the Crusades were for the Christian faith?

[Macs Son]

FYI: http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Crusades_Jews.htm

Hi Parker,

Yes, I agree that there were plenty of horrendous sins to go around on both sides during this period. Still not all Christians during this period were following mob rule as the site you referenced shows. Again I'm certainly not defending everything that happened during the crusades just the fact that the causes aren't simplistic as implied and what most were taught in school. For the record there were also Jews fighting against the Crusaders. The fact that some protected Jews while others lumped them all together and persecuted them however doesn't prove out a theory of super-cession as causation for the crusades. It just proves that in every war, unless there is a strict chain of command, that there is always an element of mob mentality. That shouldn't however change anyone mind from logically drawing the simplest conclusion for the cause of the Crusades being 500 years of Islamic aggression. Are we to ignore 500 years of documented historical encroachment for someone's pet theory? It doesn't seem like a point that we should ignore just to follow the status quo on the conclusion.

Regards, Pat

[Wildstar]

Crusades were disgusting and led by satan.  

[Macs Son]

Hi Wildfire,

The original question was not directed towards the execution and prosecution of the Crusades but towards the reasons for the crusades. What brought them about. We're simply stating here what were the underlying causes for Christian nations to band together and go on the offensive.

Pls explain me the reason of the Crusades

It seems clear, to me at least, that the underlying reason were the consistent attacks of land grabbing jihadists who sought to put their yoke upon the Christian nations of that era. Surely we see some of that in the news today as well. I'm certainly not defending the prosecution of the crusades but I am trying to bring clarity to the truth of what caused them.

Your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.

Again just stating these attacks are what caused the response to unite Europe against them.

In Christ, Pat

[Guest]

 

FYI: http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Crusades_Jews.htm

Hi Parker,

Yes, I agree that there were plenty of horrendous sins to go around on both sides during this period. Still not all Christians during this period were following mob rule as the site you referenced shows. Again I'm certainly not defending everything that happened during the crusades just the fact that the causes aren't simplistic as implied and what most were taught in school. For the record there were also Jews fighting against the Crusaders. The fact that some protected Jews while others lumped them all together and persecuted them however doesn't prove out a theory of super-cession as causation for the crusades. It just proves that in every war, unless there is a strict chain of command, that there is always an element of mob mentality. That shouldn't however change anyone mind from logically drawing the simplest conclusion for the cause of the Crusades being 500 years of Islamic aggression. Are we to ignore 500 years of documented historical encroachment for someone's pet theory? It doesn't seem like a point that we should ignore just to follow the status quo on the conclusion.

Regards, Pat

 

Macs Son. I know that you aren't. I don't want to say that there were not some noble causes connected to the Crusades. We are talking about the root causes for them. I believe that history demonstrates that one main cause was to continue the "time of the Gentiles;" that many of the RC leaders of the time ascribed to Replacement Theology, where the idea originated, and the order of the the day was to capture Jerusalem from the "infidels" and the "Jews who murdered Jesus."

[Qnts2]

 

The crusaders killed anyone who was not a Christian. Thousands of Jews were slaughtered. As well as Muslim women and children.

 

While a government of a country has a right to defend it's citizens, when the war is conducted in Jesus name, it becomes an issue. And that was the problem. There is only one war which will be conducted in Jesus name and that is one led by Jesus.

 

The crusaders did believe in Replacement theology, as they were claiming Jerusalem, wanting it under 'Christian' control as a Christian right. Jerusalem was not a Christian right, but was given by God to the Jewish people. That the Muslims had control was a part of the punishment of dispersement. But when the crusaders fought in Jerusalem, they also targetted the Jewish people who were there, because the Jewish people did not believe in Jesus, and the Jewish people fought along side the Muslims due to the violence of the Crusaders.  

 

So, some simple Christian questions.

 

1. Is it Christian to kill unbelievers?

2. Is it biblically Christian to fight for land to claim for Jesus?.

3. Is it biblically Christian to believe killing unbelievers will gain you better status before God?

 

The were two very grave issues, people were slaughtered with no mercy, and this was done in Jesus name. The truth of the crusades was that people who needed to hear the gospel have memories of torture and slaughter in Jesus name for many generations. The crusades did tremendous damage to the real biblical mission.

A good policy for establishing truth from Paul:

This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”

Hi Qnts2

Firstly let me say there were many, many, many things wrong with the crusades but the point here is the western world has totally lost the context of why they actually occurred and has turned the blame totally on the Christian people who lived in that era. In doing so they have put themselves totally above the fray and somewhat condescendingly judged the people of that era as unrighteous bigots and nothing more. We at least owe it to those generations to dig a little deeper into their predicament before we hand out those kind of indictments.

I said before the crusades had nothing to do with super-cession and everything to do with the violence being propagated against countries and cities that were Christian. Now no one is invading Montpellier today but in 739 the Muslim Jihadists were and in many cases they were putting Christians to the sword, something that was done on and off during the 500 years of jihadi attacks upon Eastern and western Europe. The factual background on the previous 500 years seems to be totally lacking from this debate. So how can we hope to understand motive when most don't even realize what was transpiring in the half millennia of Islamic aggression prior to crusades themselves? To me this is simple cause and effect principle.

So, basically, I don't think all your questions are really relevant to the times in question. Fighting disparate local engagements was not seen as something that was going to solve this ongoing 500 year old problem and this was recognized on a global scale by both Eastern and Western Christian nations. The aggression was not going to stop if they said let's play nice and you can keep Jerusalem. That said I'll answer your questions.

1.

It wasn't a war to kill unbelievers but a war to liberate Christian people who were being slaughtered and conquered for nearly 500 years from jihad. That said many crusaders did have wrong motives, just as in all wars there are mixtures of motives and good and bad decisions. Some might look at World War II as a just war in liberating Europe from Nazi's tyranny, and I would agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. That said there were darker elements to it that the liberating forces might wish they could take back. It gets very hard to judge. Many Americans think Vietnam was an immoral war and turned their backs on America's soldiers but at the same time said nothing when 10's of thousands Vietnamese refugees known as boat people drowned or were attacked and killed in the South China Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people

Some injustices just seem to get buried when it's not convenient to see there are two sides to every story. Now this could turn into a huge moral discussion but at its most basic ethical level if you saw a criminal attacking a peace loving woman or child with deadly intent and you were the only one around, would your conscience tell you to step into the fray and protect? Of course that is a hypothetical question and some might not think it fair but that is precisely my point, especially when not armed with all the facts.

2. No, it is not but one might have a pretty good argument that Jerusalem was not a Islamic city in the first place or the second place for that matter. After Titus the Roman general in AD70 fulfilled Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed.

 

 

Now the subsequent decade saw Jerusalem's gradual reoccupation by the Jews but the temple was never rebuilt. Then 50 years later the city became completely off limits to the Jews, which Justin Martyr also records for us in his dialog with Trypho. That edict did not come by the Christians but by the Romans Emperor Hadrian, who was pagan. Christians in fact would continue to be persecuted by the Romans for almost another 200 years at that time.

The final war between Romans and Jews was waged in Palestine in 133-135 A.D. Led by Simon Bar Kochba. The Jewish rebellion was caused by Roman actions which are also historically uncertain. Again, hundreds of thousands of Jews were slaughtered and so many sold into captivity that their price fell to that of a horse. All Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, which became a city of gentiles.

But it did eventually become a Christian city after Constantine made it so. Afterwards it remained a Christian city for 300 years until it was conquered by Muslim Jihadists in AD 637, so we can hardly infer it was an Islamic city or that Christians had no right to claim it as theirs. In AD 800 they gave the rights to the Frankish king for Christians to worship there but all that changed in AD1070 when rival Islamic faction, the Seljuk Turks, captured Jerusalem from the Fatimids, and began oppressing and persecuting Christians. This became one of the factors in deciding to retake the city.

3. That's simple, the answer is "no" and no where in the Bible does it teach that. However the same might not be said of the Quran nor the Hadith but I'm not sure the western world is really cognizant of that.

I make no other comment here as to whether any of the above verses are actually believed by the Muslim community but it is in there, just as it was during the Islamic invasions and the crusades. Anyway my main point is to know this volatile time better before rushing to judgment. I think all of history has something to teach us if we examine it more closely.

Regards, Pat

 

 

Let me make this simple. Let's look at just the first crusade, as the following crusades just became more vial and violent.

 

From Wiki:

 

The First Crusade (1096–1099) started as a widespread pilgrimage (France and Germany) and ended as a military expedition by Roman Catholic Europe to regain the Holy Lands taken in the Muslim conquests of the Levant (632–661), ultimately resulting in the recapture of Jerusalem in 1099. It was launched on 27 November 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia. An additional goal soon became the principal objective—the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Muslim rule.

 

If a country is under attack, it has the right to defend itself. The Muslims were attempting to capture land. However, the crusades was not just about defense, as Jerusalem became the goal but was not 'Christian' land. It was not Muslim land either. But the Crusaders were attempting to capture land which did not biblically belong to them. In doing that, they murdered the actual owners of the land, the Jewish people. Why did the crusaders go after Jerusalem? It was because they thought of Jerusalem as theirs. That is Replacement Theology. They did so in the name of Jesus. That is blasphemy, using Jesus name to murder those to whom God actually promised the land.  Biblically, there is no redeeming value to the crusades. It was against God from day one. Using the name of Jesus to justify a slaughter is what make the Crusades as heinous as they come.   

[Macs Son]

Good morning Qnts

For the record you have me quoting this in the preceding post but that was actually you

The crusaders killed anyone who was not a Christian. Thousands of Jews were slaughtered. As well as Muslim women and children.

 

While a government of a country has a right to defend it's citizens, when the war is conducted in Jesus name, it becomes an issue. And that was the problem. There is only one war which will be conducted in Jesus name and that is one led by Jesus.

 

The crusaders did believe in Replacement theology, as they were claiming Jerusalem, wanting it under 'Christian' control as a Christian right. Jerusalem was not a Christian right, but was given by God to the Jewish people. That the Muslims had control was a part of the punishment of dispersement. But when the crusaders fought in Jerusalem, they also targetted the Jewish people who were there, because the Jewish people did not believe in Jesus, and the Jewish people fought along side the Muslims due to the violence of the Crusaders.  

 

So, some simple Christian questions.

 

1. Is it Christian to kill unbelievers?

2. Is it biblically Christian to fight for land to claim for Jesus?.

3. Is it biblically Christian to believe killing unbelievers will gain you better status before God?

 

The were two very grave issues, people were slaughtered with no mercy, and this was done in Jesus name. The truth of the crusades was that people who needed to hear the gospel have memories of torture and slaughter in Jesus name for many generations. The crusades did tremendous damage to the real biblical mission.

A good policy for establishing truth from Paul:

I feel I already answered this truthfully.

So to answer your last post

Let me make this simple. Let's look at just the first crusade, as the following crusades just became more vial and violent.

 

From Wiki:

 

The First Crusade (1096–1099) started as a widespread pilgrimage (France and Germany) and ended as a military expedition by Roman Catholic Europe to regain the Holy Lands taken in the Muslim conquests of the Levant (632–661), ultimately resulting in the recapture of Jerusalem in 1099. It was launched on 27 November 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia. An additional goal soon became the principal objective—the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Muslim rule.

 

If a country is under attack, it has the right to defend itself. The Muslims were attempting to capture land. However, the crusades was not just about defense, as Jerusalem became the goal but was not 'Christian' land. It was not Muslim land either. But the Crusaders were attempting to capture land which did not biblically belong to them. In doing that, they murdered the actual owners of the land, the Jewish people. Why did the crusaders go after Jerusalem? It was because they thought of Jerusalem as theirs. That is Replacement Theology. They did so in the name of Jesus. That is blasphemy, using Jesus name to murder those to whom God actually promised the land.  Biblically, there is no redeeming value to the crusades. It was against God from day one. Using the name of Jesus to justify a slaughter is what make the Crusades as heinous as they come.

Wiki is far too simplistic, as it made no mention of the previous 500 years of violence propagated against Christians in Easter and western Europe as a major cause of the crusades. I haven't got much response on that as being causal, even though it is completely factual. I think you failed to address this as well. I think many have responded here with some pretty emotional hyperbole instead of factual information. I believe the truth is always deeper than surface. That is not to say I agree with the crusades although I certainly do not agree with the swift judgment we have accused those generations who participated in either, much without the use of eyewitness data, which the Bible asks us to render judgment on.

But I do have a question to ask you.

If Jesus prophesied of the downfall of Jerusalem who are you implying Jerusalem Biblically belonged to?

Thanks

In Christ, Pat

[Qnts2]

Good morning Qnts

For the record you have me quoting this in the preceding post but that was actually you

The crusaders killed anyone who was not a Christian. Thousands of Jews were slaughtered. As well as Muslim women and children.

 

While a government of a country has a right to defend it's citizens, when the war is conducted in Jesus name, it becomes an issue. And that was the problem. There is only one war which will be conducted in Jesus name and that is one led by Jesus.

 

The crusaders did believe in Replacement theology, as they were claiming Jerusalem, wanting it under 'Christian' control as a Christian right. Jerusalem was not a Christian right, but was given by God to the Jewish people. That the Muslims had control was a part of the punishment of dispersement. But when the crusaders fought in Jerusalem, they also targetted the Jewish people who were there, because the Jewish people did not believe in Jesus, and the Jewish people fought along side the Muslims due to the violence of the Crusaders.  

 

So, some simple Christian questions.

 

1. Is it Christian to kill unbelievers?

2. Is it biblically Christian to fight for land to claim for Jesus?.

3. Is it biblically Christian to believe killing unbelievers will gain you better status before God?

 

The were two very grave issues, people were slaughtered with no mercy, and this was done in Jesus name. The truth of the crusades was that people who needed to hear the gospel have memories of torture and slaughter in Jesus name for many generations. The crusades did tremendous damage to the real biblical mission.

A good policy for establishing truth from Paul:

I feel I already answered this truthfully.

So to answer your last post

Let me make this simple. Let's look at just the first crusade, as the following crusades just became more vial and violent.

 

From Wiki:

 

The First Crusade (1096–1099) started as a widespread pilgrimage (France and Germany) and ended as a military expedition by Roman Catholic Europe to regain the Holy Lands taken in the Muslim conquests of the Levant (632–661), ultimately resulting in the recapture of Jerusalem in 1099. It was launched on 27 November 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia. An additional goal soon became the principal objective—the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Muslim rule.

 

If a country is under attack, it has the right to defend itself. The Muslims were attempting to capture land. However, the crusades was not just about defense, as Jerusalem became the goal but was not 'Christian' land. It was not Muslim land either. But the Crusaders were attempting to capture land which did not biblically belong to them. In doing that, they murdered the actual owners of the land, the Jewish people. Why did the crusaders go after Jerusalem? It was because they thought of Jerusalem as theirs. That is Replacement Theology. They did so in the name of Jesus. That is blasphemy, using Jesus name to murder those to whom God actually promised the land.  Biblically, there is no redeeming value to the crusades. It was against God from day one. Using the name of Jesus to justify a slaughter is what make the Crusades as heinous as they come.

Wiki is far too simplistic, as it made no mention of the previous 500 years of violence propagated against Christians in Easter and western Europe as a major cause of the crusades. I haven't got much response on that as being causal, even though it is completely factual. I think you failed to address this as well. I think many have responded here with some pretty emotional hyperbole instead of factual information. I believe the truth is always deeper than surface. That is not to say I agree with the crusades although I certainly do not agree with the swift judgment we have accused those generations who participated in either, much without the use of eyewitness data, which the Bible asks us to render judgment on.

But I do have a question to ask you.

If Jesus prophesied of the downfall of Jerusalem who are you implying Jerusalem Biblically belonged to?

Thanks

In Christ, Pat

 

 

So, since Jewish people were unjustifiably and cruelly slaughter by Christians who were the agressors, does that mean, the Jewish people had the right to slaughter Christians to go to Christian countries and retalliate? Slaughtering Christian men, women and children?  Biblically, there is no such right, so the crusades were not Christian. Instead, they were in direct violation of scripture. There is no justification for what the crusaders did, but you are trying to excuse a horrendous sin.

 

Jesus did prophesy the downfall of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jewish people, but the promise of Jerusalem to the Jewish people was never rescinded. It was never promised to anyone but the Jewish people, and when the promise was made, it was always to belong to the Jewish people, based on Gods promise. God promised to regather the Jewish people into the land of Israel and Jerusalem at a later time.  So those Christians were trying to claim what was not theirs, and slaughtering the rightful owners.  

[Macs Son]

So, since Jewish people were unjustifiably and cruelly slaughter by Christians who were the agressors, does that mean, the Jewish people had the right to slaughter Christians to go to Christian countries and retalliate? Slaughtering Christian men, women and children?  Biblically, there is no such right, so the crusades were not Christian. Instead, they were in direct violation of scripture. There is no justification for what the crusaders did, but you are trying to excuse a horrendous sin.

 

Jesus did prophesy the downfall of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jewish people, but the promise of Jerusalem to the Jewish people was never rescinded. It was never promised to anyone but the Jewish people, and when the promise was made, it was always to belong to the Jewish people, based on Gods promise. God promised to regather the Jewish people into the land of Israel and Jerusalem at a later time.  So those Christians were trying to claim what was not theirs, and slaughtering the rightful owners.

I disagree with you that the Christians were the aggressors in this conflict. This is why I keep pointing out to you the well documented 500 year history of Islamic jihadist aggression over North Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, into the Germanic provinces, Eastern Asia into Afghanistan and to the Black Sea, the Islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Western Europe from Portugal to Spain and as far as France, Italy, even up to the Alps. How much aggression do we need to see before we recognize how hard pressed these people were. Clearly the track of invasions here leave no doubt as to just who the aggressors were! Stating that the Christian nations were the aggressor in the wars that followed is intellectually dishonest. I also have made it abundantly clear that I am not trying to justify any horrendous sins that took place on either side of the conflict but that I was simply stating Christian nations did have a right to protect themselves, as well as recover the lands that had been stripped from them. As far as the reckless and horrendous injustices that some of them perpetrated upon other peoples, including other Christians, all I can say is they will no doubt be judged by God. However I do not think it is very righteous for us to lump every Christian who participated in a crusade as being a devil, especially without factual information to indict them of clearly being under the influence of the devil. Quite frankly There has been a clear bias of half truths over the centuries and it wasn't until I did some digging that I began to change my opinion on some of this.

Perhaps now with hundreds of kidnapped girls, airplanes driven into the World trade center and Pentagon, the storming and bombing of embassies, the suicide bombings, the abuse of woman, the beheadings of Christians and secularists, the burning of Churches, the unlawful occupation of lands and murder of civilians who disagree with their tenets of jihad, and the ill treatment of women we might begin to have some perception of just what it might have been like for these Christians who were fighting against jihadists in their own lands. We simply weren't there so let's let God judge whether they were justified in acting against this onslaught perpetrated against them or not. Even Francis of Assisi in 1219 participated in one of the crusades and tried to evangelize the leader of the armies positioned against them.

http://www.christiantimelines.com/franciscrusades.htm

Now you mention above that the Jews were the rightful rulers of Jerusalem, even though Christ gave a vivid prophesy against Israel, knowing they would reject Him, the very one who was the cornerstone of their covenant.

 

Mark 13:2 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

And as far as being aggressors, we know the Jews who rejected Christ did not do so quietly at that time. It is well documented that they carried out no shortage of aggressive tactics against the early church, including murder and imprisonment.

 

Mark 13:9 "But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them.

Now Jewish aggression against Christians continued for centuries after the resurrection. The killing didn't just stop with Stephen, the first martyr of the Church, but they also got Herod to put James, the brother of John, to the sword. Afterwards when Herod saw that it pleased the Jews he locked Peter up in order to do the same thing. We also have the voice of Paul who told us that he gladly threw men and women into prison for following Christ, that is until the Lord knocked him off his high horse. After Saul became a Christian most Christians were suspicious of him except a few the Lord endowed with the courage to befriend him as a brother in Christ. Jewish persecutions also scattered the Church for and wide. When Gentile came into the Church filled with the Holy Spirit many Jewish Christians thought they should be forced to follow the Jewish rites of circumcision. The first church council ruled against this mandate however, and simply admonished them to abstain from sexual immorality, the strangulation of animals, and food sacrifice to idols. The Jewish leaders of the newborn Christian Church recognized that it was simply faith in Christ, that fulfilled our participation in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant. Christ then was the fulfillment of all the Jewish rites that foreshadowed Him so what mattered was the ubsance and not the shadows of what had already come. Yes the Jewish Christians would retain their customs but they would not lay that burden upon Gentile believers. Now Paul tells us later that there was friction with some elements of the Church who still mandated that Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised.

 

Acts 15:1

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Acts 15:5

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

Acts 15:24

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment

1Corinthians 7:18

Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.

Galatians 5:6

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

Galatians 5:11

And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased.

Philippians 3:3

For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh

Still with all his admonition to Gentiles to steer clear of those who desired to Judaize them there was no talk of super-cession. Paul certainly did not preach super-cession to the Gentiles and evidence that he preached against super-cession appears later in his ministry when he wrote his letter to the Romans.

 

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Just as it is written:

​“God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day.”

​And David says:

“Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a recompense to them. ​​Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, and bow down their back always.”

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

So we learn here that:

1. it was jealousy of the Gentiles that provoked them,

2. that God would leave a remnant representative of those coming through the Mosaic covenant,

3. and if their "falling" prepared the way for the Gentiles to be grafted into Abraham then their fullness would be the coming of the Lord.

You will remember, however, the covenant itself id not only contain blessings to Israel but also curses:

 

Blessing

And if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments, which I command you this day, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God. --Deuteronomy 28:1-2

curses

"But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. --Deuteronomy 28:15

"The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you shall go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them; and you shall be a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth. --Deuteronomy 28:25

Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes look on and fail with longing for them all the day; and it shall not be in the power of your hand to prevent it. A nation which you have not known shall eat up the fruit of your ground and of all your labors; and you shall be only oppressed and crushed continually --Deuteronomy 28:32-33

So the possession of the land and of the Lord's blessings were conditional and the actual history of Jerusalem and Israel was thus

1. Before they entered the promised land God wiped out all of the original generation he took out of Egypt

2. During the time of the Judges they cyclically went in and out of God's favor, freedom & slavery to their oppressors.

3. They were uprooted from the land by the Babylonians.

4. Then the Greeks under Antiochus Ephiphanes again subjugated them until the Maccabean revolt

5. Then the Romans in 60 BC once again subjugated them

6. Their Temple was again completely destroyed by the Romans in AD70 and their culture, lands and people decimated

7 After the Jewish Bar Kochba War against the Rome ended in AD135 they were banished once more from Jerusalem.

The question we must ask ourselves is was their banishment directed by the hand of Lord and did they reap what they sowed?

A few Scripture passage would seem to infer that:

 

Matthew 21:43-45

"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."

Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.

Now the Kingdom of God started with Israel and even Jesus says in John chapter 4 that "Salvation is of the Jews. But above He is clearly saying the Kingdom will be put in the hands of those who bear fruit for it. Now their animosity towards Christ and Christians wasn't just in the Apostolic age either, for even in the mid 2nd century Justin inferred that the Jewish people still stirred up first hand and second hand persecution against the Christian Church.

 

"And God himself proclaimed by Moses, speaking thus: 'And circumcise the hardness of your hearts, and no longer stiffen the neck. For the Lord your God is both Lord of lords, and a great, mighty, and terrible God, who regardeth not persons, and taketh not rewards.' And in Leviticus: 'Because they have transgressed against Me, and despised Me, and because they have walked contrary to Me, I also walked contrary to them, and I shall cut them off in the land of their enemies. Then shall their uncircumcised heart be turned.' For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.

Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him; And now you reject those who hope in Him, and in Him who sent Him--God the Almighty and Maker of all things cursing in your synagogues those that believe on Christ

For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him. For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man,-- through whose swipes those who approach the Father by Him are healed, --when you knew that He had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, as the prophets foretold He would, you not only did not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but at that time you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up, and to publish those things which all they who knew us not speak against us. So that you are the cause not only of your own unrighteousness, but in fact of that of all other men. And Isaiah cries justly:

'By reason of you, My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.'

"For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Savior, I do not think that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of His to the prophetic statements. Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this layer, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,--namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to anyone, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us

So apparently Jewish contrivances against the Christians of the 2nd century, who were also being persecuted by the Romans, were still bery much still happening in the 2nd century since,according to Justin, the violence of Jews against Christians was prevalent. But during these years I still here no talk of super-cession and Romans 11 is clearly one of the masterpieces respected by the Church and was still speaking its truth by the Holy Spirit that God's plan also involves the return of Israel, who had hardened their hearts against both Him and His Church.

Now there have been discoveries of Jewish tombs that date back to the 3rd and 4th centuries, which were found in Jerusalem. There are also records of pilgrimages to Jerusalem in that era as well. So the Jewish people were certainly allowed back. However, we can infer that there were problems however during the reign of Constantine; for several warning an decrees were made including that he again expelled them from the city, probably because of violence propagated against Christians. This we are told by an 11th century chronicler, which is admittedly late. But we do have some of the edicts issued in the early to mid 4th century.

 

We wish to make it known to the Jews and their elders and their patriarchs that if, after the enactment of this law, any one of them dares to attack with stones or some other manifestation of anger another who has fled their dangerous sect and attached himself to the worship of God [Christianity], he must speedily be given to the flames and burn~ together with all his accomplices.

Their expulsion, if there was one however, did not last long however. When the Islamic invasion of Jerusalem came in the 7th century it came with violence against the Jews, as the rhetoric of the Quran clearly mentions slaughtering Jews. By the time of the crusades, however, it is assumed that the Jews lived peaceably alongside the Muslims in that city. There are inferences, however, that they were still fighting with Christians. None of the animosity towards Christians, however, justified what some of the unruly mobs did in slaughtering innocent people, which included Jews. Some of those mobs even later went on to plunder Christians and slaughter them as well. So obviously these mobsters never knew Christ but were following the dictates of unbridled hatred and greed.

 

Matthew 7:22

"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

All this said in response; I do very much love Israel and pray for its return and recognition of their promised Messiah, who has already come. God may have punished her but I know He also longs for her as a lost child. I also believe the time of the Gentile is nearing a close and that the time of Israel's coming to Christ will be soon, even at the door.

I think I'm pretty much done talking about the crusades for now - I had only planned to answer the question about the causes of the crusades and did not think I would spend quite as much energy on explaining my perspective which I still maintain is true. But overall I believe Joe and Kwikphilly have already answered better than I in summing things up.

In Christ, Pat

Edited July 17, 2014 by Macs Son