Reason for The Crusades explained

[Debp]

I had always heard about The Crusades in a negative way. But in this video, Bob from Speaker's Corner in London, explains why The Crusades started. They were in response to centuries of Islamic invasion of many Christian countries.

 

[Debp]

The history of the St George flag with the red cross. Many British are now flying the flag due to the Islamification of the UK.

Raymond Ibrahim is a historian who tells about the Crusades and why they occurred.

 

[Debp]

 

[Windmill Charge]

Have a look at Amazon.com
A historians view of the crusad3s.

 

[Debp]

Have a look at Amazon.com
A historians view of the crusad3s.

Raymond Ibrahim is a historian who has written books on The Crusades.

He also has a YouTube channel covering the various Crusades and what all happened to cause them. Hundreds of years of Islam invading Christian countries and murdering, horribly torturing Christians, s. assault and kidnapping of women and children. It was so horrible that The Crusades started.

The Crusades always were taught in a negative light...but hearing what atrocious things happened, I now can understand them more.

Here is Raymond Ibrahim. His three books are on Amazon too. His latest book comes out in November.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Raymond Ibrahim is a historian who has written books on The Crusades.

He also has a YouTube channel covering the various Crusades and what all happened to cause them. Hundreds of years of Islam invading Christian countries and murdering, horribly torturing Christians, s. assault and kidnapping of women and children. It was so horrible that The Crusades started.

The Crusades always were taught in a negative light...but hearing what atrocious things happened, I now can understand them more.

Here is Raymond Ibrahim. His three books are on Amazon too. His latest book comes out in November.

Just wanted to mention that to participate in any bloodshed was not a Christian thing to do when Christ walked the earth……it wasn’t even a Jewish thing to do because Israel did not even have a military force when under subjugation by gentile nations..…and Jews who fought with the Roman armies (their conquerors) were viewed as traitors, as were the tax collectors who collected taxes for the Roman government….it was seen as siding with the enemy.

So there is mention of “Christian nations” in that video….when no such nations exist in a world ruled by the devil.
There is a reason why Jesus taught his followers to be ”NO PART OF THE WORLD”. (John 18:36)

The “two swords” that this man mentions are taken out of context and given a meaning that was not in keeping with what Jesus said to his disciples on that occasion.

”And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38 ESV)

Were two swords “enough” to take on an armed mob? And if they had been unarmed all this time, why buy swords now and too few?

When he was preaching with his apostles among the Jews, hospitality was an a expectation….which is why they needed no provisions and wanted for nothing. But with his impending death, things were about to change.

From that time forward they would not be welcomed by the majority, but would be rejected and scorned. Consequently, they would have to make some provisions for themselves.

After stating what their situation would be in the future, Jesus explained to his disciples why things were going to change; he gave them the reason. It was because he was to be killed, taken away like a transgressor and executed with lawless ones in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12.

The “lawless ones” were not the disciples to whom he was speaking, but, instead, were the evildoers with whom Jesus was executed.

When Peter impetuously drew his sword and cut off the ear of the slave Malchus, Jesus reprimanded him. He said that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword”; besides, if he wanted to, he could have called on the angels for help. (Matt 26:52-53)

But that was not what he wanted. As shown by his not engaging the two swords for defense, Jesus was willingly giving himself to die between two “lawless ones.” It was to fulfill prophesy.

As for “Christians” engaging in military conflicts, it is apparent that the early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, both in the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity

For example…
Justin Martyr (110-l65 C.E.) in his “Dialogue with Trypho” wrote: “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” There is no doubt where Tertullian stood in 204 C.E. on the question of military service for Christians.

In his treatise De Corona, chapter XI, discussing “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians,” he argued from Scripture “the unlawfulness even of a military life itself,” concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”

Origen [185-254] . . . remarks that ‘the Christian Church cannot engage in war against any nation. . . . , In that period many Christians were martyred for refusing military service. On March 12, 295, Maximilian, the son of a famous Roman veteran, was called upon to serve in the Roman army and he refused, saying simply: ‘I am a Christian.’”—H. Ingli James, quoted in Treasury of the Christian World, 1953, edited by A. Gordon Nasby, p. 369.

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180] no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, 1947, E. W. Barnes, p. 333)

So, later history involving the so called “Christian” knights participating in military campaigns with wonton bloodshed were not abiding by Christ’s commands at all. As God had told his ancient people when they involved themselves in such unsanctioned bloodshed…..

“Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.” (Isa 1:14-15 ESV)

By their disobedience, they made their feast days abhorrent to their God.
Unless God was fighting for Israel, they shed blood in vain…they did not have his sanction and so were just as guilty of wrongdoing as their enemies.

In view of what took place with the Assyrian army who came against Israel who were horribly outnumbered…..God is very capable of taking care of his own business. (Isa 37:33-36)

There can be no bloodshed for Christians no matter how patriotic one has been trained to be from infancy.
These two positions are incompatible.

I know that won’t sit well with the patriots….but there is no such thing as a “just war” when humans want to justify their bloodshed. It’s only a “just war” when God decrees it…..he has not sanctioned a war since the days of ancient Israel.

 

[Jericho]

I have written about this before.

A Brief History of Islam: Part 1 The Rise of Islam
A Brief History of Islam: Part 2 Christendom Strikes Back

 

[Matthias]

Does anyone think the Crusaders loved their enemies?

 

[Debp]

Does anyone think the Crusaders loved their enemies?

After learning what atrocious things the Muslims did to Christians, I think the Crusaders hated the evil deeds of the Muslims and were being protecters of the defenceless Christians.

One can love people but hate the evil done by them, and seek to protect the defenceless from that evil.

Besides murdering, torturing Christians, and s. assaulting women, the Muslims also s. assaulted the priests. One bishop they slowly sawed in half to create more suffering.

I understand it took a few hundred years for the Crusades to start in response to the atrocities.

 

[Matthias]

After learning what atrocious things the Muslims did to Christians, I think the Crusaders hated the evil deeds of the Muslims and were being protecters of the defenceless Christians.

One can love people but hate the evil done by them, and seek to protect the defenceless from that evil.

Besides murdering, torturing Christians, and s. assaulting women, the Muslims also s. assaulted the priests. One bishop they slowly sawed in half to create more suffering.

I understand it took a few hundred years for the Crusades to start in response to the atrocities.

The Crusaders hated their enemies - Muslims and Jews. Had I lived in those times and come into contact with the Crusaders, they would have murdered me. The Crusaders committed atrocities, just as the Muslims did.

The Muslims didn’t leave vengeance to God. The Crusaders didn’t leave vengeance to God. Neither the Muslims nor the Crusaders acted like Jesus. Neither the Muslims nor the Crusaders obeyed the teaching of Jesus.

I’m not defending or condoning the acts of the Muslims, but neither am I defending or condoning the acts of the Crusaders.

 

[Matthias]

“Love” doesn’t commit atrocities.

 

[Windmill Charge]

The Crusades always were taught in a negative light.

Not always, thats why I gave a link to another historian. Also anyone who studied history would quickly learn that the crusades were a responce to islamic aggression.

 

[Brakelite]

Reason for The Crusades? Is an interesting question. What I've read so far in this thread is a Catholic defence for waging war on those with whom they disagreed. Not a Christian practise regardless the motive. Let us not forget that the Islamic invasions didn't threaten Europe until the middle ages. Before that, Catholic Crusader armies had invaded and slaughtered Christians and non Christians alike throughout southern France (Cathars) and northern Italy (Waldensians). Catholic influence upon pagan Rome in the east was also responsible for destroying the Goths, the Vandals and the Heruli several centuries before. Catholic sponsored armies which included any murderer and numerous miscreants and mercenaries out for adventure and fame and a reward against innocent Christian communities that just happened to differ from the papacy on some beliefs, probably most noticeably on authority. The later crusades against the Muslims in Palestine and the war to retake Jerusalem etc may have saved Europe from invasion, but considering the nature of previous Catholic crusades and inquisitions against the innocent makes one curious regarding their true motives. And interestingly, a very different policy from today apparently. (Regarding the current Islamic invasions that the popes are very silent on).

 

[Jericho]

The Crusaders hated their enemies - Muslims and Jews. Had I lived in those times and come into contact with the Crusaders, they would have murdered me. The Crusaders committed atrocities, just as the Muslims did.

It was a much more brutal time all around. I would note that the Crusades were not specifically about killing Muslims and Jews; they were a response to Christian pilgrims being brutally killed, churches being destroyed and desecrated, and because they believed making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land brought them penance for their personal sins. The latter is not a biblical concept, but there you have it.

Whether it was justified or not from a Christian perspective depends on how far you want to extend loving your enemies. Pope Urban II cited the killing and torturing of Christians as part of the rallying cry for the First Crusade. I think on a personal level, loving your enemies is the correct response. But I don't believe loving your enemies should include willingly allowing them to harm or murder you. Sure, Jesus allowed Himself to be killed, but that was only because it fulfilled a specific purpose.

Let us not forget that the Islamic invasions didn't threaten Europe until the middle ages.

That's not true; Muslims had invaded Southwestern Europe several centuries earlier. Add to that that the Holy Land had previously been under control of the Byzantine Empire before Islam conquered the region. Say what you will about the Crusades, but if the Muslims had captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, we might all be speaking Arabic now.

 

[Matthias]

It was a much more brutal time all around. I would note that the Crusades were not specifically about killing Muslims and Jews; they were a response to Christian pilgrims being brutally killed, churches being destroyed and desecrated, and because they believed making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land brought them penance for their personal sins. The latter is not a biblical concept, but there you have it.

Whether it was justified or not from a Christian perspective depends on how far you want to extend loving your enemies.

My impression is that the majority of Christians have no problem endorsing Christians killing their enemies.

Pope Urban II cited the killing and torturing of Christians as part of the rallying cry for the First Crusade.

He (and the Roman Catholic Church) was far removed from the age and mindset of the Christian martyrs.

I think on a personal level, loving your enemies is the correct response.

* Jesus is nodding his head approvingly. *

But I don't believe loving your enemies should include willingly allowing them to harm or murder you.

On a personal level, is God not able to protect? Of course he is able.

Obey Jesus and be still. Depend on God to defend you. Absolutely not, say the majority of Christians.

Sure, Jesus allowed Himself to be killed, but that was only because it fulfilled a specific purpose.

And the apostles? And the martyrs?

 

[Nancy]

Just wanted to mention that to participate in any bloodshed was not a Christian thing to do when Christ walked the earth……it wasn’t even a Jewish thing to do because Israel did not even have a military force when under subjugation by gentile nations..…and Jews who fought with the Roman armies (their conquerors) were viewed as traitors, as were the tax collectors who collected taxes for the Roman government….it was seen as siding with the enemy.

So there is mention of “Christian nations” in that video….when no such nations exist in a world ruled by the devil.
There is a reason why Jesus taught his followers to be ”NO PART OF THE WORLD”. (John 18:36)

The “two swords” that this man mentions are taken out of context and given a meaning that was not in keeping with what Jesus said to his disciples on that occasion.

”And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38 ESV)

Were two swords “enough” to take on an armed mob? And if they had been unarmed all this time, why buy swords now and too few?

When he was preaching with his apostles among the Jews, hospitality was an a expectation….which is why they needed no provisions and wanted for nothing. But with his impending death, things were about to change.

From that time forward they would not be welcomed by the majority, but would be rejected and scorned. Consequently, they would have to make some provisions for themselves.

After stating what their situation would be in the future, Jesus explained to his disciples why things were going to change; he gave them the reason. It was because he was to be killed, taken away like a transgressor and executed with lawless ones in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12.

The “lawless ones” were not the disciples to whom he was speaking, but, instead, were the evildoers with whom Jesus was executed.

When Peter impetuously drew his sword and cut off the ear of the slave Malchus, Jesus reprimanded him. He said that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword”; besides, if he wanted to, he could have called on the angels for help. (Matt 26:52-53)

But that was not what he wanted. As shown by his not engaging the two swords for defense, Jesus was willingly giving himself to die between two “lawless ones.” It was to fulfill prophesy.

As for “Christians” engaging in military conflicts, it is apparent that he early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, both in the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity

For example…
Justin Martyr (110-l65 C.E.) in his “Dialogue with Trypho” wrote: “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” There is no doubt where Tertullian stood in 204 C.E. on the question of military service for Christians.

In his treatise De Corona, chapter XI, discussing “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians,” he argued from Scripture “the unlawfulness even of a military life itself,” concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”

Origen [185-254] . . . remarks that ‘the Christian Church cannot engage in war against any nation. . . . , In that period many Christians were martyred for refusing military service. On March 12, 295, Maximilian, the son of a famous Roman veteran, was called upon to serve in the Roman army and he refused, saying simply: ‘I am a Christian.’”—H. Ingli James, quoted in Treasury of the Christian World, 1953, edited by A. Gordon Nasby, p. 369.

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180] no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, 1947, E. W. Barnes, p. 333)

So, later history involving the so called “Christian” knights participating in military campaigns with wonton bloodshed were not abiding by Christ’s commands at all. As God had told his ancient people when they involved themselves in such unsanctioned bloodshed…..

“Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.” (Isa 1:14-15 ESV)

By their disobedience, they made their feast days abhorrent to their God.
Unless God was fighting for Israel, they shed blood in vain…they did not have his sanction and so were just as guilty of wrongdoing as their enemies.

In view of what took place with the Assyrian army who came against Israel who were horribly outnumbered…..God is very capable of taking care of his own business. (Isa 37:33-36)

There can be no bloodshed for Christians no matter how patriotic one has been trained to be from infancy.
These two positions are incompatible.

I know that won’t sit well with the patriots….but there is no such thing as a “just war” when humans want to justify their bloodshed. It’s only a “just war” when God decrees it…..he has not sanctioned a war since the days of ancient Israel.

Have to agree and I am a 7 year veteran!!! And, BTW- THE "CIVIL WAR" here in the U.S. was anything but civil...very bloody it was!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I had always heard about The Crusades in a negative way. But in this video, Bob from Speaker's Corner in London, explains why The Crusades started. They were in response to centuries of Islamic invasion of many Christian countries.

And then, the so called "christian crusaders" did the same thing the muzlims were doing which was killing others who refused to believe their false doctrine.

In the end they are just as bad as islam in that they both teach false doctrine that leads people to hell.

The crusaders were not real Christians.

 

[Wick Stick]

After learning what atrocious things the Muslims did to Christians, I think the Crusaders hated the evil deeds of the Muslims and were being protecters of the defenceless Christians.

One can love people but hate the evil done by them, and seek to protect the defenceless from that evil.

Besides murdering, torturing Christians, and s. assaulting women, the Muslims also s. assaulted the priests. One bishop they slowly sawed in half to create more suffering.

I understand it took a few hundred years for the Crusades to start in response to the atrocities.

From what I've read... The Catholic church was expecting a physical return of Christ at the end of 1,000 years since His ascension - so roughly 1033 AD.

When it didn't happen, there was a crisis of faith. Armies were sent to Jerusalem to help God's plan along, since Armageddon requires armies to surround the city.

Yeah...

 

[Aunty Jane]

Have to agree and I am a 7 year veteran!!! And, BTW- THE "CIVIL WAR" here in the U.S. was anything but civil...very bloody it was!

Yes, this magnifies the point, Nancy.....a civil war is the worst kind, perpetrated on your own people because of political differences.....brother against brother, and fathers against sons...how can political bias become the catalyst for murder?

Looking at the political divide that still exists in various nations, civil war could break out again .....the war of words could become another civil war depending upon which colour uniform you wear. We have to be “out of uniform” because we cannot take sides...it’s none of our business what the world does...God is allowing it so we stand back as neutral observers, seeing prophesy being fulfilled. The ruler of this world (1 John 5:19) is lining its inhabitants up for one final war....one where God has already told us who the winner is.

Christians are to be “no part” of that scene....not indoctrinated from birth with that patriot spirit that overpowers someone’s professed “Christianity”. Unless you see them as incompatible, you will always support the wrong side...the one your emotions have been taught to support.

Neutrality is what identifies the genuine disciples of Christ.....no matter what nation they inhabit. (John 18:36) We are to support God’s Kingdom, not man’s.

 

[Nancy]

Yes, this magnifies the point, Nancy.....a civil war is the worst kind, perpetrated on your own people because of political differences.....brother against brother, and fathers against sons...how can political bias become the catalyst for murder?

Looking at the political divide that still exists in various nations, civil war could break out again .....the war of words could become another civil war depending upon which colour uniform you wear. We have to be “out of uniform” because we cannot take sides...it’s none of our business what the world does...God is allowing it so we stand back as neutral observers, seeing prophesy being fulfilled. The ruler of this world (1 John 5:19) is lining its inhabitants up for one final war....one where God has already told us who the winner is.

Christians are to be “no part” of that scene....not indoctrinated from birth with that patriot spirit that overpowers someone’s professed “Christianity”. Unless you see them as incompatible, you will always support the wrong side...the one your emotions have been taught to support.

Neutrality is what identifies the genuine disciples of Christ.....no matter what nation they inhabit. (John 18:36) We are to support God’s Kingdom, not man’s.

Trump floats invoking Insurrection Act amid showdown with Democratic-led cities

NBC News White House Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor and NBC News Senior Homeland Security Correspondent Julia Ainsley explain what the Insurrection Act is and what it could mean as the Trump administration tries to deploy National Guard troops to Democratic-led cities. NBC News Chief Justice and...

www.nbcnews.com

Fear, division, hatred = war. Media will be the death of so many. Martial law has been on the Horizon since 911, I believe it is intentional. The Lord did show this to me, very clearly around 10 or so years back. A lot of folks thought I was being a whack-a doo!
It's so clear to me!


Rise and shine and, give God the glory, glory"! Was a song we sung like everyday at summer camp!

Oh Lord, strengthen your people, amen.