Template:Zealot
Zealot
"The Zealots were originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Judaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66-70). Zealotry was the term used by Josephus for a "fourth sect" during this period."[1]
A zealot has become a person who is considered fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. But historically he was a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until AD 70.
The zealots and certainly the Sicarii were Jewish extremists that revolt against the Roman presence in Judea and despised Hellenistic views or any acceptance of Gentile customs. were another Jewish sect that were more extreme than the zealots. Their strict religious interpretation of what they considered to be the only acceptable doctrines coming from the ancient text. This would eventually contribute to a lack of unity because the Zealots were too selfish to believe that others forms of resistance could terminate the power of the Romans.
The Sicarii became so extreme and violent their willingness to assassinate any alternate ideological or philosophical opposition ruined the Jewish leadership by assassinating the rulers.
They hated what they called roman oppression and believed their different views and interpretation of the nature of religion had brought their present bondage and corruption. They did not understand the Torah like the Essenes. The Sadducees, The Pharisees, The Zealots were all Factions at the altar of the Hasmoneans.
The Essene often made altars of their own. The Christian customs were much like the Essene and their approach differed from the others to the point of being persecuted violently by Romans and zealots a like.
The real oppression came from the people who learned to covet their neighbor's good but it has always been easier to blame others. The truth is the problem hits much closer to home.
Rome had not conquered Israel at that time, but had been invited in to settle a civil war between two brothers back in 66 B.C. over who should be king. Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II were fighting over the Kingdom of God. One brother got the idea to invite Pompey and his legions for benevolent aid to settle this dispute. Rome was offered reimbursement by Aristobulus. There were men trying to overthrow his government.
Under international law, Aristobulus had made the request to Rome seeking to use its might as a world police force. Many countries accepted Roman aid by treaty, and were required to pay into the Roman effort of Pax Romana in the form of a tribute, or excise tax. They created mutual obligations which bound Aristobulus and Rome to keep the peace.
Aristobulus gained Pompey's favor by giving him a gift of gold. After some complaints surfaced, Pompey personally investigated and found Hyrcanus had a better claim as rightful king by the laws of Israel.
Pompey gave the gift from Aristobulus to the poor and offered to assist the lawful king in obtaining his throne. King Hyrcanus would not appeal to Rome, but without proper authority the Pharisees did.
Pompey's troops carefully removed Aristobulus and his adherents, the Sadducees, who still occupied the Temple illegally. Rome respected the laws of other nations. It did not simply impose its personal whim, but through the reason of right and wrong and jus gentium, they decided disputes based on the specific customs and ordinances of each country.
The benefit of Rome
Jesus would not appeal to Rome, because to make treaties with other nations would be a violation of the laws of Israel,[1] which diminished the rights of the people. Christ came to return every man to those rights endowed by God (Leviticus 25:10)and to the “perfect law of liberty”.
The Romans had washed (in respect to the laws of the Jews) before entering that Herodian temple to remove Aristobulus' followers. The true defiling of the temple was at the hands of the people who had made the city a cauldron filled with the flesh of the people for the elite.[2]
The problem was not Rome but Because of an appetite for the blood of the innocent, and a willingness to consent to the one purse that runs toward evil, the people were captured in the net of their own making which had been set to snare their neighbor for their personal welfare and gain.[3]
- “Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.” Ps 69:22.
- “And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:” Romans 11:9.
Was Jesus a Zealot?
The book Zealot by self-proclaimed expert[4] Reza Aslan begs the question "Was Jesus a Zealot?"
Is Reza Aslan[5] wrong about Jesus?
9/3/2013 1:40 PM 26693906
http://www.hisholychurch.net/kkvv/9thfolder/13-08-02-Asland-1.mp3
Reza Aslan "Zealot". Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, which offers an interpretation of the life and mission of the historical Jesus. Does he know what he is talking about?
9/3/2013 1:42 PM 23339575
http://www.hisholychurch.net/kkvv/9thfolder/13-08-02-Asland-2.mp3
9/3/2013 1:43 PM 23107456
http://www.hisholychurch.net/kkvv/9thfolder/13-08-02-Asland-3.mp3
9/3/2013 1:39 PM 23156279
http://www.hisholychurch.net/kkvv/9thfolder/13-08-02-Asland-4.mp3
- ↑ Exodus 23:32 “Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. Judges 2:2 And ye shall make no league ... but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?” See Deuteronomy 17:15,17.]
- ↑ Ezekiel 11:3-11 “Which say, It is not near; let us build houses: this city is the caldron, and we be the flesh.” See also Exodus 16:3, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Micah 3:3 .
- ↑ Proverbs 1:10-33 “Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: ... let us all have one purse... consent thou not....”
- ↑ Ipse Dixit "He, himself, said it". In logic, ipse dixit is known as the bare assertion fallacy. ipse dixit is an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion. The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.
- ↑ Is a Professor of Sociology who believes he knows about "Religion" but has stated that “Religion is a language.” David Pakman is a critic https://youtu.be/E9RmAo6XVAA