Reason for The Crusades explained

[Matthias]

“One of the earliest inquisitors, Conrad, already had an impressive resume after suppressing the Cathars in Innocent III’s Albigensian Crusade apearly in the thirteenth century. He had gained notoriety for the bloody massacres that occurred under his leadership. A few years later Gregory IX turned to Conrad to remove the Waldensian sect from parts of the Rhineland. With ruthless zealotry, Conrad, who accused the group of devil-worship, stalked the disciples of the sect. When other bishops complained to Pope Gregory that Conrad had coerced innocent people to confess under the threat of being burned at the stake, Gregory wholeheartedly defended Conrad. He was the right man for the hour.

Conrad was the first to hold the title of ‘Inquisitor into Heretical Depravity.’ He was a poster child for the formative Inquisition, the bridge between the Crusades and the Inquisitions, for he had a foot in either camp. While crusading fever was in decline and inquisitorial fervor was rising, Conrad imbued the developing movement with the principles and passion that had sustained the previous one. Yet, unlike the Crusades, which proved an utter failure, the Inquisitions would succeed against a helpless - though persistent - enemy.”

(Christian Jihad, p. 139)

This isn’t the way that Jesus and the apostles treated their enemies. This is the way your heroes treated their enemies @Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear

 

[Matthias]

Your denial of history is staggering.

Among other things, I’m a retired adjunct theology professor who has taught church history; not a denier of church history.

I’ve quoted standard works on church history on the forum for four years now. (You know that is true. So do many other members.) I’ve probably quoted more church history here than any other member in the history of Christianity Board. Whether I have or I haven’t, I don’t deny any of it.

I continue to read and study church history and, as anyone with eyes not closed tight can see, I’m continuing to immerse my readers in that history. That’s what I do.

@Armour of God he told a whopper and you bought it.

 

[Matthias]

“For two years Conrad combed the cities and countryside of Germany searching out the Waldensians with unabated pleasure. He enlisted Dominicans and Franciscans to assist in his endeavor, which they did without reservation. But Conrad did not waste his time with cumbersome trials, moving ahead with the swift and savage punishment he believed was deserving of such theological criminals. According to one author, ‘He burned heretics with such frenzy that contemporary chroniclers say that even the king and bishops of the Rhineland feared for their lives while he was at work.’

With Conrad’s absolute sovereignty, those in power had good reason to fear. In fact, Conrad did attempt, without success, to place guilt on one nobleman in paricular, Count Henry of Sayn. But in 1233, the council appropriated innocence to the count, a decision unacceptable to the inquisitor. His authority had been questioned and his supremacy was restrained. Seeking reprisal for the abuse of their beloved count, anonymous henchmen assassinated the inquisitor five days later. No trial was necessary.”

(Christian Jihad, pp. 139-140)

This isn’t a standard church history book that I’m quoting. I recommend that my readers confirm all that these Christian authors have said by checking the sources they used, as well as sources that they didn’t.

Study church history. Good, bad, ugly. Study all of it.

The crusader / inquisitor came to a miserable end. No more Conrad. But the infamy of Conrad lives on.

@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear there is so much more history of the crusaders and the inquisitors than what I have touched on. I don’t deny any of it. No one should.

 

[Matthias]

From my X / Twitter “Following” feed this evening -

https://x.com/drfrankturek/status/2053965875364118694?s=61

”Jesus was no warlord. Muhammad, of course, was.”

@Wrangler you expressed enthusiasm for warmongers / warmongering in this thread.

What is the difference, if any, in your mind between a warlord and a warmonger?

 

[Matthias]

It’s like you want Christians to suffer!

I woke up this morning with “suffering” on my mind. You mentioned on Saturday past that Spurgeon is one of your favorite Christian authors.

“Men will never become great in theology until they become great in suffering. Said Luther, ‘Affliction is the best book in my library.’” - C.H. Spurgeon

Spend a little time thinking about it.

***

Do I as a Christian pastor want people - Christian and / or non-Christian - to suffer? No. Your inuendo is just another of Satan’s fiery darts, and I’m properly equipped to handle it.

***

“Suffering” goes along with the subject of the Crusades (and the Inquisition). Muslims caused great suffering. Christians caused great suffering.

What does God do with and about suffering?

Does God cause suffering? | GotQuestions.org

Does God cause suffering? What is the difference between God causing suffering and God allowing suffering?

www.gotquestions.org

Food for thought.

 

[Wrangler]

Lovers of violence try to claim

Another Strawman/Personal Attack. No one is a lover of violence. Rather we soulful types acknowledge the needful actions that must be taken.

Lovers of locking people up.​

Lovers of putting dogs down.​

​

How about Lovers of laziness, cowardice, ungratefulness and disrespect try to claim Scripture does not command us to action and all we are supposed to do is sit around and oppose anyone from lifting a finger to make the world a better place but wait for God to do more for us than he already has?!

 

[Matthias]

No weapon of the world is needed for a follower of Jesus to do justice. Christian history proves it.

 

[Matthias]

Another Strawman/Personal Attack. No one is a lover of violence. Rather we soulful types acknowledge the needful actions that must be taken.

Lovers of locking people up.​

Lovers of putting dogs down.​

​

How about Lovers of laziness, cowardice, ungratefulness and disrespect try to claim Scripture does not command us to action and all we are supposed to do is sit around and oppose anyone from lifting a finger to make the world a better place but wait for God to do more for us than he already has?!

You’ve completely mischaracterized followers of Jesus who obey his teaching concerning how to treat our enemies.

 

[Matthias]

I’ve posted a link to this article before.

Pacifism Is Not Passivism | Issue 105 | Philosophy Now

Duane Cady tells us why pacifism isn’t sitting back and letting the masters of war have their way.

philosophynow.org

Giving @Wrangler the benefit of the doubt, he doesn’t understand the concept of pacifism, as he demonstrated once again in post #2006. He’s not alone, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

What harm is there in not understanding the concept? For one thing, it maligns the first three centuries of the Christian experience.

 

[Matthias]

I’ve posted a link to this article before.

Pacifism Is Not Passivism | Issue 105 | Philosophy Now

Duane Cady tells us why pacifism isn’t sitting back and letting the masters of war have their way.

philosophynow.org

Giving @Wrangler the benefit of the doubt, he doesn’t understand the concept of pacifism, as he demonstrated once again in post #2006. He’s not alone, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

What harm is there in not understanding the concept? For one thing, it maligns the first three centuries of the Christian experience.

At a minimum, read these …





… and we’ll be “armed, ready to discuss” very early Christian history.

 

[Matthias]

Another recommendation for my readers: Philip Schaff's, History of the Christian Church.



I haven’t read all eight volumes - my interest and attention being primarily occupied with and focused on the first four centuries - but I have read much of this work. It occupies a place of prominence in my personal library; an excellent standard work on the subject of Church history.

P.S.

The entire work is available to read online at no cost. See the link provided:

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*

If you‘re interested in reading and studying Church history - every Christian should be; not enough are - this work, though dated, is easy for most people to access. My hope is that more people will avail themselves of the opportunity.

Read widely. Read deeply. Read thoughtfully. Read critically.

A caveat. I always told my students, and the members of the congregation I pastored, that first and foremost in our reading, is regular daily reading of the Bible. That is the foundation of our history.

 

[Wrangler]

Read widely. Read deeply. Read thoughtfully. Read critically.

Amen

 

[Matthias]

It’s like you want Christians to suffer!

No retraction. No apology. No (hoped for) surprise.

Although I don’t agree with everything Spurgeon said, he nevertheless played a substantial role in the formation of my Christian identity - an identity which I voluntarily laid aside (temporarily, and only on this platform) as a gesture of peace, made almost four years ago, to those trinitarian members of Christianity Board who complained loudly and publicly in protest over me being allowed to become a member.

Once again drawing upon Church / Christian history - this time from the 19th century:

“Ah, brethren, if you have a little rough language to put up with, what is it, compared with what many of the Lord’s afflicted ones have to endure?” - C.H. Spurgeon

Point made. Point taken.

 

[Wrangler]

No weapon of the world is needed for a follower of Jesus to do justice. Christian history proves it.

Yea, that's why Christ told us to buy a sword - because we didn't need it!

 

[Matthias]

Yea, that's why Christ told us to buy a sword - because we didn't need it!

Two were enough for the entire group of disciples. Remember?

The purpose for them being armed was fully accomplished that evening. Right?

And then Jesus gave them further instruction about the sword. The early church understood this.

 

[Matthias]

From some online reading I’ve done today -

“Writing in his great defense of Christianity, Against Celsus (c. 248 AD), Origen declared that Christians ‘no longer take up the sword against nation, nor do we learn war anymore’ - a deliberate echo of Isaiah 2:4 - because they had become ‘sons of peace’ through Jesus Christ. Merton saw in Origen a Christianity shaped before empire, before the Church’s entanglement with political power, and before theology had to make its peace with armies. In that older witness, peace was not a private sentiment; it was woven into the Church’s very identity.

Origen was not alone in this witness. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Cyprian of Carthage all stand within a broad early Christian tradition that consistently and strongly leaned away from violence and military service. ...”

(Richard Putz, “Thomas Merton, Origen, and the Christian Case for Peace”)

Thomas Merton, Origen, and the Christian Case for Peace

See-Judge-Act. Understand our history to better Discern who we are today.

reflections.josephcardijn.com

@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear

I encourage everyone to confirm for themselves what the author wrote. Here’s one way, I would say the best way, to do it:



P.S.

I’m adding a link to a website (Early Christian Writings) which I’ve found to be useful:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Anchorite]

Christian martyrs did not defend themselves. They did not resist evil. The blood of the martyrs are the seeds of the church.

Not a single believer in Acts ever used a sword against those who were persecuting, stoning, whipping, imprisoning Christians. None of church epistles mentions any sword but the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.

When Jesus said buy a sword, then said two was enough, it was only for that time in the garden when the Roman soldiers came to arrest Jesus, so He would be reckoned among the transgressors.

Violence lovers know this, but they cling to “buy a sword” like they cling to their brutal video games, war stories, Crusader fantasies, and horror films.

 

[Matthias]

Yea, that's why Christ told us to buy a sword - because we didn't need it!

This is long. I’ll break it into two parts.

”The concept of preserving one’s own life, and especially the lives of our families, by preemptively killing a violent oppressor is commonly held today. In fact, any other reaction aside from preemptive killing one’s mortal enemies is considered unthinkable by many Christians today.

The most common scriptural defense of the right of Christian ‘self defense’ of one’s life, property, or country is rooted in an interesting comment made by Jesus on the final night of his life.

In an unusual phrase, Jesus urges his disciples:

’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.’” (Luke 22:36)

At first glance, this has one of the only New Testament verses commonly used to advocate violence and bloodshed by the condoning the use of weapons by Christians against their enemies.

SIDENOTE: It is interesting to note that all four gospels recount the sudden appearance of swords in the Garden of Gethsemane at the time of Jesus’ arrest. (Matt 26:47,51-52,55; Mark 14:43,47-48; Luke 22:36, 38, 49,52; John 18:10-11)

In this teaching, we examine this seemingly difficult passage.

Was Jesus calling his disciples to a life of violence and bloodshed after spending his entire ministry calling them to non-violence?

Did Jesus want His disciples to lead a violent revolt with these swords? If so, how could only two swords be enough to protect 12 men?

And if Jesus does want His followers to kill or maim with these swords? And does He still want us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek?

If Jesus wanted His disciples to carry and sword and use it in self-defense, why didn’t His disciples ever use those swords beyond the Garden of Gethsemane?

What is the truth about this verse?

Was Jesus calling His disciples to a life of violence and bloodshed after spending His ENTIRE ministry calling them to pick up their cross and follow Him in nonviolence?

Are the weapons of the Christ follower’s warfare carnal? (2 Cor. 10:4).

Did Christ die so that we might place our trust in carnal weapons?

In addition to these questions, there are many more tough questions for those who think Jesus gave blanket approval of taking up arms when he instructed His disciples to ‘buy a sword.’

Another important historical point about this passage is that it was a capital crime for civilians living under Roman occupation (like in Judea) to carry weapons. By telling His disciples to carry swords, he was encouraging them to violate the law of Caesar. But for what purpose? After all, when Peter actually tries to use the sword he is harshly rebuked. So, which is it?

Does the Prince of Peace ultimately desire His followers to carry weapons?

The clear biblical answer is NO. And my reason for believing this is found in Christ’s very own words made right after his ‘command’ to carry swords.

’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, we have two swords.” And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’” (Luke 22:37,38)

Jesus ordered His disciples to carry a sword for the fulfillment of the prophecy that He would be found in among transgressors. (Isa. 53:12)

Look no further. The answer is clear and concise. One has to blatantly avoid the context of this verse to not quickly discover what is occurring here. Clearly, Christ was acting in accordance with the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy as he commonly does throughout his life. Specifically, Isaiah 53:12 in reference to the coming Messiah.

‘Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.’

He specifically connects his instruction for His disciples to buy swords directly to an Old Testament prophecy about him being ‘numbered with the transgressors.’ …”

VIDEO TEACHING: Does Jesus Command His Followers To Carry A Sword?

In Part 1 of our teaching entitled, The Sword in the New Testament, we continue in our sweeping study of what the Bible has to say about the use of the sword as we turn our attention to the New Testament.

truerichesacademy.com

 

[Matthias]

Continuing with the teaching presented by Pastor Robinson (whom I’d never heard of and knew nothing at all about until this afternoon) begun in post #2018 -

“Put simply, when the officials came to arrest Jesus in Gethsemane, they happened upon an armed band of men hanging out in a grove of trees in the middle of the night. The two daggers among the 12 men were enough to make them suspect of a conspiracy to commit a crime.

In fact, Christ stresses this point of the appearance of Himself as being among transgressors (as if they were coming ‘out as against a thief with swords and staves’) at the time of His betrayal and arrest.

’In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.’ (Matt. 26:55,56)

This is a simple solution found right in the text itself. There is no need for any man to explain what Christ has said. With His disciples in possession of illicit weapons, they fulfilled the ancient prophecy.

It should be evident that Christ is not granting permission for 21st century Christians to purchase swords or firearms today as a form of self-defense in this text.

We conclude our teaching with these and many other tough questions that Christians should indeed wrestle with with, and answer, if they believe that Christ is calling them to carry a weapon and use it against their enemies.

Enjoy the teaching!”

VIDEO TEACHING: Does Jesus Command His Followers To Carry A Sword?

In Part 1 of our teaching entitled, The Sword in the New Testament, we continue in our sweeping study of what the Bible has to say about the use of the sword as we turn our attention to the New Testament.

truerichesacademy.com

 

[Wrangler]

Christian martyrs did not defend themselves.

Untrue as there were plenty of Christian Crusaders who got martyered.