Posted on 03/19/2006 6:44:46 PM PST by prairiebreeze
THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.
The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”.
The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim- Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives. According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, who is due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots.
At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian, recalled that the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places”.
“The debate has been reopened,” La Stampa said. Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II.
He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades “do not know their history”. Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”.
Professor Riley-Smith said that the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was “historically inaccurate. It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” It fuels Islamic fundamentalism by propagating “Osama bin Laden’s version of history”.
He said that the Crusaders were sometimes undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty. But the same was true of Muslims and of troops in “all ideological wars”. Some of the Crusaders’ worst excesses were against Orthodox Christians or heretics — as in the sack of Constantinople in 1204.
The American writer Robert Spencer, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, told the conference that the mistaken view had taken hold in the West as well as the Arab world that the Crusades were “an unprovoked attack by Europe on the Islamic world”. In reality, however, Christians had been persecuted after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
CONFLICT OVER THE HOLY LAND
Historians count eight Crusades, although dates are disputed: 1095-1101, called by Pope Urban II; 1145-47, led by Louis VII; 1188-92, led by Richard I; 1204, which included the sack of Constantinople; 1217, which included the conquest of Damietta; 1228-29 led by Frederick II; 1249-52, led by King Louis IX of France; and 1270, also under Louis IX
Until the early 11th century, Christians, Jews and Muslims coexisted under Muslim rule in the Holy Land. After growing friction, the first Crusade was sparked by ambushes of Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius appealed to Pope Urban II, who in 1095 called on Christendom to take up arms to free the Holy Land from the “Muslim infidel”
Yeah, but you didn't learn anything there either. Thought your friend might be able to accept the truth better.
What did you teach?
Why am I not surprised. Too bad you ignore the Bible writers too.
Good post.
"2 Tm 1:6 -- Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." [NKJV]
Surely you are not saying that Paul was appointing Timothy as a bishop/elder in the church.
Timothy was imbued with the powder of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of Paul's hands. Timothy was an Evangelist as were Titus and Philip. While Philip, like Timothy and Titus had the poswer, he was unable to pass it on. Only an Apostle could do that. (Acts8:14-19)
You need to get back in your own league. You are in over your head.
I don't have to teach. God, through the Bible, does that. My job is to help people find the information in the Bible. I will be more than happy to help you anytime you would like.
"Now you foist your ignorance on another poster."
Matthew and the neighbors in Jesus village of Nazareth know that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Matthew clearly says so im Matt 13:55-56. But, in order to defend a false doctrine, you have taken it upon yourself to accuse the inspired Apostle and the people of Nazareth as being ignorant.
p.s. I didn't write the Book of Matthew.
The posts posted to you by me and Roberts earlier explain that Matthew 13:55 can only be understood in a way consistent with the other verses in the Scripture if "brothers" and "sisters" are used by St. Matthew in its expansive sense, as kinsfolk.
"Matthew 13:55 can only be understood in a way consistent with the other verses in the Scripture"
Please show me which other verses of scripture Matthew 13:55-56 contradicts. It doesn't. What it does contridict is your false teaching about the perpetual virginity of Mary.
And don't run to Matt 1:25. Matt 13:55-56 makes clear what "till" in Matt 1:25 means.
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?
Mark 6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.Matthew 27
55 And there were there many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
John 19
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
Mark 15
40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:[...]
47 And Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid.
Matthew 13 and Mark 6 refer to James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as "brothers" of Jesus, plus some unnamed sisters. Matthew 27 refers to a woman called Mary, "the mother of James and Joseph". That woman is clearly not Mary the mother of Jesus because in that sentence her relation to Jesus is given as "followed Him" and her cons are also mentioned, Jesus not among them. In John 19 three women are described, all three Marys: Mary Our Lady, Mary of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene. Mark 15 describes them also, but it identifies Mary as mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome. Again, it would not be Mary the mother of Jesus because even though she is described observing Jesus's death and burial, she is identified as mother of three other men. The only reasonable reading of this all is that Mary Cleopas is mother of James, Joseph, Simon, Jude, and Salome, mentioned in all these verses.
To read it differently you will have to assume that Mary the mother of Jesus was a mother of James, Joseph, Simon, Jude, and an unnamed sister; and Mary Cleopas was a mother of James, Joseph, and Salome and a direct sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. In other words Jesus had a mother and an aunt called Mary, a brother and a cousin both called Joseph, and a brother and a cousing both called James.
All this was explained to you in 252 and subsequent verses ten days ago.
None of these scriptures condradict one another.
Matthew 27 refers to a woman called Mary, "the mother of James and Joseph".
Mary was a very common name in Bible times. Why do you have a problem believing that this woman had two sons who also had very common Bible names.
"To read it differently you will have to assume that Mary the mother of Jesus was a mother of James, Joseph, Simon, Jude, and an unnamed sister; and Mary Cleopas was a mother of James, Joseph, and Salome and a direct sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. In other words Jesus had a mother and an aunt called Mary, a brother and a cousin both called Joseph, and a brother and a cousing both called James."
You have finally figured it out. That is exactly what I believe because that is what the Bible teaches. Why does this give you such a problem? You did get some points wrong but they were minor. What took you so long to come to the truth?
Oh, I forgot. This would disprove the false doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary and for a Catholic, doctrine always trumps scripture.
The Bible does not teach that, if only because Matthew 13 and Mark 6 convey a question. To have two direct sisters of the same name is unheard of; to have identical by name sets of brothers and cousins is also unheard of. To refer to this confusing set of relatives by names only, never clarifying which Joseph and which James the evangelist has in mind, is not how the scripture is written.
The refighting is over the facts of history. The Crusades were provoked by Turkish agression. Not many years before the first crusade, the Turks had invaded and defeated the Greek emperor and had taken over huge swtachs of the Byzantine empire. One reason for the emperor's call for help was the threat of the Turks to Constantinople.
The jounralists don't know and the historians have an agenda.
The" false "doctrine of the perpetual virginity was held by both Luther and Calvin. Why is your reading of Scripture to be preferred over theirs?'
"The" false "doctrine of the perpetual virginity was held by both Luther and Calvin. Why is your reading of Scripture to be preferred over theirs?'"
The Catholic church has castigated Luther for centries; now you want to use him as a source? Calvin also taught predestination which the Catholic church rejects. How do you separate their true beliefs from their beliefs which you consider false.
Your best bet would be to ignore the teachings of all men. including myself, and learn to study the Bible for yourself. It is really not that difficult.
Robby's point still remains. You study for yourself and conclude that two sisters Mary named their children James and Joseph. Most everybody else concludes different. Surely Luther and Calvin did not decide on the perpetual virginity of Mary because the Catholic Church taught this. So here we have you, Luther and Calvin, all believers in Sola Scriptura, concluding different things based on the scripture alone. You don't find your methods cheesy?
"so here we have you, Luther and Calvin, all believers in Sola Scriptura, concluding different things based on the scripture alone. You don't find your methods cheesy?"
Not really. We are all commanded to "study to show ourselves approved" and to "work our our OWN salvation with fear and trembling." They theirs, me mine, and you yours. God will make the final judment as to who is correct and who is not. We will be judged as individuals, not based on the sign above the door of the church we attend nor tradition nor the teachings of the so called experts.
Well, it is a good thing you realize that Sola Scriptura will not save you. I agree, like any superstition, it won't.
"Well, it is a good thing you realize that Sola Scriptura will not save you. I agree, like any superstition, it won't."
It is the blood of Jesus that saves us. The scriptures tell us His story, His commands, and how to take advantage of the grace that He offers. To you that is foolishness but to God it is the Power of Salvation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.