Reason for The Crusades explained

[Wrangler]

You wanted in on this @JustMe. Is that teaching good or evil?

Good. Paul taught we must die daily. Christ told us we must pick up our cross. I’m surprised a spiritual man, such as yourself, cannot grasp this. Willful ignorance?

 

[Matthias]

You’ve made dozens of posts like this personally attacking me.

I’m blessed by the personal attacks you’ve made on me (Matthew 5:11:13).

Let me just say that no matter how wretched my soul is, it doesn’t detract from the reasons FOR the Crusades.

That’s right.

You on the other hand, are like the Pharisee praying to God …

I don’t pray like the Pharisees.

… that you’re morally superior and not wretched like me.

Those who follow the Messiah are, generally speaking, morally superior to worldly men.

As for you being wretched, you testify about yourself. You don’t need me to confirm it.

My message to the men of the world is repent of your wretchedness. Come to the Messiah and he will wash you clean.

 

[Matthias]

Good. Paul taught we must die daily. Christ told us we must pick up our cross. I’m surprised a spiritual man, such as yourself, cannot grasp this. Willful ignorance?

I grasp it.

 

[Matthias]

“You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”

No. You are not following Jesus if you are armed, ready to kill. He wasn’t armed, ready to kill.

The bolded teaching isn’t just wrong. It’s a lie. It comes from the devil, not from the Messiah.

I’m repeating again what a Christian member said about it in another thread - “It should not be taught to anyone.”

What the Christian member said about it is right. May his words get through to the one who brought the bolded teaching and bring about a change of his mind.

 

[Matthias]

As for you being wretched, you testify about yourself. You don’t need me to confirm it.

My message to the men of the world is repent of your wretchedness. Come to the Messiah and he will wash you clean.

“If you are in Christ, your sins are not just hidden; they are gone. God doesn't see your failures; he sees the righteousness of his Son. That is the beauty of the gospel.” - Trevor Sheatz

Did the Crusaders repent of their atrocities? God knows.

 

[Matthias]

”You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.“

I asked in a search engine, “Is it true that you are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill?” and AI answered with this overview:

“It is not true that being unarmed means you are not a follower of Jesus. The assertion that following Jesus requires being armed and ready to kill has no basis in Christian scripture or theology.

Christian teachings emphasize peace, love, and non-violence. Jesus himself taught the principle of ‘turning the other cheek’ and loving one’s enemies. When arrested, he told his disciple Peter to put away his sword, saying, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword’ (Matthew 26:52, NIV).

While there are a wide variety of perspectives among Christians on issues of self-defense and the morality of warfare, the core message of the Gospels is centered on peace and reconciliation, rather than armament and lethal force. Many Christian denominations and peace churches explicitly advocate for pacifism and non-resistance.”

 

[Matthias]

Meanwhile, back at the Colosseum in Rome -





There was a time when Christians would not dare to derisively say that they were ”Men in form not in substance.” The thought wouldn’t even have entered their minds.

“The oftener we are mowed down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.”

(Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 50)

Christian education is sorely needed.

 

[Matthias]

A person does not have to read this in order to be or to become a follower of Jesus, but doing so will protect a person from anyone who teaches ”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.“ A person so equipped can also help steer others away from the pernicious teacher.

”My people perish for lack of knowledge.”

(Hosea 4:6)

 

[Matthias]

Dirk Willems: Loving His Enemy to Death

Dirk Willems was born in a small village called Asperen, Netherlands, about 1540. He was an Anabaptist, believing in salvation through Jesus Christ and a public declaration of His Lordship through believer's baptism.He believed that the true church was composed of born-again believers, that...

www.bc4gc.org

“Men in form not in substance.”

If you are someone who thinks that is true, please read his story and think again.

 

[Wrangler]

The bolded teaching isn’t just wrong. It’s a lie. It comes from the devil, not from the Messiah.

Projecting. You admitted Jesus did not command us to buy a sword so it could collect dust. You keep saying one thing in theory but another in practice.

The bold teaching comes from the Messiah, implied is ”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.“ It's really the same with forgiveness and everything else; you have to be committed to do it in practice, not just theory.
”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t X, ready to Y.

X = giving resources to the poor
Y = sacrifice your life style

X = humble
Y = let go of ego.

X = praying to the Father
Y = know him to be saved

In contrast to Jesus command to buy a sword and give to government what is government's (like military service), there is not one verse where he said his followers should allow themselves to be victims, disarm or give their swords to their enemies as you imply with every post. This is the soulful perspective.

 

[Matthias]

Projecting. You admitted Jesus did not command us to buy a sword so it could collect dust. You keep saying one thing in theory but another in practice.

The bold teaching comes from the Messiah, implied is ”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.“ It's really the same with forgiveness and everything else; you have to be committed to do it in practice, not just theory.
”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t X, ready to Y.

X = giving resources to the poor
Y = sacrifice your life style

X = humble
Y = let go of ego.

X = praying to the Father
Y = know him to be saved

In contrast to Jesus command to buy a sword and give to government what is government's (like military service), there is not one verse where he said his followers should allow themselves to be victims, disarm or give their swords to their enemies as you imply with every post. This is the soulful perspective.

What do you know about feeding trolls?

 

[Wrangler]

Dirk Willems: Loving His Enemy to Death

Dirk Willems was born in a small village called Asperen, Netherlands, about 1540. He was an Anabaptist, believing in salvation through Jesus Christ and a public declaration of His Lordship through believer's baptism.He believed that the true church was composed of born-again believers, that...

www.bc4gc.org

“Men in form not in substance.”

If you are someone who thinks that is true, please read his story and think again.

Not really an answer to the questions at hand.

Tax the bad. Subsidize the good.

I look forward to my prayers being answered in reading your honest answers to these questions tomorrow:

1. What are the reasons FOR the Crusades?
2. What is your primary objection to the Crusades?
3. If attending to soulful, worldly and fleshy needs is inherently sinful, why is the Sabbath only 1 day/week?
4. What are we supposed to do the other 6 days of the week if only one day is reserved exclusively for spiritual matters?
5. Why do you not accuse Christ of having in his heart to kill people but do accuse me?
6. Is following Jesus commands to buy a sword (with the intent to use it for its intended purpose) and give to government what is the government sinful?
7. If killing people is inherently sinful, why did God command us to do justice, which always included killing people? See God’s judgement throughout the OT and Christ at Rev 19.
8. If killing people is inherently sinful, why is murder prohibited in the 10C while killing is not prohibited?
9. If killing people is inherently sinful, why is it the first order of business upon Christ’s return?
10. If killing people is inherently sinful, why will Christ ultimately condemn many to death in The Lake of Fire on Judgment Day, aka The Second Death?

Thank you for your attention in these matters.

 

[Wrangler]

What do you know about speaking to trolls?

More and more with each exchange with you.

 

[Matthias]

Not really an answer to the questions at hand.

It is a direct answer to your heart.

 

[Matthias]

More and more with each exchange with you.

“Not good to feed the troll.” - you

Executioners: “Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?”

Torquemada: “I just got back from the auto-da-fe.”

Executioners: “Auto-da-fe? What’s an auto-da-fe?”

Torquemada: “It’s what you oughtn’t to do but you do anyway.”

(History of the World, Part 1)

P.S.

For readers who might not be familiar, it’s from a movie.

 

[Matthias]

 

[JustMe]

You wanted in on this @JustMe. Is that teaching good or evil?

After some rest, I have to say that you seem to be on a personal mission or crusade of your own, no pun intended.

You often use moral absolutes in your statements, which can obscure the issues you want your audience to understand and may also frustrate them, as it appears you have lost patience and are now trying to force them into agreement. Just saying...

Regarding your earlier statement about Jesus, Paul, and the apostles not using the sword to kill, it is a very charged and extreme claim, serving as an emotional appeal to provoke fear and alarm. It suggests that any criticism or disagreement with your words brands someone as worthless, an imposter to God and His son.


So, why do you think Jesus and his followers did not use the sword to kill? Was there never a moment when it was necessary?

1. You are aware that there was a significant Roman presence at the time, especially in populated areas. Roman laws forbade certain actions, and ironically, the apostles had two swords, likely obtained secretly, making them outlaws by choice.

2. If one believes that the Father was present in Christ, who was the light of the world during his mission, then God's presence was also with the apostles, granting them both spiritual and physical protection. There was no need for hidden weapons.

3. If at least one apostle did acquire a sword, would Yeshua abandon him? I don't think so. He might have reprimanded or advised against it.

4. The early apostles likely carried protective items or weapons to defend themselves from wild animals during their travels as they spread the gospel to other lands and peoples. They were also endowed with the spirit of God, making them less reliant on weapons for protection.

 

[Matthias]

After some rest, I have to say that you seem to be on a personal mission or crusade of your own, no pun intended.

You often use moral absolutes in your statements, which can obscure the issues you want your audience to understand and may also frustrate them, as it appears you have lost patience and are now trying to force them into agreement. Just saying...

Regarding your earlier statement about Jesus, Paul, and the apostles not using the sword to kill, it is a very charged and extreme claim, serving as an emotional appeal to provoke fear and alarm. It suggests that any criticism or disagreement with your words brands someone as worthless, an imposter to God and His son.


So, why do you think Jesus and his followers did not use the sword to kill? Was there never a moment when it was necessary?

1. You are aware that there was a significant Roman presence at the time, especially in populated areas. Roman laws forbade certain actions, and ironically, the apostles had two swords, likely obtained secretly, making them outlaws by choice.

2. If one believes that the Father was present in Christ, who was the light of the world during his mission, then God's presence was also with the apostles, granting them both spiritual and physical protection. There was no need for hidden weapons.

3. If at least one apostle did acquire a sword, would Yeshua abandon him? I don't think so. He might have reprimanded or advised against it.

4. The early apostles likely carried protective items or weapons to defend themselves from wild animals during their travels as they spread the gospel to other lands and peoples. They were also endowed with the spirit of God, making them less reliant on weapons for protection.

All I want to know is if you agree or disagree with the teaching: ”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”

I don’t need you stand with me against him. What I need to know is if you stand with him.

 

[JustMe]

All I want to know is if you agree or disagree with the teaching: ”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”

I don’t need you stand with me against him. What I need to know is if you stand with him.

Of course one is not wearing a sword to just kill or to create an opportunity to kill with it. Who really does, except a warped insane individual.

Do you think that Wrangler believes other wise. I don't think so. Don't you think yo have made a mountain out of this subject already, and for what useful purpose? I don't see one.

 

[Matthias]

After some rest, I have to say that you seem to be on a personal mission or crusade of your own, no pun intended.

A mission, yes.

You often use moral absolutes in your statements, which can obscure the issues you want your audience to understand and may also frustrate them, as it appears you have lost patience and are now trying to force them into agreement. Just saying...

I haven’t lost patience with my audience. If I had, I wouldn’t have invested this much time on the matter. * Editing to add that I’ve invested this much time precisely because I am patient with my audience. *

I’m not trying to force anyone into agreement with me. Even if I could, I wouldn’t.

Regarding your earlier statement about Jesus, Paul, and the apostles not using the sword to kill, it is a very charged and extreme claim, serving as an emotional appeal to provoke fear and alarm.

It’s an appeal to the constraints of history. That’s not extreme. I do hope that what Wrangler is teaching provokes alarm in his readers. As you can see, it did in me. And I’m doing something about it, which is the point of responding to alarm.

What he is teaching as a requirement to be a genuine follower of Jesus is not what scripture teaches is required to be a genuine follower of Jesus. It’s Wrangler’s cult teaching.

It suggests that any criticism or disagreement with your words brands someone as worthless, an imposter to God and His son.

Regular readers of my posts will have seen me say that if someone isn’t persuaded by what I’ve written then they shouldn’t believe it.

I’ve strongly criticized and disagreed with Wrangler’s teaching. His teaching brands those who disagree with his teaching as not followers of Jesus and men in form not substance.

So, why do you think Jesus and his followers did not use the sword to kill?

I answered the question in my conversation with Wrangler. (It was not the time / season for them to kill their enemies.)

Was there never a moment when it was necessary?

I invite you to search the scriptures with me. Let’s see if we can locate such a moment.

1. You are aware that there was a significant Roman presence at the time, especially in populated areas. Roman laws forbade certain actions, and ironically, the apostles had two swords, likely obtained secretly, making them outlaws by choice.

2. If one believes that the Father was present in Christ, who was the light of the world during his mission, then God's presence was also with the apostles, granting them both spiritual and physical protection. There was no need for hidden weapons.

3. If at least one apostle did acquire a sword, would Yeshua abandon him? I don't think so. He might have reprimanded or advised against it.

4. The early apostles likely carried protective items or weapons to defend themselves from wild animals during their travels as they spread the gospel to other lands and peoples. They were also endowed with the spirit of God, making them less reliant on weapons for protection.