Signs of God's Will

[stafy]

I'm reading a really amazing book at the moment called The First Crusade: A New History - it's byThomas Asbridge. In essence, it's a very well-written blow-by-blow account of the First Crusade, drawing information about events and the protagonists from sources written by eye-witnesses, participants or commentators just after the period, mainly Franks (Europeans), but also a few Arab sources. It's highly praised as a sort of new definitive work on the First Crusade, and I reccomend it to anyone interested in the period.

Anyway, though - something that's really struck me throughout the book just far is the extent to which the Franks saw the hand of God in what they were doing. There was an aurora in the sky at one point and a comet at another; both were seen as signs of heavenly approval at the Crusade. A man called Peter Bartholomew came forward after the capture of Antioch and claimed to have been recieving visions from St Peter as to the resting place of the Holy Lance; a metal spearhead was dug up, but Bishop Adhemar le Puy, the spiritual head of the contingent, doubted its verity, not in the lease because another 'Holy Lance' was already enshrined as a relic back in Byzantium by the Orthodox Church. But after Adhemar died, Peter Bartholomew claimed to have visions from the Bishop, who recanted in death and said that the Lance was real, that he'd been punished in hell for doubting, and that incidentally, he thought it was best that the crusaders throw their support behind Peter Bartholomew's patron, Raymond of Tolouse. Along with this, there were other events taken as signs of godly displeasure, such as outbreaks of disease or loss in battle, whereas the victory against Kerborgha and the Muslim forces was seen as being the work of God, and several witnesses claimed in their accounts that, through various means, God had actually increased the number of men in their army; one description talks about white horses and valiant horsemen riding down from Mt Silpius to join the fight and then vanishing again.

What, for me, is so interesting about this is the fact that pretty much every Christian I've spoken to on Worthy holds the position that the Crusaders weren't actually Christian, because of the atrocities they committed (the rape and murder at Nicea, the pogroms against the Jews, the sack of Antioch and the cannibalism at Marrat An-Namun, for instance). Clearly, though, the Crusaders believed they were fighting for God, to the extent of reading divine approval or disapproval into many good or bad occurences.

Ultimately, though, the Crusaders did reach Jerusalem; they weren't prevented from acting in God's name by any divine hindrance, and believed wholeheartedly that their mission was sanctioned and blessed by Christ. So what I'm wondering is: why did God allow the Crusaders to succede, to all intents and purposes in his name (however wrongly), if they actually weren't Christian? But if God was supporting the Crusaders and this is why they reached Jerusalem, why was there so much unchecked barbarity in the process?

You actually answered your own question. In christian terms revelation only comes from god. yet you say, st peter who is just an ordinary man was the source of the revelation this automatically tells us this whole venture was started, traveled and completed demonically. Confriming what we as christians are saying ( THE HOLY CRUSADES WERE FROM SATAN).