The Romans were in fact, the best rulers of all; all they ever wanted from the peoples they subjugated, was money. See, whereas other empires forced their beliefs onto conquered peoples, Rome never did. If anything Israel's cruelest conquerors, were the Assyrians, not the Romans.

The idea of the Messiah did not start with Rome, it was a central tenet of Jewish belief going all the way to Abraham himself, however, it became particularly popular during Roman era Israel for a very good reason; the Macabean revolt.

Okay, so what does the Macabean revolt have to do with Rome? See, Judas Macabeus, was the dude who threw out the Greeks right? So, Israel experienced a "high," only to be brought low again by the Romans, barely a few years later. To be free, but then all of a sudden enslaved again, was deeply crushing. How would you feel, if say, you were bullied by a bully, you train hard, lift weights, take MMA classes from George St Pierre who feels so sorry for you you are so pathetic he trains you for free, you beat the crap out of the dude bullying you, but only a few days later, Fedor Emanialenko comes to your school to steal your lunch money? Oh sure you know MMA but come on now, that's Fedor; how woudl it make you feel?

Demoralized? Crushed? Powerless? Like, God had abandoned you perhaps? The Greeks in Israel, during the time of the Macabean revolt, where akin to a high school bully, Rome, on the other hand, was more akin to Fedor Emanialenko and yeah, it was THAT big of a difference. To beat up a punk is one thing, Fedor Emanialenko, whoa there, totally different animal.

The idea of the Messiah became especially popular, not because the Romans were pagan (all previous empires were), not because they were immoral (orgies were invented by the Babylonians), not because they were cruel (Assyrians were much worse) but because the timing was EXTREMELY unlucky for Israel, one conqueror after the next, in the space of barely just a few decades. In desperation, they deluded themselves into thinking, the Messiah would show up during that time period because, they thought only the Messiah could end the endless string of conquerors but see, Rome was so powerful, the Roman army so formidable, the situation was truly hopeless.

Here is a little scale for you;

The Samurai of Japan, are 100%, in terms of what is a "raw soldier." Putting things in perspective here.

A Spartan, was 90%.

A Mongol warrior, 70%

Alexanders Macedonian Phalanx (of Dorian ancestry like the Spartans), were 40%

Your average Roman soldier, was 20%

A modern day Navy SEAL, is 10%

A modern day U.S. Marine, 5%

Now, even though there were better soldiers than what the Romans fielded, here's the trick; the Romans trained their soldiers hard enough to be a force to be reckoned with, but not so hard, their numbers would be low. "Medium sized, but high quality," that was the Roman way regarding its army. Oh sure the Romans are only 20% to Sparta's 90%, however, where Sparta could only field 10,000 men at most, Rome, could field over 300,000. Think about that; 300,000, each, 20%.

The Persians of Xerxes? I would put them at .5% yeah, I think a modern U.S. Marine, hand to hand, no modern weapons could probably beat them up they were so poorly trained, the truth is, Thermopylae was more a massacre than a battle. The exception would be the immortals, whom I would place at 15%.

However, remember, Rome attacked ancient Israel with 5,000 soldiers, each, twice as powerful and skillful, as a modern day U.S. Navy SEAL, Rome had an EXTREMELY scary army. Forget the Nazis, forget the Soviets, they are all school girls compared to the Romans.

Now that I have put things into perspective, can you understand the desperation of ancient Israelites? The cry for divine intervention?

Rome, never really fought in battles; their army was so ridiculously well trained, yet moderate enough to retain numbers, that in virtually all their engagements the word "massacre" is a more appropriate term, as virtually everyone they fought never stood a chance. To their credit, the Greeks put up the best fight, second best fight, was put by Britain. Now, the Germans of arminius do not count, because he served under the Roman army and knew all about their tactics, and their weaknesses. We all know the story; Arminius, who was a German, betrayed his Roman employers, and had 10,000 Romans slaughtered, and then Augustus cried "give me back my legions!" Why doesn't it count? Because Rome got its revenge; to avenge the 10,000 fallen Romans, Arminius' tribe of Germans was completely anihilated. The Greeks, and the British, are still alive today; Arminius' German tribe, is not.

To the credit of the peoples of Greece, and Great Britain, they put up the best fight against the Romans by far. The Greeks, because they were the inventors of Phalanx style warfare, and virtually all the warfare used by Rome; Greece did not go down easy, that much is a fact. So why did Rome win? The Greeks, had a stuborn tendency towards inflexibility; whereas the Romans adopted weapons from their enemies that they thought were effective, the Greeks were arrogantly proud of all things Greek. To put this in perspective; saw a U.S. army soldier travels back in time, and slaughters 200 Greek Phalanx using an AK-47 and hand grenades. The ancient Greeks would still not adopt those weapons, know why? The soldier who used them was a barbarian, not Greek. Yes, they were that arrogantly proud, and stupid, and towards the Romans it cost them their country. Hey, ancient Greeks where not white, genetic tests confirm it nevertheless........ at times in their history they were still douchebags. Except for the Greek unwillingness to adapt, the truth is, Roman and Greek armies were more or less evenly matched in terms of technology, training, tactics, the whole nine. Indeed, you have heard the term "Pyrrhic victory" right? Where a victory costs you so much, it may as well have been a defeat. The Roman army was fought off, however, nearly the entire army that Pyrrhus had was slaughtered. The two sides killed each other, because they were evenly matched. Again, Rome ultimately won, because of their willingness to adapt, and be flexible and grow, in time, over the course of only a few years the surpassed the Greeks technologically, and soon the country was easily conquered.

Just telling you all this, because, history texts, encyclopedia, they never put things in perspective. And yes, you can compare a modern with an ancient soldier, if you evaluate them, by the core things that make a soldier a soldier, namely, discipline, and mental toughness. In terms of discipline and mental toughness, like I said, Samurai were 100%, Spartans 90%, all the way down to a U.S. Marine who is 5%. And you know, from the reputation of U.S. Marines what a "mere 5%" can do. Try to imagine 20%, or, in the Spartan's case, 90%. Weapons change, backdrops change as well, however, discipline and mental toughness are the standard measuring stick by which soldiers across all periods of history can be measured and yes, compared with one another.

How tough were the Samurai? Many, died on their feet; they were too stubborn to fall, even though their bodies were full of arrows, and even as they breathed their last, they were too proud, and stubborn, to fall to the ground. Taira Masakato, the Samurai who legend has it, single handedly protected Tokyo from bandits, is reputed to have died standing up.

I'm sorry but, in terms of raw mental toughness, I don't think you can beat that; to be so stubborn, and proud, that you want to die standing. I'm sorry but in terms of "mental toughness" and "discipline," you can not really compare any other type of soldier, the Samurai deserve their "100%." It is biologically possible by the way; rigor mortis can set in, and if the body is positioned the right way, a person CAN die standing.

The Samurai were so mentally tough, and disciplined, they literally (some) died on their feet.

Now you know where all that Japanese macho bullcrap comes from.

Answer 2

The idea that "because the Romans were pagan" is an oversimplification. Prior to Rome, the moment the Kingdom of David fell, Israel was conquered by the Assyrians, and then the Babylonians, and then the Persians although the Persians were not seen as conquerors, and then after that, the Greeks under Alexander the Great, and then after that, the Romans. This, is what all conquerors of Israel had in common;

1) They all worshiped many gods, all were pagan.

2) Yes, they all engaged in orgies and all manner of debauchery and "immoral behavior."

3) They were all cruel, sadistic, total bastards and all that.

4) The Romans were in fact, the best rulers of all; all they ever wanted from the peoples they subjugated, was money. See, whereas other empires forced their beliefs onto conquered peoples, Rome never did. If anything Israel's cruelest conquerors, were the Assyrians, not the Romans.

The idea of the Messiah did not start with Rome, it was a central tenet of Jewish belief going all the way to Abraham himself, however, it became particularly popular during Roman era Israel for a very good reason; the Macabean revolt.

Okay, so what does the Macabean revolt have to do with Rome? See, Judas Macabeus, was the dude who threw out the Greeks right? So, Israel experienced a "high," only to be brought low again by the Romans, barely a few years later. To be free, but then all of a sudden enslaved again, was deeply crushing. How would you feel, if say, you were bullied by a bully, you train hard, lift weights, take MMA classes from George St Pierre who feels so sorry for you you are so pathetic he trains you for free, you beat the crap out of the dude bullying you, but only a few days later, Fedor Emanialenko comes to your school to steal your lunch money? Oh sure you know MMA but come on now, that's Fedor; how woudl it make you feel?

Demoralized? Crushed? Powerless? Like, God had abandoned you perhaps? The Greeks in Israel, during the time of the Macabean revolt, where akin to a high school bully, Rome, on the other hand, was more akin to Fedor Emanialenko and yeah, it was THAT big of a difference. To beat up a punk is one thing, Fedor Emanialenko, whoa there, totally different animal.

The idea of the Messiah became especially popular, not because the Romans were pagan (all previous empires were), not because they were immoral (orgies were invented by the Babylonians), not because they were cruel (Assyrians were much worse) but because the timing was EXTREMELY unlucky for Israel, one conqueror after the next, in the space of barely just a few decades. In desperation, they deluded themselves into thinking, the Messiah would show up during that time period because, they thought only the Messiah could end the endless string of conquerors but see, Rome was so powerful, the Roman army so formidable, the situation was truly hopeless.

Here is a little scale for you;

The Samurai of Japan, are 100%, in terms of what is a "raw soldier." Putting things in perspective here.

A Spartan, was 90%.

A Mongol warrior, 70%

Alexanders Macedonian Phalanx (of Dorian ancestry like the Spartans), were 40%

Your average Roman soldier, was 20%

A modern day Navy SEAL, is 10%

A modern day U.S. Marine, 5%

Now, even though there were better soldiers than what the Romans fielded, here's the trick; the Romans trained their soldiers hard enough to be a force to be reckoned with, but not so hard, their numbers would be low. "Medium sized, but high quality," that was the Roman way regarding its army. Oh sure the Romans are only 20% to Sparta's 90%, however, where Sparta could only field 10,000 men at most, Rome, could field over 300,000. Think about that; 300,000, each, 20%.

The Persians of Xerxes? I would put them at .5% yeah, I think a modern U.S. Marine, hand to hand, no modern weapons could probably beat them up they were so poorly trained, the truth is, Thermopylae was more a massacre than a battle. The exception would be the immortals, whom I would place at 15%.

However, remember, Rome attacked ancient Israel with 5,000 soldiers, each, twice as powerful and skillful, as a modern day U.S. Navy SEAL, Rome had an EXTREMELY scary army. Forget the Nazis, forget the Soviets, they are all school girls compared to the Romans.

Now that I have put things into perspective, can you understand the desperation of ancient Israelites? The cry for divine intervention?

Rome, never really fought in battles; their army was so ridiculously well trained, yet moderate enough to retain numbers, that in virtually all their engagements the word "massacre" is a more appropriate term, as virtually everyone they fought never stood a chance. To their credit, the Greeks put up the best fight, second best fight, was put by Britain. Now, the Germans of arminius do not count, because he served under the Roman army and knew all about their tactics, and their weaknesses. We all know the story; Arminius, who was a German, betrayed his Roman employers, and had 10,000 Romans slaughtered, and then Augustus cried "give me back my legions!" Why doesn't it count? Because Rome got its revenge; to avenge the 10,000 fallen Romans, Arminius' tribe of Germans was completely anihilated. The Greeks, and the British, are still alive today; Arminius' German tribe, is not.

To the credit of the peoples of Greece, and Great Britain, they put up the best fight against the Romans by far. The Greeks, because they were the inventors of Phalanx style warfare, and virtually all the warfare used by Rome; Greece did not go down easy, that much is a fact. So why did Rome win? The Greeks, had a stuborn tendency towards inflexibility; whereas the Romans adopted weapons from their enemies that they thought were effective, the Greeks were arrogantly proud of all things Greek. To put this in perspective; saw a U.S. army soldier travels back in time, and slaughters 200 Greek Phalanx using an AK-47 and hand grenades. The ancient Greeks would still not adopt those weapons, know why? The soldier who used them was a barbarian, not Greek. Yes, they were that arrogantly proud, and stupid, and towards the Romans it cost them their country. Hey, ancient Greeks where not white, genetic tests confirm it nevertheless........ at times in their history they were still douchebags. Except for the Greek unwillingness to adapt, the truth is, Roman and Greek armies were more or less evenly matched in terms of technology, training, tactics, the whole nine. Indeed, you have heard the term "Pyrrhic victory" right? Where a victory costs you so much, it may as well have been a defeat. The Roman army was fought off, however, nearly the entire army that Pyrrhus had was slaughtered. The two sides killed each other, because they were evenly matched. Again, Rome ultimately won, because of their willingness to adapt, and be flexible and grow, in time, over the course of only a few years the surpassed the Greeks technologically, and soon the country was easily conquered.

Just telling you all this, because, history texts, encyclopedia, they never put things in perspective. And yes, you can compare a modern with an ancient soldier, if you evaluate them, by the core things that make a soldier a soldier, namely, discipline, and mental toughness. In terms of discipline and mental toughness, like I said, Samurai were 100%, Spartans 90%, all the way down to a U.S. Marine who is 5%. And you know, from the reputation of U.S. Marines what a "mere 5%" can do. Try to imagine 20%, or, in the Spartan's case, 90%. Weapons change, backdrops change as well, however, discipline and mental toughness are the standard measuring stick by which soldiers across all periods of history can be measured and yes, compared with one another.

How tough were the Samurai? Many, died on their feet; they were too stubborn to fall, even though their bodies were full of arrows, and even as they breathed their last, they were too proud, and stubborn, to fall to the ground. Taira Masakato, the Samurai who legend has it, single handedly protected Tokyo from bandits, is reputed to have died standing up.

I'm sorry but, in terms of raw mental toughness, I don't think you can beat that; to be so stubborn, and proud, that you want to die standing. I'm sorry but in terms of "mental toughness" and "discipline," you can not really compare any other type of soldier, the Samurai deserve their "100%." It is biologically possible by the way; rigor mortis can set in, and if the body is positioned the right way, a person CAN die standing.

The Samurai were so mentally tough, and disciplined, they literally (some) died on their feet.

Now you know where all that Japanese macho bullcrap comes from.

Answer 3

He came in the flesh to reveal God, and bring restoration of the people back to the Father, our Creator. We are in need of restoration because we have fallen away from our God. Not only for Jews, but for Gentiles alike. The Messiah's Name is Yeshua, or Jesus the Christ. His testimony can be found throughout the Word of God (The Bible), especially in King James and Amplified versions, which are more true to the original texts. He may also be found living within us, as we accept Him as our Saviour and obey His Word.