click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Four Misconceptions about the Crusades: #1 The Crusades Were Not Provoked
by C Michael PattonJanuary 16th, 2013
76 Comments
It is very popular to have a completely negative view of the Christian Crusades that took place between 1095 and 1291. In fact, I have often heard people apologize for them. Why? I am coming to believe that there is a significant amount of revisionist history going on that has poisoned the well. In fact, until recently, I also bought into this tainted way of looking at them.
Over a few blogs, I am going to briefly give four misconceptions about the Crusade that I hope will add some perspective.
Misconception 1: The Crusades were not provoked
Often people will say that the Christian Crusades had no external reasoning behind them. In this, there is no blame that can be placed on the “peaceful” Islamic dynasties which were the innocent victims of ruthless Christians coming from the West.
However, any look at the preceding six hundred years of history will show that this idea cannot be sustained in any way. Notice the progression maps I have created to show a snapshot of world events:
Muslims had been on a conquest of the Eastern world for over five hundred years. Two-thirds of the formerly Christian lands were now ruled by Muslims. Muslim pirate camps were set up all over, threatening the East and the West. They were threatening southern France and Italy, coming as far as the island of Sicily. In 1009, a mentally deranged Muslim ruler, Abu ‘Ali Mansur, destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and ordered the destruction or confiscation of 30,000 churches. A Muslim Seljuk Sultan set up a capital in Nicaea, the site of the first great ecumenical Christian council in 325, just 125 miles from Constantinople.
Is it any wonder that Alexis I, Patriarch of Constantinople, called on Pope Urban II in Rome for help? Is it any wonder that Urban responded by calling on the West to come to the aid of their brothers and sisters in the East, who had long suffered the aggressive tyranny of Islamic invaders?
Far from being unprovoked, the call for the Crusades was one of the most just calls for war in all of history.
God’s Battalions is a great book on the Crusades. Get it.
Similar Posts:
- Four Misconceptions About the Crusades: #2 The Crusaders Were Greedy Opportunists
- Four Misconceptions About the Crusades: #3 The Travesty of the Fourth Crusade
- Why I Think the Christian Crusades were Necessary
- Seven Historical Events that Prepared the Way for the Reformation
- Finding Trustworthy Scholars
76 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Thanks for the intriguing post; I look forward to the rest. I was wondering were the maps came from and what sources were utilized for your in-text data. I am not a skeptic to this information by any means–far from it. I have held similar views on the revisionism that has taken place myself.
This being the case, I would like to speak intelligently with this data and I believe that doing so would require sources from bonafide, objective (as far as one can be!) scholars. I did see that God’s Battalion was mentioned as reading material, which I will purchase. Perhaps this information has been mined from that source(?). Regardless, I look forward to your next few posts on the matter.
~rpc
Like or Dislike:
0
This is not necessarily my argument, but there are still those who disagree with the contention you offer. They argue that the battle a Poitiers in 732 actually signaled the end of Muslim expansion. The crusades started 300+ years after Poitiers, so it’s hard to argue they were a response to a threat, which had been diminishing for 300 years.
Like or Dislike:
0
Phil, If you really believe it ended in 732 you have your head in the sand. That is part of the revisionist history story not real history. That is the point of this article.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rory,
Here is a good place to go for some maps: http://domin.dom.edu/faculty/dperry/hist276fall/calendar/islam/classplan.htm.
Although I just found these, they are representative of most resources out there.
Concerning the Seljuk Muslim empiire and their further expansions and atroucities which lead to the crusades, there is a lot of into out there. Just Google Seljuk and you will see some stuff.
One really good place to look (and a primary resource) is Urban II’s speach at Clarmout. It is easy to read and very informative. It can be found here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html
One more great place to go for primary resources on the crusades is here: http://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Crusades-Penguin-Classics-Joinville/dp/0140449981/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358436200&sr=1-12&keywords=Christian+crusades
And you can get it on Kindle too!!
I don’t stand behind every detail of these maps…I have come to find out that map-making is an increadibly difficult (and sometimes subjective) task. However, the general thrust of what is being communicated seems to be on par with all the historic material out there.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m glad you are covering this. The crusades are often cited as Exhibit A for Christian bad behavior and the “obvious” evils of religion. The reality is far more complex and friendly to the Christian side than is popularly portrayed. In my opinion out of the 8 official Crusades there are really only two battles (note battles, as in only part of a crusade) that stand out as egregious bad behavior on the part of Christians. The first is the sack of Jerusalem in the 1st crusade. The second is the sack of Constantinople in the 4th crusade.
My favorite resource for understanding the Crusades is a course by the teaching company. If you want to purchase it, wait for it to come on sale.
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=390
Like or Dislike:
1
Having fought literally against Radical Muslims in Islam (Gulf War 1, and a bit after…myself as a Royal Marine) they will lead the way against Modern Israel, this is simply a no brainer, if we read our OT Bible, and “believe” it! (Zech. 14)
This is no High-Tower or mere historical and academic subject, the West had better wake-up… the precursors of the Day of the Lord are right in our face!
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, thanks for the post. I agree that history, like the present, certainly can’t be painted in simplistic terms. That said, I’m one of those Christians who apologize readily for the Crusades — at least aspects of them. I haven’t read thorough histories of the Crusades, so I’m looking forward to considering the aspects you’ll address in these posts.
I have read a bit of history, however, and one aspect that I know well is the series of atrocities committed against the Jewish people. As the crusaders marched toward the Middle East, they regularly massacred Jews who refused to be baptized. In a now infamous event, crusaders also burned all the Jews in Jerusalem alive in their synagogue while singing “Christ We Adore Thee.” These nauseating warnings against Christianity are imprinted on any Jewish person who knows anything of their history. I consider these events worthy of my apologies as man who calls himself “Christian” and considers the Jews beloved as Paul did.
To be clear, I’m not assuming you’d disagree; just adding an important note.
A few sources:
http://tinyurl.com/ba6dbze
http://tinyurl.com/bzjmekb
Thanks for the work you guys do. I’m looking forward to what you have to say in your other posts. Blessings!
Like or Dislike:
0
Although I am not necessarily going to be dealing with each of the issues of autrocities on both sides of the war(s)—and every war has its stories—those works sited are not about the Crusades, from what I can see, but are probably drawing on the same limited accounts that the usual revisionists draw upon. God’s Battalions is a very good source that deals with the invasion of Jerusalem during the first Crusade and helps gain a lot of perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks; I understand these events aren’t your focus.
Out of curiosity, I tried to find these events in God’s Battalions. While Stark certainly adds nuance, he describes the same events. For anyone interested, this is a link to a few key passages: http://tinyurl.com/byqph4v
Like or Dislike:
0
Eagerly anticipating your maps of North America 300 years ago accompanied by your ruminations about how this should impact our present foreign policy with respect to Mexico.
Like or Dislike:
0
Stair,
This is only about the Crusades my friend.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Four Misconceptions about the Crusades: #1 The Crusades Were Not Provoked [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Thomas Madden is a good read on the crusades. Here is an article he did in Christianity Today back in 2005
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/mayweb-only/52.0.html
Here is his Amazon.com page with several of his books
http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-F.-Madden/e/B001ILM9UE
Like or Dislike:
0
I think the main grief over the Crusades isn’t exactly over the first couple of Crusades, even though there was a massacre at Jerusalem (whether it was done according to the custom of the time or not).
Rather, the main problem is how the “Holy War” became so protracted and corrupted, that children were sent and sold into slavery, and a Christian Constantinople was raided and burned by the equally Christian crusaders.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi folks, it seems I’ve learned something quite new thanks to your blog:
” Muslims had been on a conquest of the EASTERN world for over five-hundred years.”
I never knew that at this time of history Muslim invaders were taking over China, Mongolia and Vietnam and so forth.
I likely slept too much in high school!
As an European attached to his culture the maps you show just break my heart.
But the iniquities of some or many Muslims by no means justify the iniquities of many Christians against them.
Like or Dislike:
0
Is the book the source for these articles? Is the book what I should buy if I am looking for a more detailed coverage of this article?
Like or Dislike:
0
I would say Stark isn’t a bad place to start. But if you are looking for more I would suggest Thomas Madden (as previously noted) and Jonathan Riley-Smith, who is one of the top crusader historians (in my opinion).
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Four Misconceptions about the Crusades: #1 The Crusades Were Not Provoked [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
Hi !!
No one seems to mention that the spread of Islam was due to “Christianity’s self-inflicted wound” – the Doctrine of the Trinity.
The doctrine was a ‘sitting duck’ for Mohammed -who was a monophysite
And it (the doctrine) still is!
What a dreadful shame!
You talk about Islam being propogated by the sword – well, so was Trinitarian thinking until quite recently.!!
To make matters worse it is not supported by logic or the scriptures.
No-one can tell me that explicit verses like-
John 20v17
Matthew 16vv 15-17
are overshadowed by the ‘fuzzy’ scriptures offered by Trinitarian apologists in defence of their doctrine!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
I am always amazed by the ignorance and unbelief of the anti-Trinitarians, especially those who sit in some place of Christendom! Note even the Swedenborgians, who do believe that Jesus Christ as the manifestation to degree of the eternal and invisible God, but miss the Triune nature of God in the Trinity of God. We cannot but note the godhead or lack thereof of Gnosticism. Which is still with us!
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert
Your comments are meaningless!
Attacking Gnosticism is a cheap shot- the easy way out!The Roman Catholics can appeal to the writings of the early church fathers to support their doctrine.
Protestants are ‘welded’ to ‘sola scripture’ – and regrettably for them, there are no supporting scriptures.!
Christs own words prove there is no trinity.
Of course they were only spoken in his human mode!
Best
JohnB
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry John, but both history and orthodoxy are quite against you! And you might consider that YOU might be the one heterodox, and even in heresy? Nothing “cheap” here but error!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Fr. Robert,
The’golden thread’ of Christ’s teaching has managed to carry on throughout history IN SPITE OF the institutions and doctrines you have tried to smother it with.
I really don’t care for tradition – only truth.
Our sermon at church this a.m.was on Hebrews Chapter 1.
Only a few of us understood that if Christ was elevated higher than the angels -that means that he is not God!
Only a few understood that verses 5- 13 were typological rather than ‘literal’.
I despair for humanity!
Maybe one day humankind will ‘come out of the nursery’
and embrace Christs teachings in their glorious simplicity!
My pastor friends say “What would we preach about if we did this”?
We need a behavioural scientist -not a theologian, to explain how the trinity has been sustained over all the years!
Blessings
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
@John B: The doctrine of the historical Church is always so important! (1 Tim. 3: 15-16) No doubt it is also here that you are missing the mark! And sorry mate, but ya cannot escape “Tradition and Truth”, for the true Church is always historical, note as verse 15, “the pillar and support of the truth.” And even the Reformation and Reformed doctrine of the Sola Scriptura has a historical connection, which somewhat came out of the debate in the medieval theology, itself. But of course it is based upon God’s own Revelation! The Triune God (One in Three/Three in One) and His Word will always renew and reform HIS Church! (John 15: 26/ 1 Peter 1:2 / Eph. 2: 18 / 2 Cor. 13:14)
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Fr. Robert
Asking me to respect the historical church is a bit difficult.
My wife’s ancestors were presecuted and had to flee Europe -their only sin was to ask for the post-reformation church to go back to a ‘zero-base’ and put aside the detritus which had built up over almost 1 500 years.
Those who didn’t flee were murdered by Protestants!
What encourages me is that we Protestants tend to pay lip-service to the Trinity – but our form of worship is primarily Unitarian.
We pray to the Father, as requested by the Son
We know in our hearts that the one true God is always the Father – and vice versa (excludes ‘god’ or ‘gods’)
We know that the Father is NOT the Son
So by a process of logic we determine that the Son is NOT God
Reverting to 1 Tim 3 vv15 & 16
I have no problem with Christ, appearing in human flesh, vindicated by the Holy Spirit
However verse 16 is often misrepresented.
Consider the KJV translation
” God was manifest in the flesh…” (TR strikes again)
The RSV puts it another way
“he who was manifest in the flesh..”
The Greek text omits the word “God’ and the footnote to the verse in the NAB Bible is most instructive
The word ‘God’ was inserted into later (eighth and ninth century)Byzantine texts -’probably for theological reasons’ Their words, not mine.
I have no problems with John 15v26 and wholeheartedly agree that if we listen to the ‘still small voice’ the Spirit will guide us to the truth. The problem is that it is ‘drowned out’ by ‘tradition’ , power considerations, peer-pressure etc.
Regarding Doxological type statements I have no problem- a Unitarian can subscribe to F,S & H.S. being joined together in a sentence.
Regarding 2 Cor 13 v 13. I have no problem, but note something interesting… if one believes in a tri-une God the references to Christ and Holy Spirit become redundant!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
@John B : Indeed the Historical Church is “difficult” for a Unitarian, and on every level really! And I forgot to mention the text of Heb. 1: 8, this verse alone wipes-out the Unitarian position, and exalts the deity of the Sonship of Christ! And “eternal Sonship”!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Fr. Robert
One day, in the second century, an unknown man was inspired to write about Christ -his life, death, resurrection.
He had available to him everything that was then available ‘in the public domain’. No evidence of more than that
In Hebrews 1 he SURMISED what Christ’s arrival in heaven must have been like.
HE must have received a royal welcome.
He must have been seated on Gods right hand.
Because HE was NOT GOD He must have been elevated- “higher than the angels’!
What words can the writer use?
He would have used imagery and analogies familiar to him at the time.
The Book of Psalms provided ‘fertile’ material.
In this book the Davidic Kings , at enthronement were
(i) Crowned
(ii)Made Gods adoptive sons
(iii)Ordained as priests.
The writer SURMISED that these must be the TYPE OF words with which Christ would have been greeted in heaven.
Verses (8) and (9) reflect Psalm 45 – and the marriage of the Davidic King to the Princess of Tyre. Wonderful words – but of course you must .stop short of Ps 45 v 10 “the daughters of kings are your lovely wives’(NAB) the KJV uses the words ‘honourable women’
By the way the word ‘god’ in verse 8 is in the lower case
and was used to describe judges, princes, kings etc.
Note how the word ‘God’has been capitalised in Hebrews!
Desperate Trinitarians will go to any lengths to justify their doctrine.
There are NO trinitarian proof verses.
There are NO ‘models’ which ‘work’
There are NO analogies
to support the Trinity for the very good reason that it is NOT TRUE,
So sorry!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
@John B: Sorry mate but it too obvious that you are not seeling truth, but your own suppositions in the grave error of Unitarianism. The Historical Church Catholic has been and is Trinitarian! Since you are just seeking and speaking ad hoc, and to your ideas, I will just state the historic position of the Church Catholic (Universal). My last word!
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert,
So thats it! Words and logic have no meaning!
You have no answers except ‘tradition’!Maybe one day you will have courage to face the truth head-on!
Best Wishes
JohnB
Like or Dislike:
0
Your funny John! YOU would not know the truth if it fell on you! For you already don’t believe the Word of God! Let’s see where do we start? How about John 1: 14, “And the Word (God, verse 1, “the Logos”) became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten (as of an only One) ‘from the Father’, full of grace and truth.” Indeed here the doctrine of the “Incarnation”, itself.. God, the Logos & the Son, becomes enfleshed! See too John 1: 18, and the MSS, “God, the only begotten” – ‘an only one God’!
“The announcement of the mystery of the Incarnation, embracing and completing all the mysteries of revelation, corresponds (as has been already noticed) to the declaration of the absolute Being of the Word in v. 1. “He was God; ” and “He became flesh:” eternity and time, the divine and the human, are reconciled in Him. “He was with God;” and “He tabernacled among us:” the divine existence is brought into vital and historical connection with human life. “He was in the beginning;” and “we beheld His glory: He who “was” beyond time was revealed for a space to the observation of men.” (B.F. Wescott, The Gospel According To St. John, 1881)
Indeed this great doctrine of the Divine Incarnation of Christ, is seen and connected to the Gospel of John, and the Letters and Epistles of 1 and 2 John… 1 John 1:1-3 ; 2: 18-23 ; 4: 1-3 / 2 John 7-11. And of course this great doctrine is Apostolic and just revelational in the Church of God!
If you ARE a true Christian? You “will” simply but profoundly bend you knees here!
Sorry mate, I cannot treat you as a brother, if you deny the great Incarnation of God In Christ! (2 John 7-9, etc.)
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear Fr. Robert
Great to hear from you!
I shall respond in reverse order to the points you raise.
(you’ll say I’ve got it all backwards hee hee!!)
2 John vv 7-9 If you read the context you will discover that these were written in response to the great heresy at the time – it was called docetism, and denied that Christ was fully human.
1 John 4 vv 1-3. Again this is a direct response to Docetism. I have no problem here because I believe that “The Word’ became flesh.
1 John 2v18-Again I have no problem
1 John 1 vv 1-3 Again I am fully on board -our fellowship is with the Father and Jesus Christ. God IS the Father.
Now – Back to John Chapter One
Why do you think that the scriptures do NOT say “In the beginning was God, and God was with God and the God was God”?
Because the Word is NOT God.
The NAB Bible makes the following comment
The LOGOS combines-
(i) God’s creative, dynamic word (Genesis)
In Genesis 1 vv 3,6,9,11,14,20&24 begin with
“and God said”. In other words it was by Gods
spoken word that the heavens and the earth
were created.
AND
(ii) Personnified Word/Wisdom as an instrument of
Gods creative activity or ‘self manifestation’ (see
Proverbs, Book of )Wisdom)
AS the ultimate intelligible reality.
SO it was NOT God who became incarnate -but God’s WORD
Christ is the incarnation of this ‘Word/Wisdom.
“Word /Wisdom is NOT a being dependant on God !
To make sure that people don’t get it wrong, verse 18 tells us that ‘no-one has seen God’
And to make sure that no-one misunderstands John, he summarises his mission in John 20v31 “but these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God”
In spite of all the ‘flags’ the. blundered right into ‘it’
Talking about ‘it’ -all the early Protestant Bibles (Before the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible 1582) render John 1v2 as “IT was with God in the…
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert
So sorry – space ran out!!
To continue …. “IT was with God in the beginning”
Tyndale Bible 1534
Great Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1568
Biships Bible 1568
many more!
After 1582 Protestant Bibles followed Douay-Rheims.
NO DOUBT THEOLOGICALLY MOTIVATED!
Must say farewell old friend!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow, heresy and heretic’s always just butcher the “Word”! One must simply call it the way it is!
Again, I think of old John the Apostle with the heretic Cerinthus, John would just have none of it, or him! And note most of the older heresy here was a mix of Ebionitism and Gnosticism, some form of Adoption for both Jesus becoming Christ, as for the Gnostics, themselves.
“In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (face to face), and God was the Word.” (John 1: 1)… of course the Word here is the Eternal Logos!)
And in verse 2, not “it”, but..”This One was in [the] beginning with God (again it is face to face), both the eternal Logos and the Son – face to face with God the Father! Indeed the Trinity of God: Father, Son & “Spirit”, the Breath and life of God, between the Father and the Son, in truth and love! (2 John 1: 3)
And btw, the “Johannine” Trinity, is the Greek form, “trias” – used first by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180).
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr Robert
You skate over scriptures with great facility, but consider-
-you quote 2 John 1 v3 as if it supports a trinitarian position “… God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Fathers Son, in grace and truth”
Remember if God is the Father
if the Father is NOT the Son
THEN the Son is not God (draw the logic diagram)
Yes absolutely God is the Father and Christ is the Fathers son -
Umpteen verses say so . Crisp and clear statements by Christ himself and Peter and Paul – and you still argue with me about words like LOGOS that are capable of a hundred interpretations (I think Wikipedia said there
81 -but whatever!)
Compare the crisp statement’ God the Father and Christ his son’
with the fuzzy and arguable verses. Look at the gymnastics employed by desperate trinitarians to argue the ‘fuzzy’ stuff.!!!
If you are Robert Trinitarian and your father is John Trinitarian, the one thing you are definitely NOT is John Trinitarian.
You just ignore distinct verses like John 20 v31 where the mission is summarised.
..and the myriad of clear scriptures like John 20v17.
You ignore the fact that with the exception of ‘god’ or ‘gods’, God always refers to The Father and the Father always refers to God
If Christ had announced that he was God -even as late as Pentecost, this would have been the most astonishing event in history and the Bible would not have ben written as it was.
The fact that this ‘thing’ persists is not something positive – it is a poor reflection on our human nature !
Very best wishes
John
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: I note that you don’t use the Trinitarian creeds or defintions themselves, by “definition” yourself. But just skew your OWN ideas and statements, therein. This is simply not just or true in any Trinitarian debate! And you have not even taken a try at the Greek (in translation) of John 1: 1 and 2, as I have. So you can see why I cannot take you really serious, I hope? I guess you are some kind of monarchist, though more with some kind of adoptionist ideas? Btw, for those that are serious readers, I would recommend J.N.D. Kelly’s classic book here: Early Christian Doctrines, he certainly covers the whole genesis of Christian doctrine from the close of the first century to the fifth century, from Nicaea to Chalcedon, ending with Christ’s Mystical Body and the tension of Christian Eschatology. And of course “the kingdom of the Son of His (God the Fathers) love.” (Col. 1: 12)
Note, I take the Text’s of 2 John 10 & 11 very seriously! And yes, I am a churchman, but not a High Church guy, but in fact a Low Church Reformed presbyter. Oh.. theological and historical definitions are, yes, important to me!
Btw, for the real students here, let me recommend Rowan Williams book here: Arius, Heresy & Tradition (378 pages) And this book was written originally in 1986, and the revised edition came out in 2001. A must read for the scholar type! (Yes, I have a copy myself)
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr Robert,
Yes my avoidance of reference to Creeds is striking.
I am full on board with the Apostles Creed.
The Athanasian Creed can be easily demolished as one of its key assumptions is false. It also fails a simple logic test. If for every’Lord’ there is a ‘God’ than there cannot be fewer”Lords’ than ‘Gods’. This is why this creed is not widely discussed.
When I started my search for truth I asked myself (almost every day) so what am I?
An heretic to orthodoxy ? Undoubtedly!
But I realised that ‘badges’ were meaningless – products of human minds and philosophical speculation.
I cannot be given a ‘badge’ – I am a ‘non-trinitarian’ as opposed to a Unitarian.
I find so many poeople like me ‘lurking’ inside mainline churches just trying to ‘keep out of trouble’.
I asked a wise man, the son of a legendary preacher ,the other day “You never make your views known -what do you really think’?
His reply astonished me , mainly because his views were close to mine. He said
“I was brought up in a home where all of the issues you raised were discussed. I saw all sides of the story, I eventually set my lifes objective as ” Living my life as God would have me live, with Christ as my exemplar- and being aware of the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit”
That’s it ! Fits in well with Matthew 12 v29 etc.
Of course some ‘bright sparks’ manage to see the Trinity in the Shema!! Desperate people.!!
God elevated Christ ‘above the angels’ – man has elevated him to “God”
Heaven help us all!
The truth has got to be simple.!!
Another Pastor friend said to me ” I am aware of your problems with doctrine and you are not alone, all I can do is give my parishoners a ‘warm fireplace’ to huddle by” Good man!
“To uproot long held views is just too traumatic and people will see what they want to see-or what they are programmed to see”.
The Greek Word (Logos) has been ‘shredded ‘by JWs-
but their fruit…
Like or Dislike:
0
@John B
Really the question that needs to be answered before pursuing your conversation further is who do you say that Jesus is? I think that perhaps answering that question will begin a more easily followed line of thinking to what you believe and what we believe (we being Trinitarians). Please try your best to not obfuscate your words, but merely present your answer to who Jesus is so that we can pursue the conversation further.
I look forward to conversing with you about the grace and mercy to be found through the Gospel of Christ.
Like or Dislike:
1
Hi Chad,
Jesus is who he says he is ,in crisp unambiguous language.
John 20 v 17 says that Christ says that he has a Father who is also his God, and that the same entity is also our God and Father
Matthew 16:15 “who do you say that I am”? You are the Christ the Son of the living God ”
“Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father.”
For his obedience unto death on the cross GOD elevated him to Lord and Messiah
Best Wishes
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
Ah, there we get it… “For his obedience unto death on the cross GOD elevated him to Lord and Messiah” …
that old gnostic doctrine of “Adoptionism” (as Paul of Samosata) a measure for even Christ Jesus! This is simply “heresy”! Note, Paul of Samosata was and formally condemned at the synod of Antioch in 268. Btw, in history and theology we call this: Dynamic Monarchianism (the closing decades of the second century). Here again, is simply a Christological heresy (Modalism). “These adoptionists were an isolated and unrepresentative movement in Gentile Christianity” [2nd Century] (JND Kelly: Early Christian Doctrines, page 117).
Again, later we have Arius here! Ugh!
Like or Dislike:
0
So John B, just come out and tell us “what” you are? And “where” you find fellowship, i.e. that, and what is the Church again? That will tell us much!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, the only thing the JW’s “shred” are themselves! How anyone can screw-up the doctrine and teaching of the “LOGOS”, which is ‘the very Personal Word’ in Himself, and eternal. In 1 John 1: 1, it is.. “the Word of life”, and 1 John 1: 1-3 are simply beyond OUR measure to really change! What Was Heard, Seen, and Touched…that divine person, “that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” (Verse 2)
Indeed these verses in 1 John 1: 1-3, simply bury the false doctrine of “Adoptionism”!
Like or Dislike:
0
@John B
Thanks for answering the question, but I would ask how you reconcile your current belief to verses such as John 10:27-30 and John 10:37-38 and John 8:58. I would say these verses are clear and unambiguous as you describe. But the general premise is that the Trinity does not have an origin simply in the New Testament but traces back in various forms of clarity throughout the Old Testament.
Let me know how you would exegete these Scriptures to show consistency with the current hermeneutic you are demonstrating. I certainly commend the effort of your defense as it is clear that you have done some research into this.
Going beyond this, I am also curious how you view the atonement through the lens of sin and perfection in a human being. Essentially, why was Christ sufficient to reconcile believers to God if he is not God? That may be too much to cover in one post from you, so I am fine with just sticking to the first part for now until we can get more into the rest.
Like or Dislike:
0
Indeed too btw, the NT does not really separate the Person and the Work of Christ! As Luther maintained, somehow God Incarnate died upon the Cross! And the work of Redemption is simply fully our Triune God, (Hebrews 9: 14).
Like or Dislike:
0
Here it is useful to quote Karl Rahner’s statement, of the axiomatic unity of the “Economic” and the “Immanent” Trinity. The “economic” Trinity is the “immanent” Trinity and the “immanent” Trinity is the “economic” Trinity. And surely here we have the hypostatic union itself, the Incarnation and union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ. This is the essence of scriptures like 1 John 4: 1-3 / 2 John 7-9, etc. But in reality the Father is the “monarchy” of the Godhead, and HE sends both the Eternal Son of God, and the Holy Spirit alone proceeds from the Father. Indeed the EO or Orthodox are right on here!
Like or Dislike:
0
And yet, the three persons in the Trinity are coequal, eternally self-existent, and mutually indwelling through what is called circumincession. Simply again One God in three persons; Three persons in One God: One in three, and Three in One.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw keeping it simple, John 8: 58 seals this the Godhood of Christ! And John 10:30, “I and the Father are One.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow the biblical evidence and revelation for Christ in the Incarnation and the second person of the Godhead are quite overwelming! Especially in the Gospel of John! (John 17: 5, etc.) Belief always trumps unbelief, in biblical revelation itself!
Like or Dislike:
0
Friar Robert,
Just looking at the blog rules concerning spamming the post. Have you? Does this only apply to only some of us, or do you get a special pass making one post after the other and saying whatever you want?
Like or Dislike:
0
A. P.S. . This would have been a very interesting post to consider otherwise But it for me it kinda got lost in your ‘expert’ opinion. Too bad.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Fr. Robert
I feel ‘asssailed on all sides” – but here goes!
POST 39
Why is it that anyone with half a brain is called a “Gnostic’? Is reasoning a sin?
I was rather hurt to to called an Adoptionist – but I was merely quoting from the scriptures.
You and I have discussed Hebrews 1 – and of course there is (inter alia) Philippians 2:9 which speaks of Christs exaltation.
As I have mentioned- you can’t ‘put a badge’ on me!
POST 40
Who am I?
I worship at a church in the bush with about 100 others. It has no walls.
The ethos is Mark 12 verses 29-31.
Divisive doctrinal debate is prohibited – although I know most of my fellow worshippers to be Trinitarian in flavour.
My wife attends an Anglical bible study, which is Unitarian in flavour as the outgoing fr. did not believe that Christ is God. eek!!!
POST 41
Your interpretation of ‘the Word’ or ‘Logos’ contradicts dozens of clear and unambiguous statements by Peter and Paul- and indeed Christ himself
POST 43
One does not wish to separate the person and work of Christ. Christ is God’s divine agent as many verses attest
Christ offered himself to God . Clearly two persons here!
POST 44
I fully acknowledge that Christ comes in the flesh and that he ‘belongs to God’ (as we all do)
I do not deny the spiritual Christ or even his divinity
His divinity comes from his mission, his mission, his status as Son of God etc.
I do deny that he is God.
POST 45
The constructs you mention are man-made and the product of human rationalisation
Space is running out. Next Post.
Every Blessing
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad- I’ll be back to you presently! I’ll combine your post 42 with Roberts post 46 since the issues raised merit specific and detailed attention.
Fr Robert
POST 47
You refer to John 17:5 – but it is more instructive to consider verses 3-5 !
Verse 3 speaks of the Father as being ‘the only true God’ -NOTE the word ONLY!
and the one you have sent -Jesus Christ. TWO persons here!
In Verse 5 Christ asks the Father to glorify him with the glory “I has with you before the world began’
I know some writers like Bauckham have suggested that “Yes, it says the Father is God, but this does not preclude the Son being God”!
But note the use of the word ‘only’… Bauckhams logic fails!.
I have a lot of points to answer , but I would be prepared to discuss the so-called pre-existence aspect if required.
The use of “para +dative’ in the Greek is controversial and even respected Greek lexicons are claimed to be in error !
The Jehovas witnesses say only Smyths has it right.
I wonder!
Thaylers Lexicon says it can mean ‘in the mind’ which is metaphorical.
Without doubt the Messiah was in God’s mind from the very beginning!
I will need a ‘clean sheet’ to respond to your comments regarding John Chapters 8& 10!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad and Fr. Robert.
You both ‘focus in’ on John Chapters 8 and 10, and indeed they are very important to the Trinitarian case.
There are a number of ‘issues’ discussed here ,so I will deal with these individually – rather than proceeding through the scriptures verse by verse!
THE ISSUE OF STONING
In terms of the Jewish Law, stoning was only permitted in cases of blasphemy
In all other cases, the persons taking place in stoning would themselves be charged with murder
If the Jewish authorities REALLY believed that Christ has blasphemed they would have hunted him down and stoned him.
Most modern bibles tell us that Christ’hid’ and left the temple.
Many believe that Christ escaped by supernatural means.
The Greek word used for ‘hid’ is ‘ekyrbe’ which Thaylers Lexicon (quoting Winers Grammar) says can be used to mean ‘withdrew quietly’
WHY WERE THE JEWS SO ANGRY WITH JESUS?
The Jews being addressed included the very pious religious leaders.
Christ had just called them-
(i)Illegitimate v41
(ii)You belong to your Father, the Devil (v44)
(iii)Made himself greater than our Father Abraham (v53)
(iv)Abraham rejoiced to see MY DAY (note not ‘me’)(v56
DID CHRIST CLAIM TO BE GOD?
Not in these chapters or indeed any scripture
On the contrary he DENIED he was God and called himself Son of God, Son of Man, the Messiah.
Christ declared his SONSHIP and dependancy on the Father!
BUT THE JEWS SAID THAT CHRIST “MADE HIMSELF GOD”
They were mistaken!
THE USE OF “I AM” IN JOHN 8 vv 28 and 58
Trinitarians try to equate with with the “I AM” used to describe the Lords messenger in Exodus 3:14 but consider -
John 8 v28 “…I AM , and I can do nothing on my own..”
NOT an omnipotent being!
John 8 v58 “before Abraham came to be I AM” see
earlier comments. Christ declaring himself
to be the Messiah.
Space running out -see next post!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
CONTINUATION OF POST 2
The Greek words for “I am’ in Johns Gosple are ‘ego eimi’
and they mean “I am, I am he”
The same words are quite common in the bible- although we find these words CAPITALISED in John -no doubt for theological reasons.!
Consider the blind man who had his sight restored -when questioned he replied ‘ego eimi’ – “I am the one”
Similarly Acts 10:21 etc.
WHAT ABOUT JOHN 10 :30?
This is said to be one of the two ‘deciding’ verses in the Arian controversy.(ugh, that one !,I hear Robert say!!)
“I and the Father are one”
That clinches it !!!???
“ego kai ho pater hen esmen’
The Greek word used for ‘one’ is ‘hen’
But ‘hen’ or ‘en’ is used in the scriptures to denote ‘oneness of purpose’ or ‘in agreement’
1 Corinthians 3v8
“the one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose’ (hen)
John 17v22 ‘so that we (people being addressed) may be one (hen) as we are one (hen)
For a bit of fun look at the KJV regarding 1 John 5 verses 7&8
(i) What is shown as v7 has been found to be a fraud and is no longer in modern bibles. It was the only explicit trinitarian verse!!!
Note the Greek use of ‘hen’ to mean ‘these three are one’
(ii)Verse 8- which is now verse 7 in modern bibles ” these three agree in one ‘hen’
Great selctivity employed by Trinitarians.
I see I have a little space left-
What about the use of the words ‘ye say ye are gods ‘ if you call them ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came.”?
Christ was insulting the Pharisees who were the current ‘crop’ of ‘gods’ and warning them that the same fate awaited them that afflicted their ‘predecessors’.
They would soon be judged by that righteous man who God had ordained! (Acts 17:31)
If I’ve missed out any important points please forgive me!
Too many things to consider!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad
So sorry, but I have missed out your comment that references to the Trinity are found in the OT.
The main argument I find alleges that the Trinity is alluded to in the Shema.
Mark 12 v29-31
“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord”
Trinitarians believe that it is possible that the ONE may be a ‘compound One”
The Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy 6:4 for ‘one’ is “echad’ which is a ‘counting number’.
It can denote ‘one bunch of grapes’ or ‘one grape’.
The precise meaning is determined by CONTEXT , just as it is in English.
There is another Hebrew word “Yashid’ which means solitary or only or alone. He is an only (yashid) son.
This is NEVER used in connection with God.
THE ONE THING THE HEBREWS WERE CERTAIN ABOUT IS THAT GOD IS ONE -IN THE SINGULAR SENSE.
The Greek is interesting.
The Greek word used for ‘one’ is “heis’
See 1 Corinthians 9v24 ” Do you not know that the runners in a stadium run a race, but there is only one (heis) winner”. Imagine multiple winners! Could be Interesting!
So, old friend, take your pick!
I know what makes sense to me!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
@mbaker: I am not a “friar” (of course that is a Roman Catholic title, in a so-called mendicant order, Augustinian, Dominican, etc. ), “Fr.” is a short moniker for “Father” a pastoral title for Catholics, some Anglicans and the EO or Orthodox, in so-called holy orders. I have thought about not using it? Since I am semi-retired now. And not all Anglican rectors use the title “Fr.” (Though I was at one time an Anglo-Catholic, years back), But since I am known by such with so many, and too as a hospital chaplain. But, its is surely only a “pastoral” title, 1 Cor. 4:15.
And I have been simply responding to John B.’s posts, which he started btw. But indeed WE have both said enough, he is in certain heresy! So I will quit!
Like or Dislike:
0
Last thought here, “Thayler” btw was a unitarian!
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr . Robert
Most interesting!
He was of course quoting from Winers Grammar.
We can end off where we ‘came in’ – my bemoaning the fact that monotheists were irreconcilably divided by Doctrine of the Trinity – and I believe that this could have been avoided if men were not so ‘power conscious’back in the fourth century.
Unfortunately we are now in a full scale confrontation with the Islamic world and ‘their’ problem mainly arises from the fact that their texts have been ‘edited’ by men seeking power. An unedited seventh century Koran was found in the desert about 25 years ago – translated it looked remarkably like the Hebrew Bible culturally ‘adjusted’.
The Mullahs say it’s a forgery! Of course they would!
There is a certain irony in life.
My wifes ancestor who fled Germany after the Reformation Radical Reformationist)was the descendant a Duke who was knighted in Jerusalem in the 12th Century for his role in one of the crusades!
As for me I’ll stick to my ‘primitive Christianity’!
Erasmus got it right. Keep it simple (as Ockham would say!)
With respect
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: I have written some on my own blog about the history of Monarchianism and Modalism, etc. A man here to read would be the first great Western/Latin theologian: Tertullian.. See his book Against Praxeas. (And yes, I have a copy, and have read it!)
Indeed surely the Church has covered all this ground in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries! And sorry mate, but you are by biblical, theological & historical definition, an Adoptionist! And the best of so called “Primitive Christianity” is surely the history of the top-tier Reformers!
Let us end this, and not labor the readers, at least here!
Like or Dislike:
0
John
Just to be clear from your comments you would assert something more on the lines of:
1. Jesus is the Messiah
2. Jesus is fully human
3. Jesus is from heaven?
4. Jesus is not God
I think those are the points that you are typically trying to make here, but I am uncertain at best as you do not handle the texts with any sense of continuity but splice them together to attempt to disprove a point long accepted in Christianity.
The Gospel of John is replete with examples of Jesus’s divinity. You claim that the Logos, the Word, is merely a metaphor for God’s wisdom and is just an aspect of God. Or at least that is my understanding of your argument. Of course, the text of John 1:1 would indicate that the Word was with God and was God from the beginning. So far, it is easy to follow and does not lend any credence to the Word being a separate person more than just an aspect. That being said, John 1:14 states that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst men. An obvious reference to Jesus, and one that I assume you would say is valid. By simple logic we can see:
1. The Word was with God
2. The Word was God
3. The Word became flesh
4. This flesh is Jesus
Of course you should see the easy obvious step that Jesus is God by simple reasoning. So at the very least you cannot deny that Jesus is God, but you could attempt at least a defense of modalism. Keep in mind that it will make it extremely difficult to defend, given that you would have to say that God fully manifested Himself in Jesus for the modalistic view to truly hold, which would ignore passages of Jesus asking or talking with the Father, or the all important symbol of the Trinity, Matthew 3:16-17. This text shows all three members of the Trinity at the same time, which decries an attempt at modalism as they all exist simultaneously.
Old Testament references can wait for another time. But you could start with Genesis 1:26.
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert
I do NOT believe that Christ was adopted by God – you misread my comments regarding Hebrews :1.
The unknown writer of Hebrews was probably an adoptionist!
You have failed to pin a badge on me – apart from ‘an heretic to orthadoxy ‘- which I accept.
The Reformation left the Christian church only partly reformed and some of the ‘issues’ seem to have been accepted by Luther without comment.
The question of infant baptism is an example that caused enormous problems later on.
In an earlier post I referred to a pastor friend who said that all he could do was to provide a ‘warm fireplace’ for his parishoners. Tradition is such a place – although it has resulted in the mass slaughter of many innocents over the ages!
Anyway it’s a good place to be for those who see what they want to see!
Blessings
John
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad
You seem to have a haibit of totally ignoring things you do not wish to see.!!
Let’s go back to fundamentals and John 1 v1-18
Can anyone really say that he or she known exactly what the Greek means?
Look up “John 1:1” in Wikipedia and you will observe the linguistic difficulties involved in its translation. The paper notes about 11 translations and provides a link to a further 70 possible translations.
NOW how on earth can you compare your desired translation with the clear and explicit statements about the’person of Christ’?
Does John not make himself clear whan he summarised his mission in John 20 v31 “now these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God…”.
Is Christ wrong when he says in John 20:17 that he is going to his Father (& our Father) and His God (who is also our God)?
Is Christ just talking in his ‘human nature’ ? If you think so then can anything He said be taken seriously?
So many crisp statements -i.e. given some in my posts…
when Acts calls Christ a ‘servant of God’ is this just meaningless.?
You or your friends cannot even adress the argument
If God is always The Father
If the Father is NOT the Son
THEN The Son is NOT God.
I wonder if you are serious in your argument -or just wasting time!?
Blessings
John
Like or Dislike:
1
My post following post 2 does not seem to have been transmitted -so here goes again!
CONTINUATION FROM POST 2
Regarding John 8 verses 28 and 58
The Greek words for ‘I am” or “I am he” are ‘ego eimi’
The words are commonly used -for example ,the blind man who had his sight restored used the words when asked if he was the one who had been healed.
Similarly Acts 10:21
WHAT ABOUT JOHN 10:30?
This was said to be one of the two verses which ‘resolved’ the ‘Arian heresy”
“I and the Father are one”
“ego kai ho pater hen esmen”
The Greek word used for ‘one’ is ‘hen’
But note that ‘one ‘ or ”hen”’denotes oneness of purpose as in 1 Corinthians 3:8
“the one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose’ (hen)
John 17v22 “So that we(audience) may be ‘hen’ just as we are”hen”.(in agreement, having common purpose)
Readers may care to look at 1 John Chapter five verses seven and eight. in the KJV
Note
(i) The use of ‘hen’
(ii)The interpretations assigned to them
(iii)The fact that verse seven has been removed from modern Bibles.
Hope I have answered your points!
Every Blessing
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi MIchael
Have I ‘triggered’ some ‘forbidden’ word?
I notice that a similar post (number 3) has awaited moderation for three days now?
Would appreciate a response!
Blessings
John
Like or Dislike:
0
John, I am not sure. The blog moderates itself. I don’t know why it flagged any posts of yours. I will check.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John, Wow mate, “wasting time”? I did much of that with you! And keeping with the our blog host’s subject, you are standing closer to Islam, than Christianity, as per Christ!
Time to quit mate, don’t ya think?
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr.Robert, being a newcomer to this blog and now having read the comments in particular, yours. I was particularly disturbed.
I think the arguments regarding the Trinity and indeed any doctrine perceived by men hundreds of years later than Christ’s death should be largely ignored and everyone should rather concentrate on what unites rather than what divides. Perhaps if this were the case the crusades, inquisitions and various other outcasting events throughout the Christian world would not have taken place.
The bible is not some sort of secret code that needs to be decipherment. The more you try to look into doing just this the more you escape from the essence of Christ.
As a man of the cloth one needs to be careful not to fall into the category of a modern day Pharisee. Your comments towards @John B regarding “heresy” are particularly disturbing. If one studies who used such words in history they were generally extremist in nature ! Not really a drawcard one would thing for normal people other than by way of fear! Again not the essence of Christ !
Like or Dislike:
0
Final Post,
My initial point was that if it were not for the Doctrine of the Trinity we would probably not have Islam today- and we would not have had the Crusades- which are a ‘justification’ for the fanaticism we have today.!
As Paul Johnson observes, so many things could have been avoided by choosing alternative words!
Unfortunately power considerations always win!
MICHAEL
Thanks for your patience!
Every Blessing
John
Like or Dislike:
0
We surely cannot re-write history, or sit in God’s Sovereignty & Providence! The so-called “fanaticism” will lead the world finally to Zech. 14, the Second Coming of Christ, the Judgment of Israel’s enemies.. Indeed the great “Economy of God”, and the “Eschaton” fully!
Like or Dislike:
0
John B,
Your assertion may be correct about the Doctrine of Trinity causing confusion which led to the rise and spread of Islam, but it is ultimately hard to pinpoint precisely that as the cause for this.
Unrelated, it is interesting that you accuse me of being blind to what I do not wish to see while you splice and twist Scripture to suit your interpretation. The puzzling part really comes from your interpretation of how the Pharisees viewed Jesus’s statement of “I am.” They directly accused him of equating himself with God, or calling himself God. Jesus’s words would give rise to a very clear understanding of the context of the words he spoke.
Their reaction clearly delineates the purpose for his words. Jesus points that he is a stumbling block for these Pharisees, which seems quite obvious. It is good that you attempt to use Scripture to support your view, but you ignore context and obvious other issues with viewing Christ as someone other than Immanuel (God with us). Of course you have answered these verses as simply our own mistranslations of these verses, and that it may simply be a lack of understanding of historical apostolic views of what Jesus said.
If only we had any statements from the apostles to point out their understanding…of course we could see what Thomas said in John 20:28 (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Note here that Jesus did not correct him and tell Thomas that Thomas was incorrect about assuming Jesus was God. Or Paul’s statement in Titus 2:13 or Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 1:1.
I pray that you would consider that you stand apart from apostolic teachings passed down through Scripture and common Christian understanding of the nature of God. Analyze the impact of removing the God from Christ and how that impacts the atonement and need for Christ in salvation. We may never agree, but you should approach things with more caution when you clearly stand apart.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Apart” is always the nature of heresy! Note, Rom. 16: 17-18 with Titus 3: 10-11. And how can we “caution” a heretic, espeically one who attacks the “Deity and Divinity” – of Christ?! In this postmodern age, but with the Word of God, itself! And this is not a personal attack really, but the nature of ‘the faithful word’! (Titus 1: 9)
Like or Dislike:
0
@Todd L : Well my statements here are as I noted, are not really personal as biblical and theological! And I am an old “theolog” myself. Sadly, John B’s statements are quite simply a denial of the Deity & Divinity of Christ! And indeed here is the essence of Christ, as both God & Man! Without this was simply don’t have a Redeemer, or a Redemption!
Finally, I am a Reformational & Reformed “churchmen”, perhaps you need to see what that means also! Btw, did you know that St. Paul was ALWAYS a Jewish “Pharisee”! (Separated unto God!) See Romans 1: 1, indeed Paul saw himself and his life & calling as “set apart” unto God! Actually, such is the call & life of every Christian! And for such, we simply must have the Divine “Christ Jesus”!
Like or Dislike:
0
All
I am quite sad that no-one seems to understand a main pillar of my thesis.
That is, the Trinitarian case is based on a few verses which are capable of multiple interpretations -e.g. John 1v1
You accept your own , this being that Christ is God incarnate,and reject mine (that Christ is the incarnate Word). Who really knows?
You then ignore dozens of verses in crisp, clear and unambiguous language to make your case!
Heaven help us all!
Thank goodness for people like Todd L.!
Dare I say, a man full of the true Christian spirit.?
Blessings
John B
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad,
I believe that I behaved dismissively towards your earlier post – for which I apologise.
I have a heavy schedule today but I plan to respond adequely to your post no 19 as soon as I can
Every Blessing
John
Like or Dislike:
0
I did not realize how far off the comments are to the original post. That happens. But please no more that are off topic (as important as these diacussionsmay be!)
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] to speak intelligently on the matter with many people in the future. There are four installments: one, two, three & still awaiting the [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Misconception number one: “The Crusades were not provoked.” In sum, Muslims had been conquering Christian territory for hundreds of years. The Crusades were one response. [...]
More Comments: