Were the Crusades unchristian?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 січ 2020
- Were the Crusades unchristian? Get my book about the Crusades:
www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Heathe...
Support my work on Patreon:
/ realcrusadeshistory
Get the music used in this video:
www.amazon.com/Lit-Sky-Roman-...
Donate through PayPal:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Were the crusades unchristian?
Support my work on Patreon: www.patreon.com/RealCrusadesHistory
Only the 4th Crusade could qualify.
What is that pedalboard? What is your main axe?
A historian should consciously make every effort to be objective as far as possible. He should aim at presenting facts with as much accuracy and faithfulness as possible. The second you blatantly stipulate that the activity of crusading was righteous and good you introduce an outlook that is so subjective that you can't tackle the history in a balanced or fair way.
This answers an important question helpfully. I'll play it again, to follow it more carefully.
Modern Christians are secular and have a subjective faith (Protestantism created many variants of Christianity). Today in the safety of their homes they say that the crusaders were violent and sinful, but they do not analyze the context of the time when the crusades took place.
They are only here because of the crusades.
@@jacobberry5138 Imagine what the West be like if Islam conquered Europe.
@@michaelroach4219 It seems to be happening right now.
@@spartankongcountry6799 only the west.
@@michaelroach4219 look at Bosnia and Albania. More at Albania.
Christ said to Peter, _"Put your sword back in its place."_
In other words, he just told him to put the sword away; put it back in it's scabbard, not throw it away entirely. This was one way that medieval Christian theologians interpreted using violence for self-defense and just wars.
in greek that's what meek meant, sheathed sword.
Peter was carrying a Sword & Jesus didn’t say to throw it the whole time. Context is everything, he told what he told to Peter because he was suppose to die & it was a losing battle for Peter to fight when surrounded.
And Peter only had that sword because jesus told him to get one
Chris Oly context is everything, he said that because 1. Jesus was suppose to be scarified 2. Was Jesus was saying is that you don’t always need a sword to fight because we are surrounded, you’ll lose that battle.
Jesus said shall I not take up the cup my father has given me?
Jesus needed to be crucified, Simon Peter was getting in the way of that.
There is a difference between being nice and letting yourself be victimised as there is between wanting peace and being pacifist and so on.
And slaughtering civilians.
Christ himself didn't defend while in the cross and always thaught to turn the other cheek. According to him,
someone is unfair with you, don't do anything. God will punish those who do evil.
@@wurttmapper2200 That was how war was fought back then.
@@danman7584 Yes, it was. That doesn't mean slaughtering civilians can be consideded Christian.
Wurtt Mapper Not saying it was, just pointing out that the activity wasn’t out of the norm for the era and trying to apply a modern moral paradigm to events that happened nearly a thousand years ago is asinine.
@@danman7584 You are actually right, that's why I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was unchristian
Thank you for this and all of your videos. As a Catholic, it bothers me that there seems to be nothing in between the opinions that either the Crusades were evil and motivated by greed vs the Crusades were perfect and fought only by heroic, saintly men. As usual, the truth is between the extremes, and you hit it pretty consistently. The Crusades had just cause, (at least we can agree that they did by their definition) but, as in any large enterprise, there were some bad men there too with their own motivations. We should not forget either of those facts
Thank you for staying impartial as every historian should.
Not many people can understand nuance that way, unfortunately.
Well said. Thank you my brother Catholic. :)
Yeah people should know that there is no extreme good nor evil in every events weather it’s for a good cause
Oh, they had just cause by anyone’s standards. Children were being abducted from Europe by the Muslims to form their harems and the Mamluks and janissaries.
Christians being captured and bound into slavery by Muslims from Spain to Italy to Eastern Europe.
Jesus doesn't just pick up a whip. He made one!!!!
To clean out and to punish the extortion ring being done inside His Fathers hours. By the way he did it twice.
Hitoshi Igarashi amen brother!!
Yes, this! He wasn't overcome with anger. He had the presence of mind to sit down and fashion one himself.
Jesus was not killing any person nor animals, but cleansing the holy place.
Great video! Just recently in my English IV class our curriculum is the history of British Literature. So we learn of Rome conquering the Celts then the Anglo Saxon period up utill William the conqueror. Where this gets really interesting is when my English teacher gets to the crusades. She says the knights and foot soldiers thought they were doing Gods work but the Crusades were brutal and the Popes just wanted land. Naturally I cringed and was dumbstruck by her lack of truth and affinity to giving in to misconceptions. So in my notes I wrote what the Crusades were really about and I cant wait for her to review it😂
Similarly had a college professor go off on me for saying the crusades were a defensive war
Let us know what happens!
Hey how did it go then
Incredibly well said! Judging those of the past by our modern opinions is so insane and maddening to me. It makes no sense at all. I love your videos, my friend. Please keep them coming and God bless you!
Thanks for the comment, glad you got something out of the video!
if anyone was in their times they wouldnt have time to ask these questions every nation was fighting for their own existing
Do a video on the Blessed Maronites and their alliance with the Crusaders 🇱🇧
Agreed. They suffered for Christ. A lot. Their acknowledgement is necessary.
A lot of suffering has happened to our people since the holy wars especially at the had of the ottoman turks
E. Abn May Turkey perish
I twice read that as "the Based Maronites". Blessed and Christpilled
Christianity may be about loving one another but its not about letting someone kill you or being the aggressor. The way I see the Crusades, it was more of a counterattack. If the Muslims hadn't had to concentrate so much on holding the Holy Land from the Crusaders, the history of Europe could have been very different.
Just a reminder: Catholicism wasn’t native or endemic to the Middle East and North Africa. Also, let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
Really? Because I remember something about Jesus letting Hinself crucified, turning the other cheek and not taking justice into your hands, as well as not casting stones types of messages.
@@eeeccc3562 Jesus Crucifixion is unique situation, look at the story of David vs Goliath for example. sometimes violence is unavoidable. Even Jesus used violence when the Temple of God was used as a marketplace.
Crusades were solely Catholics, Christians never had a huge Military force in history. The Bible never made Christianity Jesus never said Worship himself. People always put the crusades and corruption of the pope on Christianity but that’s Catholics all the way
@@eeeccc3562 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).
Attacks on Orthodox Christians were unchristian, but afaik, those were never the goals of crusading, just evil deeds of some soldiers and mercenaries.
Edit: Thanks for reminding me about Northern crusades in baltics and russia
Tako je brate. :)
Србски Жар not true , some crusades were indeed launched against the orthodox. Not the 4th crusade , which was directed originally against Egypt , but the Germans and the swedes launched many expeditions with papal approval against the Russians.
@@javier6926 You have anything specific in mind ?
@@yochananandreas3148 Yeah wasn't the battle on the ice and the Alexander Nevsky thing all defending against a crusade?
Yochanan Andreas I already said it , the numerous crusades of the swedes and Germans in the Baltic against the Russians.
Matthew 5:5 "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." Meek translating from "praus" which was defined as a wild horse native horse to Greece that was broken and trained for battle, but these horses were also known to be incredibly gentle. As the world become translated to English, horses were known to be called "meeked" when they were ready for battle.
That was interesting informatioin. Thank you for sharing.
Interesting, informative. Thanks!
Travis R.
I once saw graffiti that said
‘The meek don’t want it’
Well done sir. I've tried to explain this concept to those of my age (early 20s) it is almost impossible for them to grasp. At anyrate I bought a sweater. Keep up the good work and hope you get better.
Because they are pacifistic heretics
Muslims invaded Spain and other Christian locations. Great discussion. People have an incorrect view that of OT is not the same as in NT. That is not correct. It’s the same God
It is the same God, but the relationship between God and Man are different in the NT. The judgements against groups of people in the OT were very much judgments by God for particular transgressions against particular peoples Has little to do with the crusades. However, this is not to say that the crusades where somehow wrong politically.However, it was an act of mainstream Christianity at the time, and mainstream christianity is hardly ever actual Christianity. I feel like this video does little to actually cover historical doctrines around the crusades, because many of them were in fact unsound doctrine. Christiandom was not Christianity, it was a pagan form of christianity.
Juan Duenas good points
@@MrJuanduenas What's actual Christianity?
@Mehmed Mehdi Europe is Christian
What would you do if someone were in invade your house? Would you not protect your house?
A lot of great and accurate points. Great vid!
And thank you for pointing out that even though many Christians didnt know how to read during the middle ages they still knew the Bible better than most Christians today. Biblical stories, charachters, commandments, virtues, ethics, laws etc. were all 100% known by pretty much every Christian during the middle ages as almost all of them went to church up to several times a week where they would listen to the priest talk about the Bible. It would be nice if you make a video on that topic as well. it always annoys me so much whenever I hear this bull**** about how Christians didnt know anything about the Bible in the medieval ages. Blasphemy etc. was literally considered amongst the worst things you could possibly commit, so its pretty obvious based on that alone that they knew what the Bible said, lol
@@tridentinecrusader9477 Will check it out, subbed. God bless
Spiritual Devotion - Music Nice Legion profile
The “knowledge” and “understanding” of the Bible you claim the commonfolk had was based solely on what priests told them. As for medieval exegesis there are many obvious flaws. This guy doesn’t know much about Christianity.
@@joshuavandernoord6912 Yes. they learned from priests who had dedicated their entire lives studying the Bible.
I'd much more like to learn the Bible from a priest who knows what everything means based on theology rather than reading it and interpreting it by myself tbh.
@@joshuavandernoord6912 Yes. Just like you go to a doctor that has spent most of their life studying medicine rather than try to perform an operation on yourself.
Jesus permitted the apostles to carry their sword for their own defense. We know that because Peter used his sword to defend Jesus from the Roman Soldiers when they came to arrest Jesus at the Mount of Olives. After Jesus replaced the ear cut off a Roman Soldier by Peter in that defense, Jesus said "Now is not the time for violence". Note that he said "now".
Regards,
Geoff. Reeks
Simon the Zealot was likely Simon Bar Giora, the man who avenged James the Just’s martyrdom by putting Ananus Ben Ananus to death after he captured Jerusalem.
either way I love the crusaders
What? Why?
@@jasonbladzinski5336they sacrificed themselves out of their love for God and their fellow Christians from Islam. They truly took up their cross.
@@jasonbladzinski5336because they fought with their hands and their kings lead from the front.
As Achilles says in the film Troy “imagine a king who fights his own battles.”
But we don’t have to imagine, we have Frederick Barbarossa and Richard the Lionheart and Bohemond of Antioch.
And since I’m a goth I also have Totila Baduila Badua, Theodoric the Great and Pelagius of Asturias.
Luke 22:36 KJV) “...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” - Jesus
(Luke 14:31 KJV) “Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?” - Jesus
(Luke 11:21 KJV) “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:” - Jesus
Thank you for providing us with best Crusades related content! :)
thank you!
"if you think i come to make peace you are wrong. I come with a sword"
Thank you for the informative videos. I also thoroughly enjoyed your book.
Really glad to hear it.
I think whenever people cite examples of un-Christian behavior it’s usually incidents such as the 1204 sack of Constantinople or the Albigensian crusade. Instances of Christians turning against Christians. Even I have fallen into that trap. But as ugly and tragic as those events were, I’ve come to understand that, really, that’s human nature. Once we achieve an initial goal against a common enemy, we start turning on each other, Christian or not.
There does seem to be a pattern with "movements" in general, in which they tend to start off going after something outside and external, but then turn more inward and start attacking things, people, institutions closer to home. A great empire, for example, after winning some great battle against an external enemy, might then enter into a period of internal unrest, rebellion, etc.
The Albigensian crusade was needed too
The Albigensians were Gnostics, not Christians.
Great video thanks for making it
This is a time period that I have been interested in since childhood. Even then I knew it was not a black and white situation. Thank you for your well researched videos. You don't leave out the bad or good at all. Thank you, thank you.
Thank you for clearing up the misconceptions about Christianity and the Crusades.
There's so many good points made here. Thank you for making this.
Thanks. Crusades!! Good old authentic videos!
Thank you for the education.
♥️🙏
Good discussion. I just subscribed. I read a Rodney Stark’s book many years ago and basically came to the same conclusions.
Thanks for such a good video, do more like these. People are hungry for truth out there...
You are doing valuable work and doing it well.
Thanks!
Great lecture! Respectfully...
I fully agree. You use clear justfication and its a simple manual how to talk with enemies of the crusades and Church as a whole
"The Virtue of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East and West" by Alexander FC Webster and Darrell Cole is a great read on the subject. It traces the development of Just War Theory from the first century, through schisms and into the Protestant era.
@Lazarus Zoolander I found it to be an objective study of the subject. It traced the development of Augustine's Just War Theory back to Scripture and the arguments, pro and con, put forth by various Apostolic Fathers. From Augustine on, it traces the theory's development in the East, West and Protestant spheres of Christendom. It does it all very handily and in just under 250 pages!
This type of explanation has always made the most sense to me. But there are many attempts, both nieve and malicious, to make the Chruch into something it is not. Usually so some group or powerfull individual can justify their shortcomings.
It is protestants and atheists that spread lies
Great vid
Excellent!
Excellent video
Speak that truth brotha!
Honestly thought you’d be full of it, but as a practicing Christian, you go the intent correct. Christ came to separate families, to turn the world upside down.
Why?
A practicing what???
Because the world was and is corrupt, and needs shaking up to unseat the wicked.
Because families are made up of good and bad people, and if blood ties mean more to you than faith in God, you may follow the evil doings of your family members.
Jesus was and is completely right. It may be hard for us to read his words or understand, but we need to give him chance and we'll see that his ways are higher than ours.
klaus Mascarenhas because what Jesus is saying that there will be good within the the family who believe in him & Morality & those who are immoral. So they will fight themselves causing division based on morality & those who believe in him or not
How is separating families a good thing?
I really enjoyed your book and will you be writing another?
Agree on the ubiquitous "BUT TEH CUSAAAADES!!?" trope. Attacking other civilizations or annihilating their cities is only moral if you use B-29s & napalm or a fission bomb. ;-)
Alyosha Moab
@@cosuinofdeath Exactly -- burning one person at the stake is a travesty -- torching Dresden or Japan's people by the thousands is "just tactics." ;-)
The end justify the means.
@@offcenterconcepthaus based
@Dalis918 No, I mean that there's an enormous amount of pearl-clutching about war in the past -- Crusades, Canaan, and so on. When by modern standards, in time of war -- we do the same for justifiable reasons.
Amazing video.
As a Roman Catholic I agree with you
Exactly right. Your video is right on.
"For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." ~Romans 13:4
I was just thinking, are there any worthwhile movies out there about the Crusade? I'm in such a movie mood as of late.
Thank you for another good video, and for keeping up your work.
Arn the Knight Templar is absolutely epic.
Arn the templar a swedish guy joins the crusades. Advice don't watch the second one though as they end up going full kingdom of heaven tier mode in the second but the First is probably the only Crusader movie i know of at the moment. Of the crusades that shows them in a Positive light and supports Christianity Culturally.
@@mike7652this is exactly the movie I was going to suggest!
@@Nomansland77are you a Norman cousin?!
I’m so sick of the way the culture has vilified my gothic and Norman ancestors, yet the Vikings who killed people in churches are lionized?!
I don’t hate the Vikings or anything, but Totila (King of the Goths and {at least according to my great grandmother, and my genetic testing has shown she was spot on about us being Goths-she called us “Theodoric’s people, from the lineage of Totila”}my direct ancestor) would designate all the churches of all denominations as places of refuge for those not wanting to be involved in a siege he was about to lay, or a battle about to be fought. Procopius’ works show that a man who was in the court of Justinian and idolized Belisarius had the upmost respect and admiration for the Gothic kings, the same could not be said for his opinion on the Byzantine court of Justinian. But the goths are blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire somehow, when in fact they tried to SAVE the western Roman Empire!
And the Normans get it just as bad, with the few portrayed positively often being depicted as somehow distant from their Norman ethnicity. It’s patently absurd.
Well said
Well said.
Many people try to use scripture to justify pacifism (or cowardice, depending on how you look at it) Kind of like how some people have tried to use scripture to justify violence. Christianity is definitely not a pacifist religion. Great video 👍
I agree completely. I'm Lutheran, but I'm from one of the biblically stricter branches, not one of the more humanistic branches.
Let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
The crusades were a result of the caliphates expansion north and westwards. If the Holy Roman Empire turned medieval Europe had not united then they would have been steamrolled. Also Europe was lucky that the Khan's troops were turned back also.
Just of note about the Mongols, it's actually not likely that they could have pushed further into Europe had they tried it. They had some earlier victories such as the Battle of Liegnitz and continued to raid Poland for the next few decades, but even without the politics distracting them back east, they were in capable of maintaining any ground beyond Russia. That far west and Europe was a completely different environment from the steppes, far more forests and hillier, not the best pasture for horses and intense castleization across the entire continent. They were really good at taking a fortified city isolated out on the steppes, but multiple fortresses each within a day's march reinforcement distance from each other in a terrain of hilly forests? Nah they couldn't hold that.
@@walter1383 logistically I see where you are coming from. Yet the Khan's armies waltzed through Russia in the depths of winter and defeated the Teutonic Knights with ease. I believe the seige techniques developed to crush the Qin would brush aside the Castles. The fortifications of Europe would not stand upto the use of gunpowder and canon. As far as the terrain, they are the only invader to succeed in Afghanistan. If one can beat them, forests are only a slight distraction. Thoughts?
Just a reminder: Catholicism wasn’t native or endemic to the Middle East and North Africa. Also, let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
Big fan of your work!! Can I get some citations for Jesus praising soldiers etc
In times of peace prepare for war
I think this was a fair analysis...
Faults will be found in the present culture in future times. It is difficult to put oneself in another's place - especially considering cultural divides and levels of expertise and knowledge / ignorance. People know different things at different time periods.
If you get attacked you have every right to protect yourself. If anything at all, the Crusades were as Christian as it gets.
@Casey McCullen The Templar Knight of Justice Amen
Amen brother
The sword in Matthew 10:34 is the bible
also, luke 22:36 had to happen because things still had to be fulfilled
Thank you for explanation please use inquisitive to look in lost tribe
They marched around the wall of Jerusalem just a Joshua had marched around Jericho.
Loved the video, only I like to remark a fact: Just because something is ancient or benerated as sacred, it doesnt mean that it must be keept as it has been since its foundation, after all, the great things that all of us enjoy now comes from great mistakes and errors committed in the past.
Strength is not to use it, but to show that you could, yet still chooses not to"
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” - Luke 19:27.
Why didn't Jesus say" Father, forgive them" or " Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate".
At the last supper Jesus said,
"He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.." - Luke 22:36
And two days later at Getsamane...
"When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” - Luke 22:46
His followers were carrying swords and Peter even used it. Jesus chastised him, not for violence but for trying to deny him what was orophecised.
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” - Luke 19:27.
on judgment day, if you don't believe in Jesus, Jesus will not save you and will be separated from Him forever.
@@commonman9782 Diesn't work that way, Jesus whipped the moneychangers, God destroyed the King of Tyre. They did not wait for Judgement day. God will send the rejected souls against you and you may end up paying the price of your folly.
@@magatism it's a parable for Jews who rejects Jesus as The Messiah, The King of The Jews
Ive watched so many of your videos I can’t read the word “crusades” anywhere without pronouncing it like you do 😂
tancred in my opinion is the ideal crusader. honest, brave, intelligent, strong, great warrior and merciful.
You would love my ancestor Totila.
He’s almost a Proto-Bohemond type, but super merciful to those he defeated and regarded incredibly highly in the primary sources written by Procopius.
Just wish we hadn't done what we did to our Orthobros
I‘m still figuring out why the bot suppresses my comment. First I thought that the words „kill“ and „murder“ would trigger it (talking about bible translations), but it was of no effect when I abbreviated them. I have no clue at the moment where the problem is.
Didn't Thomus Aquinas create the just war theory?
Certainly the one who populrized it in western thought.
0k thanks
We are not called to pacifists ✝️
Hello, have watched the Vikings? I am wondering if that scene - season 2 I think - where the princess is punished for having a child out of wedlock is legit. Can you comment on some of the discrepancies you see in current cinema and actual customs at that time?
I am a Protestant Christian and I believe the Crusades were just and moral to an extent. I will admit when I say to an extent I really don’t know much of the crusades and want to learn more.
Let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
@@samy7013 We have not forgotten that however, I believe there are still good aspects of the Crusade.
Discuss excommunicated crusaders, please.
The crusades were necessary!
We (Christians) must be educated on this, and be *GRATEFUL* for the crusades.
We actually need crusades now...
How and why were they necessary?
@@jasonbladzinski5336 Check the channel videos and you will understand bruh
Why we need crusades now? Where?
@@nazwusspiritual Crusades
It’s not okay to start fights, but it is okay, even honorable to finish them.
It's funny to notice that we are now much more literate, but know biblical stories much less than medieval people.
NON NOBIS DOMINE, NON NOBIS, SED NOMINI TUO DA GLORIAM
I as a protestant, always find the crusades as justified, only the sack of Constantinople I cannot overlook
And yet, that was a complicated situation. The Byzantines themselves played a crucial hand in that whole episode.
Just a reminder: Catholicism wasn’t native or endemic to the Middle East and North Africa. Also, let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
Since you know this history pretty well would you discuss whether or not the west attacked the Eastern Christians. Orthodoxy always say this and was even bought up in the comments section here can you shed some light on this issue did it happen or not
It went both ways. See the Massacre of the Latins in 1182.
Just a reminder: Catholicism wasn’t native or endemic to the Middle East and North Africa. Also, let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
defend all that is holy
The Holy Bible may preach peace, but when it is Christendom itself that is threatened, then it is every Christians duty to defend ALL that is holy. His holiness the pope has called a crusade to reclaim the holy lands from the infidel, who would deny Christian pilgrims their right to visit the holy places. It is time for the armies of Christendom to put aside their differences and unite under one banner, the sign of the cross! And give back God’s children what is rightfully theirs, or die trying...
Just a reminder: Catholicism wasn’t native or endemic to the Middle East and North Africa. Also, let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
Hello I'am a Catholic and for a long time I agreed with the crusades, but as my Faith grew up I started seeing them as wrong and violent. But I saw this video and the question got back but in the opposite way, and I have a question, in Mathew 26,52: Jesus then said, 'Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'. Right after Saint Peter cut an opposer ear. So is Jesus saying that we must not draw our swords or is this some metaphor that I'am not getting? Thank you for the video, God Bless you all! VIVA CRISTO REY!
I'm not theologian but I do remember that Peter had that sword because jesus had told him to arm himself in preparation for some upcoming event. This muddy's the extent to which that quote is true
I was always taught Jesus most likely told them to buy swords to defend themselves from people who would persecute them. Jesus was kinda like the main punching bag for everyone who didn't like his teachings, so once he was gone then his followers would most likely be the next targets. The men who came to arrest Jesus are written as not being too violent when they came to arrest him and only there to take Jesus, not anyone else. Peter drew a sword first and attacked one of the guards, drawing first blood. Jesus knew that Peter was not a soldier and didn't want him throwing his life away by relying on a sword to end any conflict.
@@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901 okok thanks! God bless you!
@@williamwiegand4340 Thank you! God bless you!
William Wiegand amen
"Thou shalt not bear fruit again " Jesus cursed the fig tree to it's death. At the Last Supper Jesus asked his people to sell their shirts and buy a sword. Two days later at Gethsemane, Peter drew a sword from his clothes and slashed the servants ear. what was Peter, the rock of faith doing with a sword, importantly didn't Jesus know.
Just goes to show Peter was carrying around a sword.
fullfist He obeyed Jesus, literally.
@@magatism I ask people that all the time.
Peter was a Zealot. Guy probably had a sword to begin with.
Acekoala45 - When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" - Luke 22:49
More than one carried.
The Crusades started as a religious war. By the Fourth Crusade the Venetians and their armies attacked Orthodox Christians. More fodder for other religions.
englishgal234 They started off actually as something nine religious however religion was used as a motivation.
The first Crusade was expelling an oppossing conquest of faith. It was coalition of Christians fighting the religion of peace during their tour of peace. The last thing anyone wants is Christians coming together for a common cause, because things get done.
Jacob Berry I mean I don’t have an issue with them reclaiming lost land, I just don’t like the idea of attacking civilians.
The thing Is The Deposed emperor of Byzantium Alexius IV Angelos himself approached the crusaders and asked them to return him to his throne (as he had been deposed).
He promised the crusaders troops and money for their crusade in return for the restoration. The crusaders then sailed to Constantinople and restored Alexious IV Angelos to his throne
Angelos however could not raise the sum he promised and in the end the people revolted against him and he ended up being killed.
Now I'm not claiming the 4th crusade was just but rather the story is more complicated than people give it credit for. I remember watching a documentary about the crusades that gave a 30 second explanation of the 4th crusade and did not mention at all the events leading to the attack on Constantinople.
The truth is, in a perfect world, had the emperor been able to deliver then Constantinople likely would have been left alone.
Patz13 in the 6th century there was no separation of Christianity. Christianity was (almost) united.East-West schism came in 1054.
Well argued. I didn't necessarily agree with you at the outset.
Hey that's great to hear! I'm always willing to have my mind changed as well.
First, Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not 'kill' should actually been Thou shalt not "Murder". Second Christ never held any military person as sinful because of his duty. He restrained his Apostles from harming the soldiers of the Priests, because it could have interfered with his own destiny and intent. Jesus used force in the Temple in Jerusalem. Christianity condemns selfish acts rather than violence, but stresses that only through Jesus' sacrifice is ANYONE justified before their Creator. Christians aren't pacifists, though they should be more restrained from engaging in violence for self-benefit.
Only thing is Jesus didn’t leave a religion but he did leave a Church
Thanks for the insight. All we pray for is peace and tolerance. More especially the 'religion of peace' needs peace.
This is a comedy set about Christianity being the real religion of Peace. Very funny stuff.
Simple answer. No.
Yes and no, the crusades themselves didn't but some acts of the crusaders were.
Slightly off topic: why is the origin of our faith in church of Holy Sepulchre in such a disorder and mess,so many denominations squabling about petty issues? We even have a gatekey holder who is not Christian. Are we so idiotic that we cant agree even on our origin of faith? One God,One Son,One Holy Spirit. Why is it not a clean and pure place and not such dangly kichy mess? Unite Christians!!!!!
Don't worry. It's coming. Wheat and tares.
Love history fan of norse celtic northen European & biblical history l have historically look in to asia minor & Phoenician who who spoke and wrote in paleo hebrew. Blessing God the tribes or nation look in standards of tribe ? Not push any religious sect of christanity love history unstand the past and own family beginning debryan/debrionne/ norman .rollo willian bastared had standard of wolf. So did the benjamites and looked up blessing of tribe dead ringer of my family preset charaters ! I believe made connection europen and hebrews. Please look up manasseh, Ephraim and USA ,great Britain standard. Coat of arms and bessing of tribes please keep open mind the symbolism and blessing. Are unreal !!
I think that the crusades were necessary and justified considering that Muslims took over and raided Christian lands for centuries. But if they conflicted with Christian teachings, it’s up for the particular view of each person on Christianity, the field is open for interpretation, today there are many schools of thought. I won’t say that because someone’s belief in Christianity is influenced by humanism therefore it’s wrong. It doesn’t change the fact that the crusades has a justified reason to exist.
I think the thing we have to recognize though is that these more modern interpretations of Christianity belong to our own age. It's absurd to look back to the Crusades era and say they were behaving in an "unchristian" manner when in fact, during that time, they were behaving in a manner that was inherently Christian with a tradition going back to the founding of the religion.
Just a reminder: Catholicism wasn’t native or endemic to the Middle East and North Africa. Also, let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
something. Corse they were in godly and un Christian they killed and slaughtered all in the name of gos..I'm a god fearing Christian and been in a private Christian school this guy will try so hard to say it was not when it was.
You should get a refund for that private school education.
What do you think of :
1. "Those who live by the sword die by the sword"?
2. Matthew 5 : 38-40 "Do not resist evil, ... turn the other cheek,... render your cloak also"?
If the crusades were a real holy war ordained by God, why didn’t he bless them in war the way he did with the ancient isrealites?
Spain? Sicily? Baltic?
Just a reminder: Catholicism wasn’t native or endemic to the Middle East and North Africa. Also, let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Have we forgotten that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians?
It almost felt like he did there is almost no way the crusades should have succeeded they were vastly outnumbered and many were starving to death to say they weren’t blessed in some way is in my opinion not correct
NO
Completely justified.
Don't agree with you entirely, but greatly respect your willingness to share your views.
"How did you build your religion?"
"Just war"
What you say is correct, but I think you're not being charitable enough to what this argument is putting forward. It's easy to defend the IDEA of crusade as a "just war" or even a "holy war," but this does not address the atrocities that modern people frequently and rightfully take issue with about the crusades. In particular, I'm thinking of the indiscriminate killing and raping that took place when the first crusade captured Jerusalem, among other instances. THIS is un-Christian.
The question is what actually happened at Jerusalem? We know that there was some sort of massacre, but we don't know to what extent, and we don't know who participated in it. The primary source accounts use Old Testament imagery, some of it plucked directly from scripture, to describe the events, and clearly a lot of this exaggerated imagery is mere poetic license. For example, there weren't really rivers of blood running through the streets, that's hyperbolic.
Conversely, the Muslim sources are fairly banal in their description of what happened, making it sound like any other capture of a city. It's only much later that the events at Jerusalem were inflated by the Muslims into some grandiose atrocity. Many historians today are pointing out that in general the idea of what happened at Jerusalem in 1099 has been inflated, and the violence of the sack was probably far more limited than is popularly imagined.
What we do know is that the crusaders had to take the city by force after the defenders refused to surrender. This involved violence, but this was part of warfare. Holy war did involve violence, and for the Christians of the time, they did not view the events at Jerusalem as unchristian, they saw it as justified in light of their losses suffered by the Muslims fighting against them, and the unjust occupation of the Holy Land. I understand we might disagree with them, but we do have to take their perspective on this seriously.
The voilence that resulted when a city was captured at the time is regrettable, but you would be a fool to think that the Muslims were innocent. Sacking cities was attrocious, unchristian, and normal at the time.
If you ever cared to read the accounts of the fall of Constantinople, you'd understand why davout Christians would call for a crusade. Conversely, if you denounce sacking cities as unchristian, shouldn't the air raids and the atomic bomb be unchristian as well?
The thing is modern people dont have a leg to stand on because in our world atrocities still occur as part of warfare. For example in our own lifetimes the Iraq war led to the deaths of several hundred thousand people. The 20th century alone stands out in the annals of human history as a truly violent century even compared to prior centuries.
The modern man can not honestly claim moral superiority over people from 1000 years ago considering the conduct that still occurs.
@@RealCrusadesHistory Hey, thanks for informing me. That makes a lot of sense. I love your channel, so keep up the great work!
Definitely not. If you have to ask, you're not a real Christian.
Just a reminder: Catholicism wasn’t native or endemic to the Middle East and North Africa. Also, let’s not forget the part where Catholics viewed any Christian who wasn’t a Catholic as a heretic and schismatic. Looking at the big picture: Let’s also not forget that there were possibly dozens of “crusades” waged by Catholics against Orthodox, Hussite, Bogomil, Cathar, Lutheran, and other Protestant Christians.
defend all that is holy