Skip to main content

Make For The Crusade!


I am not ashamed of the crusades. I appreciate the efforts of those who fought to liberate Europe from the Turks. I am dismayed by the reputation the Crusades has recieved. Christians are taught to be appalled, to look with disdain upon the Crusades. Biased historians want us to beleive the Christians rode to the Holy Land seeking land, titles, and treasuries. Yet they fail to read the accounts of knights and families that went bankrupt in process of aqauiring revenues to go on Crusade. The gain would never repay the sacrifice of these men, these soldiers of Christ. They did not go with sinister hearts, they went to deliver their opressed brethern and then repay the saracen for their invasion. You have to understand Medieval tactics, if you invade my land, if you take my abode, I am obligated to do the same to you. Some call it an eye for eye, but really it was a way to convey power, to express that you are not weak and will not tolerate injustice.

We criticise those back then for not being passive, and politically correct. The numerious atrocities are always referenced "The Christians when they took Jerusalem, butchered the saracen men, women, and children." They fail to mention the Turks did the same when they took strongholds, and was common practice. For some reason Christians aren't ashamed or angry when King David did the same thing to nefarious tribes. Its interesting how easily we conformed to what alleged experts say. We don't investigate the facts and trust these men to be accurate. Folly! This tendenacy is exactly what Martin Luther addressed during the Reformation. Believers just accepted what friars, bishops, cardinals, and popes disclosed and before long they were buying their salvation. Only after the enlightment, only once the Bible was translated into the common langauge did people break free and decide for themselves what they thought. The same is for the Crusades, I have picked up ten books on this historical period and nine out of ten are biased and pro muslim. They claim the Arabs were enlightened and never sought to a qaurrel and the Christians to be blood thirsty barbarians.

It infuriates me how history is distorted for the agendas of certain politcal and religious purposes. I want the facts, the history without major bias. At last I stumbled upon a book: God's Battlelions -The Case for The Crusades by Rodney Stark. At last a take on it all that shows some favor toward Christianity. He makes evident the heart behind the Crusade, that while some bad fellows got involved, overall it was important event we should as believers be proud of. He cites ancient documents and texts to support his claims, that the Knights of Christiandom were brillant and devout men of God. That they sought to do what they believed was God's Will. These young and old valiant cavaliermen gave their lives to ensure the survival of the Christian Faith. If they had not fought, we today would be muslim. Example: Malta.

While these are my own words and it is my prespective, some of the information I reference and discuss is from, God's Battlelions: The Case For The Crusades by Rodney Stark.

Comments

  1. Yes!
    This is one reason I will homeschool my children...you just can't get history taught right in the classroom these days!
    It is sad how people lean on what is popular these days instead of seeking and learning for themeslves...I would be a very different person if I did what is popular!!!
    Being politically correct is just...doesn't make sense how the people who are politically correct are the ones who are against all this stuff that would "hurt feelings" etc...and yet they are the ones for the murder of babies etc.
    I am boggled at times...the state of our world is very sad. We must turn to Christ or all hope is lost!
    Great post, Sir Jeff!!!
    Blessings!
    Dame Anna

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: The Nephilim and Giants

  Christianity Today asserts that the conquest of Canaan can be a “stumbling block” for believers. This probably is because of a foolish idea of comparing it to a modern conquest happening in our world. The truth is that God had Israel conquer Canaan because it was ruled by evil giants, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers 13:33). These are Anakim or Nephilim, the children of angels and human women, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These w

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come and died for our sins an

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few people are endeavo