Reason for The Crusades explained

[Wrangler]

My sympathy isn’t with the wrong group.

“… overcome evil with good.”

Your sympathy is with the wrong group as the Crusades were good and they overcame evil.

 

[Wrangler]

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

Because you've repeated that so often, please make sure it's on my tombstone. Thanks!

 

[Wrangler]

Fight the Messiah’s war in the Messiah’s way in the Messiah’s seasons ... The most resistance I ever received in response to a sermon I gave was to a sermon on the imprecatory psalms. The men in the congregation were divided and the women in the congregation were disturbed (not at the men; at the thought that sermon applied to them).

Guess what? Were not in the Messiah's season(s). And neither were the Crusaders.

 

[Wrangler]

You continue to show that you don’t know how to act in season and out of season. You aren’t imitating Paul; you’re imitating the world.

Yea, right! Projecting you are. There is a season to kill. And a season for war. The over-spiritualized want to pretend its all kum-ba-ya time.

 

[Matthias]

What makes me think earliest followers of Jesus were unable to arm? Because they were subject not citizens. Again, (illegal) exceptions don't make (legal) rules.

You don’t think that stopped Peter and all of the other disciples in AD 30.

"Well documented history." You cannot make a claim to support another claim.

That’s ridiculous.

This is what you do; evidence is not your burden. Just assert theoretical notions.

I’m not asserting theoretical notions. The evidence is the historical writings which document how they lived.

"Violence, Christian violence, is the topic of this thread." The reasons FOR this violence has not been explained by you despite having superior knowledge.

It has been explained by me and by others.

P.S.

I recommend reading the extant Christian and non-Christian writings of the time period attesting to how the earliest Christians lived, as well as reading the writings of Christian and non-Christian historians reflecting on that period. First and foremost, I recommend reading the Bible.

 

[Matthias]

Your sympathy is with the wrong group as the Crusades were good and they overcame evil.

You know war is bad, you know the Crusaders committed atrocities, you know the Crusaders killed Christians, Muslims and Jews, you know the Crusaders killed non-combatants, and you should know that the Crusaders would have killed you.

The Crusaders didn’t overcome evil. They tried to overcome evil with evil, and so are you.

 

[Matthias]

Because you've repeated that so often, please make sure it's on my tombstone. Thanks!

That’s your family’s responsibility. It’s fitting, and you should be remembered for what you promoted.

When your family members visit your grave, I hope they‘ll remember Jesus, the apostles and the Christians who imitated / copied them and see the wisdom of copying them rather than copying you.

 

[Matthias]

Guess what?

I don’t have to guess.

Were not in the Messiah's season(s). And neither were the Crusaders.

Wowzer.

 

[Matthias]

Yea, right! Projecting you are.

Then please show us where you find Paul, after his conversion, using the weapons of the world (which he explicitly says “we” do not do) to kill his enemies.

There is a season to kill. And a season for war.

I‘ve said multiple times that is true. (I’m thinking now what Jesus said to his enemies, “Why do you not hear me?”)

The over-spiritualized want to pretend its all kum-ba-ya time.

The Messiah, the apostles, and the early church were heavily persecuted. All who belong to Jesus will be persecuted by the world. That’s reality.

 

[Matthias]

“There will no longer be any curse”

(Revelation 22:3)

”... herem is therefore used in Zech 14:11 as a metaphor for a genocidal form of war that intends nothing less than the complete slaughter and destruction of the enemy (see Isa 34:2; Jer 31:40), and the promise that it will never again occur is couched in the covenantal promise language of Gen 9:11. Therefore it appears that katathema is the author’s way of interpreting herem. Thus the word refers not generally to curses, accursed things, or persons, but specifically to the promise that ‘the curse of war’ will no longer exist.”

(David E. Aune, Word Biblical Commentary, Revelation 17-22, Vol. 52C, p. 1179)

I quoted this commentary to support what I see in scripture. No one has come forward to explain why what the trinitarian (Lutheran) commentator and I see here is mistaken. I would appreciate it if someone who thinks it is mistaken would explain their objection for me.

 

[Wrangler]

It has been explained by me and by others.

Not sure if you are consciously aware of your tactic to avoid answering questions; pretend you already did answer it and keep repeating that you answered it rather than actually answer it.

 

[Matthias]

For the second time today, AI offered me an overview; this time when I used a search engine for “The atrocities of the Crusaders” -

“The Crusades were marked by numerous atrocities, involving massacres, pillaging, and other brutal acts committed against Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Christians. These acts were widespread and occurred throughout the different crusading expeditions, often driven by religious zeal, a desire for plunder, and supply shortages.

Key atrocities include:

Massacres of Jewish communities: During the First Crusade, Crusader mobs massacred entire Jewish communities in the Rhineland cities of Speyer, Worms, and Mainz in 1096. Historians estimate as many as 10,000 Jews in Europe died during this wave of violence.

The Siege and Sack of Jerusalem (1099): After capturing Jerusalem, the Crusaders engaged in brutal massacre of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants, with chroniclers describing piles of heads, hands, and feet in the streets. Estimates of the combined dead range in the thousands.

Cannibalism: Following the siege of Ma’arra in 1098, some starving Crusaders resorted to cannibalizing the bodies of dead Muslims. Reports of this barbarity were used as a weapon of psychological warfare to terrify other Muslim garrisons into surrender.

Massacres of fellow Christians: The Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) notoriously diverted its path to attack and sack the Orthodox Christian city of Constantinople. The Crusaders looted churches, destroyed holy relics, raped women, and killed thousands of Christians, actions that appalled even the Pope and permanently damaged relations between the Eastern and Western Churches.

The Albigensian Crusade (1209): Pipe Innocent III launched a crusade against the Cathar heretics in Southern France, which resulted in the massacre of thousands of men, women, and children with little regard for whether they were actual heretics or loyal Catholics. A papal legate at the siege of Beziers allegedly ordered, ‘Kill them all, God knows his own’.

Massacre of Prisoners of War: During the Third Crusade, after taking the city of Acre in 1191, King Richard I ordered the execution of approximately 2,700 Muslim prisoners, including women and children, after a ransom deal fell through.

General Brutality: Beyond large-scale massacres, the Crusades were characterized by constant, widespread violence, including torture, mutilation of captives, and indiscriminate pillaging of civilian populations for supplies.

These atrocities contributed to a legacy of distrust and hostility between the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish worlds that persists to some extent today.”

“Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what you approve.”

(Romans 14:22, NRSVA)

Please read again this brief account of what the Crusaders did. If you approve them, are you condemning yourself?

 

[Wrangler]

You don’t think that stopped Peter and all of the other disciples in AD 30.

Moving the Goal posts. This is how I know you are not serious about what we are discussing. The topic is NOT whether something stopped Peter and all of the other disciples in AD 30 - even though you are desperate for that to be the topic.

This thread is about the reasons FOR the Crusades. Seems you are on a crusade not to talk about that.

 

[Wrangler]

Then please show us where you find Paul, after his conversion, using the weapons of the world

LOL I'm showing you were the Crusaders used the weapons of the world to achieve justice in their time.

 

[Matthias]

Not sure if you are consciously aware of your tactic to avoid answering questions; pretend you already did answer it and keep repeating that you answered it rather than actually answer it.

I’m sure that when I’ve given a direct answer to a question that you persist in saying that my direct answer is not a direct answer. You’re unstable in your ways.

 

[Wrangler]

I‘ve said multiple times that is true.

Yes but what you imply is its only theoretically a time to kill but never in practice. Otherwise, we'd be in complete accord.

 

[Wrangler]

The Messiah, the apostles, and the early church were heavily persecuted. All who belong to Jesus will be persecuted by the world. That’s reality.

Paranoia. Explain how this "reality" supports the reasons FOR the Crusades?

 

[Matthias]

Moving the Goal posts. This is how I know you are not serious about what we are discussing. The topic is NOT whether something stopped Peter and all of the other disciples in AD 30 - even though you are desperate for that to be the topic.

We were speaking about the early church. They didn’t arm themselves and they didn’t kill their enemies. You introduced the possibility that they couldn’t purchase weapons, something which is demonstrably untrue.

This thread is about the reasons FOR the Crusades. Seems you are on a crusade not to talk about that.

I’ve already pointed out several times that the reasons for the Crusades have already been provided by the OP, as well as others. I’ve spoken about what the Muslims did and about what the Crusaders did.

 

[Matthias]

Yes …

That’s true.

… but what you imply is its only theoretically a time to kill but never in practice.

That’s false.

Otherwise, we'd be in complete accord.

No we wouldn’t, as can be seen in this thread.

 

[Wrangler]

I’m sure that when I’ve given a direct answer to a question that you persist in saying that my direct answer is not a direct answer. You’re unstable in your ways.

Not even a little bit. A non-response reply is not an answer. You post many replies while side stepping the Scriptural and historicial evidence for Christian's pursuing justice in this world an in their time.

1. No comment to buy a sword in Luke 22 (to use for purpose intended; to kill)?
2. No understanding in giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, such as be drafted into military service and perform other duties, like vote?
3. No following Christ's lead in returning to destroy his enemies as the first order of business?
4. No following Christ's lead in killing all his enemies in the 2nd Death as the ultimate and eternal act of justice?