Reason for The Crusades explained

[Big Boy Johnson]

Is it wrong of me to follow Jesus overwhelming instructions for peace?

No, as long as you don't mind being taken over by islam or communism and these ideologies will murder Christians first when they come to power.

It's not sinful to defend one's self or nation from demonic ideologies that seek to destroy God's people.

Having said that, if you believe your conscience is telling you to be a pacifist that's not wrong either.
That's your conscience - - - But you do error in trying to force your conscience upon others.

the NT does NOT say those with weapons are in sin.

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36 is a verse where Jesus instructs His disciples to take provisions for their journey, emphasizing that if they do not have a sword, they should sell their cloak to buy one. This reflects a shift in their circumstances, indicating the need for preparedness in facing upcoming challenges including the need for self defense.

If one "lives" by the sword (any deadly weapon) this means the weapon is what they live by as in their faith and trust in weapons comes before the Lord which of course is idolatry. Trust the Lord first and foremost.

If it's a sin to have a deadly weapon then you are accusing Jesus of committing sin when He told them to get a sword the second time He sent His disciples out. (Luke 22:36). Accusing Jesus of sinful behavior ends badly.

And you would be saying Romans 13 is advocating sin for the "servant of God" who bares the sword

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Did you not understand that the content of the Book of Romans came from Jesus???

 

[Matthias]

You know more about it than I do,

Who is the first person or persons to fight in any Crusades, what date?

The First Crusade began in 1095 at the Council of Claremont. Pope Urban II was the head of the Catholic Church at the time. It ended in 1099.

The first persons to fight were knights, peasants, and serfs. They took part in what is known as the People’s Crusade. It was more like a vigilante mob than a disciplined military. They were led by a monk, but I don’t recall his name.

I’ve read about the Crusades but I’m not an expert on the subject.

P.S.

I looked it up. The monk’s name is Peter the Hermit.

If you want to read about it, here’s a link to the article I pulled up when I searched for his name -

First Crusade: People's Crusade

Strong in religious fervor but weak in leadership and discipline, the First Crusade got off to a wretched start.

www.historynet.com

 

[walter]

No, as long as you don't mind being taken over by islam or communism and these ideologies will murder Christians first when they come to power.

It's not sinful to defend one's self or nation from demonic ideologies that seek to destroy God's people.

Having said that, if you believe your conscience is telling you to be a pacifist that's not wrong either.
That's your conscience - - - But you do error in trying to force your conscience upon others.

the NT does NOT say those with weapons are in sin.

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36 is a verse where Jesus instructs His disciples to take provisions for their journey, emphasizing that if they do not have a sword, they should sell their cloak to buy one. This reflects a shift in their circumstances, indicating the need for preparedness in facing upcoming challenges including the need for self defense.

If one "lives" by the sword (any deadly weapon) this means the weapon is what they live by as in their faith and trust in weapons comes before the Lord which of course is idolatry. Trust the Lord first and foremost.

If it's a sin to have a deadly weapon then you are accusing Jesus of committing sin when He told them to get a sword the second time He sent His disciples out. (Luke 22:36). Accusing Jesus of sinful behavior ends badly.

And you would be saying Romans 13 is advocating sin for the "servant of God" who bares the sword

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Did you not understand that the content of the Book of Romans came from Jesus??? View attachment 76049

God's people, the Israelites, waited approximately 400 years in Egypt as prophesied to Abraham in Genesis 15:13, a period of slavery and mistreatment, before being liberated to inherit the Promised Land, a fulfillment delayed until the Amorites' wickedness was complete and the Israelites grew into a great nation. This long wait, part of God's plan for both judgment and nation-building. Didn't Jesus give instructions to his followers about persecution that Is coming?

Yes, absolutely! Just as God allowed a long, difficult wait for Israel in Egypt for His purposes (nation-building, judgment on Amorites), Jesus also warned His followers about soon-coming persecution (like the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) and gave specific guidance on how to endure, pray, and trust God's timing, showing His presence is with His people even in suffering, much like He was with Israel in Egypt.

 

[walter]

The First Crusade began in 1095 at the Council of Claremont. Pope Urban II was the head of the Catholic Church at the time. It ended in 1099.

The first persons to fight were knights, peasants, and serfs. They took part in what is known as the People’s Crusade. It was more like a vigilante mob than a disciplined military. They were led by a monk, but I don’t recall his name.

I’ve read about the Crusades but I’m not an expert on the subject.

P.S.

I looked it up. The monk’s name is Peter the Hermit.

If you want to read about it, here’s a link to the article I pulled up when I search for his name -

First Crusade: People's Crusade

Strong in religious fervor but weak in leadership and discipline, the First Crusade got off to a wretched start.

www.historynet.com

Why was there no crusades during the time the New Testament was written?

Why were there no crusades in the first two centuries?

 

[Matthias]

Why was there no crusades during the time the New Testament was written?

The Muslims weren’t invading the Roman Empire during the time the New Testament was written (A.D. 50 - 100).

Why were there no crusades in the first two centuries?

Muslim invasion didn’t begin until the 7th century. The Crusades were a response to Muslim invasion.

 

[walter]

The Muslims weren’t invading the Roman Empire during the time the New Testament was written (A.D. 50 - 100).

I was just trying to figure out if the Christians invaded against anybody in the first three centuries?

 

[Matthias]

I was just trying to figure out if the Christians invaded against anybody in the first three centuries?

They didn’t. They were persecuted by the Roman Empire during those centuries and didn’t arm to defend themselves from their enemies.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

This long wait, part of God's plan for both judgment and nation-building.

No, they were under bondage due to having departed from the Lord

It was not God's plan for them to stop walking with Him which caused them to get in to trouble.

 

[Matthias]

They didn’t. They were persecuted by the Roman Empire during those centuries and didn’t arm to defend themselves from their enemies.

“You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.” False teaching.

They were followers of Jesus. That fact should be enough to put an end to the false teaching.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.

So those that are not armed are going to burn in hell then?

I'd like to see scripture that specifically warns that not being armed is one of the things that cause people to not be allowed in to Heaven.

 

[Matthias]

So those that are not armed are going to burn in hell then?

You should put that question to @Wrangler. It’s his teaching.

I'd like to see scripture that specifically warns that not being armed is one of the things that cause people to not be allowed in to Heaven.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

You should put that question to @Wrangler. It’s his teaching.

Well, he's obviously trigger happy and is itching to take the life of another human being.

The authorities in his area need to be keeping an eye on this guy.

This is a situation where some are trying to force their personal convictions upon others.

Those that want to own guns can do so, and those that don't want to own guns can do so too.

There are no warnings in the NT that says those that don't own weapons and have an itchy trigger finger gleefully awaiting opportunity to taker the life of another human being is going to hell

It's a sign of a sick person that takes joy in the prospect of having to kill someone.

I'm thinking your buddy Wrangler is off the reservation over there

 

[walter]

No, they were under bondage due to having departed from the Lord

It was not God's plan for them to stop walking with Him which caused them to get in to trouble.

Yes I agree with you, they were under bondage due to having departed from the Lord.

Genesis 15:13
New American Standard Bible
Then God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.

But God did explain to Abram what was coming in the future, and I believe in numerous passages Jesus and his Disciples (guided by the Holy Spirit) offer prophetic teachings and warnings for believers about things that would happen in the future.

 

[Matthias]

Well, he's obviously trigger happy and is itching to take the life of another human being.

The authorities in his area need to be keeping an eye on this guy.

This is a situation where some are trying to force their personal convictions upon others.

Those that want to own guns can do so, and those that don't want to own guns can do so too.

There are no warnings in the NT that says those that don't own weapons and have an itchy trigger finger gleefully awaiting opportunity to taker the life of another human being is going to hell

It's a sign of a sick person that takes joy in the prospect of having to kill someone.

I'm thinking your buddy Wrangler is off the reservation over there View attachment 76052

I wasn’t able to persuade him to change his mind. I hope someone else might succeed where I didn’t. I’m writing now to persuade others, not him.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

But God did explain to Abram what was coming in the future

Just because the Lord tells what's going to happen in the future does not mean it's His will for it to happen.

Only those following the false doctrines of calvinism believe God causes everything that happens to happen and it's His will for all the evil that happens to happen.

They claim it's God's will for child molesters to rape children because the "god" they follow is actually the devil

I wasn’t able to persuade him to change his mind. I hope someone else might succeed where I didn’t. I’m writing now to persuade others, not him.

Yeah, it's hard to talk sense to the trigger happy people ya know.

 

[walter]

Just because the Lord tells what's going to happen in the future does not mean it's His will for it to happen.

I thought I already agreed with you on this point.

Only those following the false doctrines of calvinism believe God causes everything that happens to happen and it's His will for all the evil that happens to happen.

I agree

They claim it's God's will for child molesters to rape children because the "god" they follow is actually the devil

I agree

 

[walter]

..

What's your opinion Matthias on the next question and AI Overview answer here, do the words make sense?

How can we tell if Jesus is speaking plainly or figuratively when he was speaking about swords?

AI Overview

Telling if Jesus meant "sword" literally or figuratively involves
looking at the immediate context (Did disciples take it literally? Did Jesus stop them?), the broader biblical narrative (He preached peace, rebuked violence), the fulfillment of prophecy (He was numbered with transgressors), and the cultural setting (swords as tools/protection vs. war). Often, it signifies division and spiritual conflict (the "sword of the Spirit"), while sometimes indicating a grim reality of danger and fulfillment of prophecy, even with literal implements for a time.
Clues for Figurative Interpretation (Spiritual/Metaphorical)

• The "Sword of the Spirit": the Word of God is described as a two-edged sword that pierces to the heart (Hebrews 4:12).
• Division, Not Peace: Jesus's coming creates conflict between believers and unbelievers, separating families, as described in Matthew 10:34 ("not peace, but a sword").
• Jesus's Rebukes: He told Peter to "put your sword back in its place," showing he didn't condone violent self-defense (Matthew 26:52).

Clues for Literal Interpretation (Physical/Contextual)

• Prophecy Fulfillment: In Luke 22:36-38, Jesus says to buy swords so that scripture ("numbered with the transgressors") would be fulfilled, suggesting a literal, albeit temporary, need for them as symbols of His impending arrest.
• Changed Circumstances: After the Last Supper, Jesus indicates a shift: the disciples would need more provision (purse, bag, sword) for the perilous journey ahead.
• Cultural Tools: Swords (machaira) could also be short knives for utility (chopping wood, rope) or basic protection in the wilderness, not just weapons of war.

How to Decide

• Look at the Outcome: When disciples used literal swords (cutting the ear), Jesus stopped them and healed the injury, showing disapproval of violence.
• Consider the Author's Intent: Assume literal unless context demands metaphor, but be open to figurative meaning, especially when it aligns with broader themes like spiritual warfare or prophecy.
• Balance the Passages: The command to buy swords (Luke 22) seems to serve prophecy and reflect harsh realities, while the command to put them away (Matthew 26) confirms Jesus's non-violent stance for His followers.

 

[Matthias]

As I was thinking about your question, Matthew 25:40 came to mind.

”Then the king will answer them, ‘I‘m telling you the truth: when you did it to one of the least significant of my brothers and sisters here, you did it to me’” (NTFE).

The general principle is what I’m looking at in the passage: Something done to a follower of Jesus is considered something done to Jesus.

The context here is positive, a good thing is done to his followers. But what happens if we apply the general principle in a negative context, and a bad thing is done to his followers? If the good thing done to his followers is considered a good thing done to Jesus, wouldn’t a bad thing done to one of his followers be considered a bad thing done to Jesus?

Brothers and sisters of Jesus in one nation going to war against their fellow brothers and sisters of Jesus in another nation would result in them inflicting all of the cruelties of war on one another. Who would say that is a good thing? Isn’t it obviously a bad thing?

If (since?) it is a bad thing that is done to them, then it is a bad thing that is done to Jesus.

Followers of Jesus doing a bad thing to Jesus - think again for a moment of all of the bad things that are associated with war, then picture his followers doing that to Jesus - should be a horrifying thought to his followers, and something they should not be desiring to do. It should be something which his followers would refuse to do.

“He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”

(Micah 6:8, WEB)

Is it just, loving, and merciful for the brothers and sisters of Jesus in one nation to go to war against the brothers and sisters of Jesus in another nation?

Will you go to war against Jesus if “Caesar says” do it?

 

[rockytopva]

Saint Nicholas of Myra (Santa Claus) was from Turkey 800 years before the Crusades. It is sad not to see any more Christian Saints rising out of now Muslim Turkey after his time.

 

[walter]

“He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”

(Micah 6:8, WEB)

Is it just, loving, and merciful for the brothers and sisters of Jesus in one nation to go to war against the brothers and sisters of Jesus in another nation?

Will you go to war against Jesus if “Caesar says” do it?

Very good question, I would not go to war against brothers and sisters of Jesus in another Nation!