Part 3 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Here is the true history of the Crusade;
1. The Crusades were a defensive wars with the goal of defending Christian lands from Muslim invaders or reclaiming lands already invaded and taken.
2. The emperor Constantine send a desperate plea for help to Christian of the West. The First Crusade, called by Pope Urban II in 1095, was in response to this call for help.
3. The Crusaders were not the dregs of Europe, seeking only plunder and kill far from home. They were the first sons of Europe who sacrifice greatly to participate in a worthy cause.
4. The Crusades were regarded as an act of penance, more a pilgrimage than a military campaign.
5. Twin goals given by Pope Urban II to the Crusaders were to rescue the Christians of the East and liberate Jerusalem and other holy places.
6. The reconquest of Jerusalem was a restoration of lands to Christians rather than an exercise of colonialism.
7. There was brutality as in all wars.
8. Various Crusaders attacked Jews out of their own agenda and the Church strongly condemns these attacks.
9. Against all odds, the First Crusade was a success. Nicaea, Antioch were restored to Christian control by 1098. Jerusalem was retaken in 1099.
10. The First Crusade was the only success in 500 years of efforts to effectively stop the advancement of Muslim armies.
11. The Muslims eventually reconquered the Christian holdings as successive crusades all ended in failure.
12. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) led to the brutal sacking of Constantinople by rogue Crusaders, and Pope Innocent III strongly denounce the Crusaders.
13. The Muslim kingdoms of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries were becoming increasingly powerful, having captured Constantinople and advance deeply into Europe.
14. By 15th century, the Crusaders became desperate attempts to save Christendom from extinction.
15. Sultan Mehmed II threatened to invade Italy in 1480, leading to the evacuation of Rome.
16. In 1529 Suleiman the Magnificent will unsuccessfully laid siege on Vienna.
17. Ultimately, Europe’s economic advancement will defeat or stop Muslim onslaught. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the Muslims seemed to have move backyards in time.
18. Without the Crusades, Christianity and the modern Western world as we see today would likely have been driven to extinction.

As for the Templars;

The Knights Templar trace their origin back to shortly after the First Crusade. Around 1119, a French nobleman from the Champagne region, Hugues de Payens, collected eight of his knight relatives including Godfrey de Saint-Omer, and began the Order, their stated mission to protect pilgrims on their journey to visit The Holy Places. They approached King Baldwin II of Jerusalem, who allowed them to set up headquarters on the Temple Mount. The Dome of the Rock, at the centre of the Mount, was understood to occupy the site of the Jewish Temple. Known to Christians throughout the Muslim occupation of Jerusalem as the Holy of Holies, the Dome of the Rock became a Christian church, the Templum Domini, the Temple of the Lord. But the Templars were lodged in the Aqsa Mosque, which was assumed to stand on the site of Solomon’s Temple, as it is confusingly phrased in English; the Greeks called it the Ναός του Σολομώντα, where naos means both ‘temple’ and ‘palace’, while in Latin it was called Templum Solomonis, where again templum can mean ‘palace’; Christians at the time understood the meaning to be ‘palace’.
Because the Aqsa mosque was known as the Templum Solomonis, it was not long before the knights had encompassed the association in their name. They became known as the Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici – the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon; or, in two words, the Templars.

The original order consisted of Hugues de Payens and eight knights, two of whom were brothers and all of whom were his relatives by either blood or marriage: Godfrey de Saint-Omer, Payne DE Monteverdi, Archambaud de St. Agnan, Andre de Montbard, Geoffrey Bison, and two men recorded only by the names of Rossal and Gondamer. The ninth knight remains unknown, although some have speculated that it was Count Hugh of Champagne himself—despite the Count returning to France in 1116 and documentary evidence showing that he joined the Knights on his third visit to the Holy Land in 1125.

Little was heard of the Order for their first nine years. But in 1129, after they were officially sanctioned by the church at the Council of Troyes, they became very well known in Europe. Their fundraising campaigns asked for donations of money, land, or noble-born sons to join the Order, with the implication that donations would help both to defend Jerusalem, and to ensure the charitable giver of a place in Heaven. The Order's efforts were helped substantially by the patronage of Bernard of Clairvaux, the leading churchman of the time, and a nephew of one of the original nine knights.

The Order at its outset had been subject to strong criticism, especially of the concept that religious men could also carry swords. In response to these critics, the influential Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a multi-page treatise entitled De Laude Novae Militae ("In Praise of the New Knighthood"), in which he championed their mission and defended the idea of a military religious order by appealing to the long-held Christian theory of just war, which legitimated “taking up the sword” to defend the innocent and the Church from violent attack. By so doing, Bernard legitimised the Templars, who became the first "warrior monks" of the Western world.

The Knights Templar were the elite fighting force of their day, highly trained, well-equipped and highly motivated; one of the tenets of their religious order was that they were forbidden from retreating in battle, unless outnumbered three to one, and even then only by order of their commander, or if the Templar flag went down.

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

 

All four Matthew, Mark, John and Luke were all at different places and time without having consulting with each other and with the absent of any modern telecommunication they proclaim the same event the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene was the first person to have reach the tomb of Jesus Christ.

 

You were there and say it all.

 

None of the four Gospels were written by those men. And now you're admitting they contradict each other but you're attributing those contradictions to them not being there? Make up your mind, man.

 

Wow, you just proved me entirely right. The emperor Constantine? He died 800 years before the Crusades. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

Here is the true history of the Crusade;
1. The Crusades were a defensive wars with the goal of defending Christian lands from Muslim invaders or reclaiming lands already invaded and taken.
2. The emperor Constantine send a desperate plea for help to Christian of the West. The First Crusade, called by Pope Urban II in 1095, was in response to this call for help.
3. The Crusaders were not the dregs of Europe, seeking only plunder and kill far from home. They were the first sons of Europe who sacrifice greatly to participate in a worthy cause.
4. The Crusades were regarded as an act of penance, more a pilgrimage than a military campaign.
5. Twin goals given by Pope Urban II to the Crusaders were to rescue the Christians of the East and liberate Jerusalem and other holy places.
6. The reconquest of Jerusalem was a restoration of lands to Christians rather than an exercise of colonialism.
7. There was brutality as in all wars.
8. Various Crusaders attacked Jews out of their own agenda and the Church strongly condemns these attacks.
9. Against all odds, the First Crusade was a success. Nicaea, Antioch were restored to Christian control by 1098. Jerusalem was retaken in 1099.
10. The First Crusade was the only success in 500 years of efforts to effectively stop the advancement of Muslim armies.
11. The Muslims eventually reconquered the Christian holdings as successive crusades all ended in failure.
12. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) led to the brutal sacking of Constantinople by rogue Crusaders, and Pope Innocent III strongly denounce the Crusaders.
13. The Muslim kingdoms of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries were becoming increasingly powerful, having captured Constantinople and advance deeply into Europe.
14. By 15th century, the Crusaders became desperate attempts to save Christendom from extinction.
15. Sultan Mehmed II threatened to invade Italy in 1480, leading to the evacuation of Rome.
16. In 1529 Suleiman the Magnificent will unsuccessfully laid siege on Vienna.
17. Ultimately, Europe’s economic advancement will defeat or stop Muslim onslaught. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the Muslims seemed to have move backyards in time.
18. Without the Crusades, Christianity and the modern Western world as we see today would likely have been driven to extinction.

Ah, so you notice Constantine, I am not surprise that you pick on that specifically, good because the emperor of Constantinople at that time was Alexios Komnenos as stated he seek assistant from Western Christians to help him push Muslim invaders and retake lost lands. So, at least you agree now that the Crusade was the result of Muslim aggression. Read more about him and the history during that era how he pressure the Crusades to pay homage and loyalty to him and to the Byzantine empire. Now, do you understand the true history of the Crusade, good.

 

So once again, you admit you were wrong. You thought Constantine and the Templars started the Crusades and you dare lecture me about not knowing what I'm talking about? Hilarious.

 

That is what you claim and contradicting the Bible that you do not support. Am I contradicting myself? Not at all, because I believe Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were the authors as research and expanded by scholars.

So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired. Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.

Perhaps some mystery surrounds these texts and the identity of the authors. Nevertheless, we hold them as sacred, as inspired and as truly the Word of God.

One last point: Given the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code and its promotion of the Gnostic gospels, why were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included in the canon of the New Testament and no other supposed gospels? The simple reasons for their inclusion is as follows: First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship, as noted above. Second, these Gospels are orthodox in their teaching, particularly about the identity and person of Jesus. Third, they were used in the Mass and other liturgical functions. Fourth, they were accepted by the whole Church, not just by some sect. The Gnostic gospels do not fit any of these criteria, and therefore were rejected and condemned by the Church.


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6976

Finally to answer your question again, no the bible has no errors and contradiction.

That is the easy way out dodging the truth and yes I will continue to lecture you the Crusades were the result of Muslim aggression, thanks to the Crusades modern civilization as we see now has survive and thrive and most of all thanks to the Catholic church the world has become more literate and scientific.

 

Yup, I was there and where were you? I think I saw you you were one of those Pharisees????

 

What scholars? The gospels are anonymous no one knows who wrote a single line of any of them.

This is your brain on denial.

 

The Trinity concept was way before the Nicene Creed. "One substance" was accepted by the establish Catholic church and rejected or resisted by the heretics. Constantine role was only a facilitator to bring the heretics back to the Catholic church.

As I have pointed out as early as mid 1st century at the time of Ignatius of Antioch pre dating Tertillian, he has already spear headed the concept of the Trinity.

While Ignatius concentrated most of his thought on Christ, he did not ignore the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the principle of the Lord’s virginal conception (Eph. 18.2). Through the Holy Spirit Christ ‘confirmed . . . in stability the officers of the Church’ (Phil. inscr.). This Spirit spoke through Ignatius himself (Phil. 7.1). Ignatius does not cite the Matthean baptismal formula, but he does sometimes mention Father. Son, and Holy Spirit together. He urges the Magnesians to ‘be eager .

For Ignatius God is Father, and by ‘Father’ he means primarily ‘Father of Jesus Christ’ : ‘There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son’ (Magn. 8.2). Jesus is called ‘God’ 14 times (Eph. inscr. 1.1, 7.2, 15.3, 17.2, 18.2, 19.3; Trall. 7.1; Rom. inscr. 3.3, 6.3; Smyrn. 1.1; Pdyc. 8.3). He is the Father’s Word (Magn. 8.2), ‘the mind of the Father’ (Eph. 3.3), and ‘the mouth through which the Father truly spoke’ (Rom. 8.2). He is ‘His only Son’ (Rom. inscr.), ‘generate and ingenerate, God in man . . . son of Mary and Son of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Eph. 7.2). He is the one ‘who is beyond time the Eternal the Invisible who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible who suffered for our sake’ (Polyc. 3.2).
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Eusebius_of_Caesarea

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Ignatius_of_Antioch%2C_Saint

COLLECTIONS.—The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome. These letters were addressed to the Christians (I) of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious); (2) of Magnesia (Magnesieusin); (3) of Tralles (Trallianois); (4) of Rome (Pros Romaious); (5) of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin); (6) of Smyrna (Smurnaiois); (7) and to Polycarp (Pros Polukarpon). We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius ("Hist. eccl.", III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author.

Read above.

I think you are referring to yourself. Stay away from those conspiracy and anti Catholic materials read real books.

And in he end Eusebius accepted the church fathers research materials.

If he fear Constantine wrath then, Eusebius is not a true Christian willing and ready to die for Christ.

Yes, that is Islam.

 

We know they were by Mark, John, Luke, Matthew, Peter, Paul, James etc.

You are the one denying the bible exist not me, this would mean it is your brain that is in denial the book called Bible is in front of you it is the best selling book of all time.

So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired. Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.

 

As pointed out, pretty much every biblical scholar knows those aren't the authors. What scholar are you talking about?

Do you actually read what you post? You just copy and pasted something that says you're wrong.

So what do you call the radical differences in the story amongst the four books?

How did the Crusades save the world? Pretty much all of them failed and the Muslims retook the land that was reclaimed. So, what was the point of them?

 

He's talking christian ones of course. The old conformation biased trick. He's pulling out the old "Q" Document. Put together in the 40's or 50's....not an eyewitness account of anything but they pull it out every once in a while.

 

Here are the words of Ignatius:

Interesting language don't you think ? Ignatius calls God .. both Father and the God of Jesus in his intro.

If he thought Jesus and God were one in the same he would not call God, the Father, Creator and God of Abraham, "the God of Jesus".

More insight is given later

Jesus is united in spirit to the Father ( just as Christians can be united in spirit with Jesus) but Jesus is not God.

He is claimed to be "Gods word", and Jesus himself claimed to be the messenger of God which makes absolute sense. Gods word made manifest if you will having the spirit of God in him.

This however does not make Jesus the God of Abraham.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-longer.html

 

Yes, you contradict yourself almost with every post.

Also, IMO, aliens populated the earth. And I have just as much proof.

 

Originally Posted by dairyair
So, Jesus himself must've left doubt amongst the apostles? If research had to be done to determine the trinity just a mere couple of decades after his death then there must not have been convincing evidence left behind by Jesus or his 12 disciples. How can that be?

Bump. No answer??

 

You mean your biblical scholars who are none Christian, because the real biblical scholars all agree that the Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were the authors.
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gospel_and_Gospels

And this:
So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired. Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.

Really? or maybe you didn't understand what was written?

No differences, they all confirm that Jesus Christ resurrected.

It send a strong message to the Muslim aggressors that Christians will no longer be passive, the defeat of the Crusade was also a victory because it allows Jerusalem which was the main goal of the Crusade to be safe guarded from being Islamize, Muslim rulers agreed to allow Christians free access to Jerusalem and nearby Holy sites. And as we can see now in the present, the Crusade and the Catholic church were instrumental in the progression and modernization of Europe while Muslim may have recapture those lands they have only brought stagnation and regression.

By the way, because of my grammar issue, I have an excuse to say I made a typo error when I said emperor Constantine ask for help for the Fisrt Crusade I really mean to type "emperor of Constantinople"

 

Re: So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired. Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors.

Sounds like a wild and fanciful assertion to me. As I understand them the Dead Sea Scrolls was the Hebrew bible written by the Essenes, a Jewish sect. Neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles were ever mentioned in them.

 

There you go that is why you not only contradict yourself you also are out of this world, no wonder you can not understand anything here on earth and in Heavens.

 

I'll show you that you're wrong using the link you just posted since it doesnt agree with what you're saying.

And I quote FROM http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gospel_and_Gospels :

" (I) Titles of the Gospels.—The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."

Did you read this fully? There is a reason why they bring this up. Why you ask? Because most of evidence points against traditional authorship. And I'm unsure of why the Gospel manuscripts being written earlier than previously thought has anything to do with who wrote them, do you? I doubt it, you seem to take most things at face value with no questions asked.

Nope, as I just quoted it above to show you that you are wrong.

Uh, and they all tell different stories of who was there to see it, where Jesus appeared, who he appeared to, what Jesus said to the disciples, and how his disciples reacted. Those aren't differences? Also, let me quote your source again:

See? "ALL SCHOLARS READILY ADMIT." They friggin' devoted an entire section to the differences and yet you somehow missed that?

1) Sent a message that they wouldn't be passive? They sat around for over 450 years before "making a move", they WERE passive.
2) Christians were not barred from entering Jerusalem before or after the Crusades. Guess who the Christians blocked from Jerusalem during their rule? Jews.
3) The Ottoman Empire eventually invaded central Europe, guess the crusades didn't stop them, huh?

 

The second quote you give does not have a link and contains some very strange information as the Dead Sea Scrolls contained only OT material.

As to the first link: http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?ti...el_and_Gospels

This link completely refutes your claim. You must not have read it.

And after a lengthy discussion states

It is nice of you to provide a link that refutes your premise but your continued storytelling is wearing thin.

 

The "and this" is not from your Catholic.com link. In fact the link you provided completely refutes what is stated in the above paragraph.

Do you have a link for your paragraph above ?

 

Anyone? Also did he kill the dinosaurs on purpose or was that just an accident? and why create the dinosaurs and let them thrive for so long? Were they practice for our existence?