He's a terrorist!

[Mommyof02green]

While radio surfing late last night, I heard something that made me wonder…

The only expression I was left with was “What?”

Since I was radio surfing I came across some local Christian Radio Station.
I heard the radio personality say that Simon the Zealot was a terrorist.

Where does this idea come from? Is it true?

 

[Hellisreal]

While radio surfing late last night, I heard something that made me wonder…

The only expression I was left with was “What?”

Since I was radio surfing I came across some local Christian Radio Station.
I heard the radio personality say that Simon the Zealot was a terrorist.

Where does this idea come from? Is it true?

I have heard the same thing said of James.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yep, I have heard that too, but that’s not what the Catholic Encyclopedia says.

 

[Mommyof02green]

This is all a first for me.

I’ve never have heard any of the apostles being called “terrorists” until late last night.

Where do these ideas come from?

 

[Hellisreal]

This is all a first for me.

I’ve never have heard any of the apostles being called “terrorists” until late last night.

**Where do these ideas come from?/**QUOTE]

From:
Not having a teaching authority that has any authority given by Jesus.

 

[Church_Militant]

Mommyof02green;2449277:

This is all a first for me.

I’ve never have heard any of the apostles being called “terrorists” until late last night.

Where do these ideas come from?/

QUOTE]

From:
Not having a teaching authority that has any authority given by Jesus.

 

[chris_molter]

This is probably because the Zealots were a violent resistance group whose aim was to overthrow the Roman occupation. From the Roman point of view, Simon would have been considered a “terrorist” to use modern parlance.

One of the reasons given why the crowds in Jerusalem turned on Jesus so quickly was because they expected him (as the possible Messiah) to lead an overthrow of the pagan Roman occupation. When he didn’t, they were understandably upset.

 

[Mommyof02green]

okay, guys

But seriously why would soemone even think that?
I just don’t get it.

 

[Wolseley]

The Zealots were members of a political organization that carried out assassinations, murder, and uprisings against the Roman government—think Jewish War and Masada. In this sense, they could be said to bear certain resemblance to terrorists today, who also carry out mass killings and murder.

However, once Simon became Christ’s disciple, he ceased being a terrorist, just like Peter ceased being a fisherman.

 

[Mommyof02green]

This is probably because the Zealots were a violent resistance group whose aim was to overthrow the Roman occupation. From the Roman point of view, Simon would have been considered a “terrorist” to use modern parlance.

One of the reasons given why the crowds in Jerusalem turned on Jesus so quickly was because they expected him (as the possible Messiah) to lead an overthrow of the pagan Roman occupation. When he didn’t, they were understandably upset.

Okay…but there are source that say he was NOT part of that group.

That could explain the idea regarding Simon but what about James.

A previous poster stated that they heard the same thing regarding James.

 

[Hellisreal]

okay, guys

But seriously why would soemone even think that?
I just don’t get it.

In a larger sense, we could all qualify as “terrorists” in a sense.

You may be looking at this from the lense of the present where the radical terrorists we see in the news are not lashing out against domination, but other reasons.

The Catholic Church terrifys people all the time. As she ought to.

It is not really a bad thing to wake people up to the truth.

When I got serious about my faith I must say it was the most terrifying experience in my life.

 

[chris_molter]

Okay…but there are source that say he was NOT part of that group.

That could explain the idea regarding Simon but what about James.

A previous poster stated that they heard the same thing regarding James.

Many Jews at that time were forcefully opposed to Roman occupation as well as the Jewish collaborationist government. In the eyes of the “lawful” authorities, these folks would likely be labeled as political dissenters, revolutionaries, and terrorists.

The British government considered the US founding fathers to be in the same category.

The term “terrorist” is a matter of point of view. Just because the Romans or Jewish collaborators would have considered James, Simon or even Jesus as a “revolutionary” or “terrorist” doesn’t mean they personally went out killing Romans or what have you.

 

[Hellisreal]

Okay…but there are source that say he was NOT part of that group.

That could explain the idea regarding Simon but what about James.

A previous poster stated that they heard the same thing regarding James.

I have to find it. Even Holy Father mentions it was speculation James was a zealot in his new book.
That still does not mean anything.

Let me try to find the comment.

It matters not, just as it matters not that St. Paul killed Christians before Jesus came to him in a vision.

Its just cheap hype to work people up.

 

[Nita]

The Zealots would have been more like revolutionaries than terrorists. Don’t know the history of the word “terrorist”, but in it’s current meaning “terrorist” usually refers to those who deliberately kill/bomb innocent people, also destroying places that have no military or political significance. Revolutionaries are more likely to attack mainly military and political targets.