-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
J
I had turned the computer off and was headed to bed when I felt convicted. Grey you asked a good question and within the context of discussion on the crusades we were looking at Christian ethics in the modern world as well as in the past. Now, your thread has been divderted from your question. For my part in that I respectfully apologize.
P
Hi Cup. I'll have to pick up Biblical references to turn back some of your theories.
1) It is possible that "Gentiles" are the descendants of Shem through Eber. But these do not include the peoples you mention, like the Greeks etc. You are wrong here.
2) Who are the Greeks according to the Bible? Genesis 10:2: "The sons of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras."
Greece is here Javan. How can we know this? Because the Prophet Daniel speaks of them too:
8:21: "And the young he-goat, the hairy one, [is] the king of Javan; and the great horn that [is] between its eyes is the first king;"
11:2: and, now, truth I declare to thee, Lo, yet three kings are standing for Persia, and the fourth doth become far richer than all, and according to his strength by his riches he stirreth up the whole, with the kingdom of Javan.
And even Zechariah speaks of Javan: "For I have trodden for Me Judah, A bow I have filled [with] Ephraim, And I have stirred up thy sons, O Zion, Against thy sons, O Javan, And I have set thee as the sword of a hero".
If you check these passages in most Bibles the translation of "Javan" is "Greece".
Example, New King James says: Daniel 8:21: "And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king" (you can check other Bibles and other passages noted above, and find the same facts).
And because of this, the Greeks can't be descendants of Shem, since Japhet was the brother of Shem (and the father of Javan).
This point is strengthened by the fact that Madai, the brother of Javan, is identified as Persia. Yet, Persia is mixed of two peoples; the Japhetite Madai (in European: Media), and the Shemite Elam. Elam was the oldest of the Shemite brothers (Gen 10). The other Shemites are: Assur (Assyria-> geographically Iraq), Lud (Lydians, of modern Anatalia where the Turkish state now lies), and Aram, a common name for Syria.
And of course, the third brother among these five sons of Shem, was Arpaxad, the forefather of Eber, Abraham and Jesus himself - in addition to the Ishmaelites (-> Arabs).
Your claim that the Greeks are Shemites has been refuted by the Bible itself. The claim that Romans, Britons and Celts should be is highly doubtable, although we can't know much about the ancient history of at least Celts and Britons. Concerning England as such, peoples there have been mixed over and over again for millennias, first the Picts, then the Celts, then the Romans, then the Angles and Saxons, then the Vikings/Norse, then the Norman-French etc.
So the question may indeed be: how can "Britons" be identified? Commonly they are noted as the mix between native Celts-Picts and Romans during the time when the Roman Empire occupied Britian. "King" Arthur (ca 4-500 AD) was supposedly a Briton.
A common theory about the population processes of Europe is that the oldest peoples were the Basques (southwest) and the Picts (northwest). Then Celts, Romans, Huns, Germans, Slavs, Turks, Mongols etc. came from the east to supplant and drive away the group arriving before them (such as pressuring the Celts out of Germany and Gaul, eventually only to Ireland itself). It is possible that some of these were somehow related to the lost tribes of Israel, but we can't know for sure.
Well, anyway, the Bible speaks against your identification of the Greeks as Shemites...
1) It is possible that "Gentiles" are the descendants of Shem through Eber. But these do not include the peoples you mention, like the Greeks etc. You are wrong here.
2) Who are the Greeks according to the Bible? Genesis 10:2: "The sons of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras."
Greece is here Javan. How can we know this? Because the Prophet Daniel speaks of them too:
8:21: "And the young he-goat, the hairy one, [is] the king of Javan; and the great horn that [is] between its eyes is the first king;"
11:2: and, now, truth I declare to thee, Lo, yet three kings are standing for Persia, and the fourth doth become far richer than all, and according to his strength by his riches he stirreth up the whole, with the kingdom of Javan.
And even Zechariah speaks of Javan: "For I have trodden for Me Judah, A bow I have filled [with] Ephraim, And I have stirred up thy sons, O Zion, Against thy sons, O Javan, And I have set thee as the sword of a hero".
If you check these passages in most Bibles the translation of "Javan" is "Greece".
Example, New King James says: Daniel 8:21: "And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king" (you can check other Bibles and other passages noted above, and find the same facts).
And because of this, the Greeks can't be descendants of Shem, since Japhet was the brother of Shem (and the father of Javan).
This point is strengthened by the fact that Madai, the brother of Javan, is identified as Persia. Yet, Persia is mixed of two peoples; the Japhetite Madai (in European: Media), and the Shemite Elam. Elam was the oldest of the Shemite brothers (Gen 10). The other Shemites are: Assur (Assyria-> geographically Iraq), Lud (Lydians, of modern Anatalia where the Turkish state now lies), and Aram, a common name for Syria.
And of course, the third brother among these five sons of Shem, was Arpaxad, the forefather of Eber, Abraham and Jesus himself - in addition to the Ishmaelites (-> Arabs).
Your claim that the Greeks are Shemites has been refuted by the Bible itself. The claim that Romans, Britons and Celts should be is highly doubtable, although we can't know much about the ancient history of at least Celts and Britons. Concerning England as such, peoples there have been mixed over and over again for millennias, first the Picts, then the Celts, then the Romans, then the Angles and Saxons, then the Vikings/Norse, then the Norman-French etc.
So the question may indeed be: how can "Britons" be identified? Commonly they are noted as the mix between native Celts-Picts and Romans during the time when the Roman Empire occupied Britian. "King" Arthur (ca 4-500 AD) was supposedly a Briton.
A common theory about the population processes of Europe is that the oldest peoples were the Basques (southwest) and the Picts (northwest). Then Celts, Romans, Huns, Germans, Slavs, Turks, Mongols etc. came from the east to supplant and drive away the group arriving before them (such as pressuring the Celts out of Germany and Gaul, eventually only to Ireland itself). It is possible that some of these were somehow related to the lost tribes of Israel, but we can't know for sure.
Well, anyway, the Bible speaks against your identification of the Greeks as Shemites...
P
Cup, you have still not backed up these claims.
And The Apostle Peter says:
2 Pet 3:9: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
According to Peter the Lord's will is that people should come to repentance. And in the Lord's prayer we pray that "Thy will be done". So when we pray "Thy will be done", we pray that people will come to repentance, since that is is the Lord's will.
Then how can you accuse Christians who pray for this to sin against the Holy Spririt?
And The Apostle Peter says:
2 Pet 3:9: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
According to Peter the Lord's will is that people should come to repentance. And in the Lord's prayer we pray that "Thy will be done". So when we pray "Thy will be done", we pray that people will come to repentance, since that is is the Lord's will.
Then how can you accuse Christians who pray for this to sin against the Holy Spririt?
P
Hi Spartan, you have good points here.
Many of the crusades were probably based on theocratic edicts, rather than by the state(s). Still, it's difficult to know everything about this completely. Even defensive wars against the Ottomans were sometimes called "crusades", and these wars were much more states (well, small kingdoms and realms) defending themselves than expeditions overseas to fight for the Pope. And one of the reasons for why the crusaed were ordered was the plea from the Byzantines to help them against the Muslim Turks (well, the Pope didn't care much about that, but...) Additionally, the Byzantine and Christian resistance to the initial Arab and Muslim invasions of Christian Levant, Africa and Europe were definetely state organized defense. In short, the crusades consisted of many different "interpretations" and kinds of warfare.
Many of the crusades were probably based on theocratic edicts, rather than by the state(s). Still, it's difficult to know everything about this completely. Even defensive wars against the Ottomans were sometimes called "crusades", and these wars were much more states (well, small kingdoms and realms) defending themselves than expeditions overseas to fight for the Pope. And one of the reasons for why the crusaed were ordered was the plea from the Byzantines to help them against the Muslim Turks (well, the Pope didn't care much about that, but...) Additionally, the Byzantine and Christian resistance to the initial Arab and Muslim invasions of Christian Levant, Africa and Europe were definetely state organized defense. In short, the crusades consisted of many different "interpretations" and kinds of warfare.
J
Grey when you asked your question were you thinking about the crusades as they apply to the Holy Land or in the broader since? Not knowing what you have gone over in school (crusades were not covered in public school for me) and what you have read on your own.
For example the Northern Crusades did help protect Christian kingdoms like Hungary but, there was a question of who the Teutonic Order served the Pope or the Kingdom they protected?
The real telling point in the Northern Crusades is the change from defending to attacking Orthodox kingdoms in an attempt to take over in the name of the Roman Catholic Church.
So, even if the crusades were justifiable in some since can we justify how they were carried out in the broad since that they were executed?
Also, what is the difference between the Crusades and the military actions taken by Christians during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation?
For example the Northern Crusades did help protect Christian kingdoms like Hungary but, there was a question of who the Teutonic Order served the Pope or the Kingdom they protected?
The real telling point in the Northern Crusades is the change from defending to attacking Orthodox kingdoms in an attempt to take over in the name of the Roman Catholic Church.
So, even if the crusades were justifiable in some since can we justify how they were carried out in the broad since that they were executed?
Also, what is the difference between the Crusades and the military actions taken by Christians during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation?
J
I think those were perfectly justifieable. Those small kingdoms or merchant city states and the Byzantine Empire were in danger of being taken over. That is justification enough without adding dispensations for killing.
But one of the things I am trying to keep in perspective is my modern understanding of separation of church and state. I am not sure 11th century Europe saw that as an issue to consider. The kings and pope argued over who should have power but secular and theocratic authority was something both sides sought to aquire. So could they have separated a call to arms from theocratic perspective?
I am still working through that so I don't know.
But one of the things I am trying to keep in perspective is my modern understanding of separation of church and state. I am not sure 11th century Europe saw that as an issue to consider. The kings and pope argued over who should have power but secular and theocratic authority was something both sides sought to aquire. So could they have separated a call to arms from theocratic perspective?
I am still working through that so I don't know.
P
You touch upon some interesting points here Spartan.
Concerning the Teutonic Order and similar crusaders in the far northeast of Europe. These "crusades" were, as I see it, the worst of all. They had more or less one goal: to forceconvert Pagans to Roman Catholic Christianity. The Baltic and Ugric peoples of these areas were the last to "convert" to Christianity in Europe (ca 12-1400 AD). The Order also fought in defense of Hungary etc. that's right.
There were many "orders" around in the late Middle Ages, many of them fighthing defensive "crusades" in the Balcans, trying to stop the Ottoman Empire etc. In these instances Roman Catholics helped Orthodox Christians against the Muslim invaders, such as in the Battle of Varna (Ottoman victory).
Which examples do you think of when saying that "Northern Crusades" attacked Orthodox kingdoms in the name of the RCC?
Concerning the Teutonic Order and similar crusaders in the far northeast of Europe. These "crusades" were, as I see it, the worst of all. They had more or less one goal: to forceconvert Pagans to Roman Catholic Christianity. The Baltic and Ugric peoples of these areas were the last to "convert" to Christianity in Europe (ca 12-1400 AD). The Order also fought in defense of Hungary etc. that's right.
There were many "orders" around in the late Middle Ages, many of them fighthing defensive "crusades" in the Balcans, trying to stop the Ottoman Empire etc. In these instances Roman Catholics helped Orthodox Christians against the Muslim invaders, such as in the Battle of Varna (Ottoman victory).
Which examples do you think of when saying that "Northern Crusades" attacked Orthodox kingdoms in the name of the RCC?
J
The Teutonic attacks on Poland and Lithuania. In fairness, I don't know if the Pope sanctioned the attacks on Poland or the order just did it but, in the end, I think the loss to Poland and Lithuania led to the collapse of the Teutonic Order. Converting to Lutheran beliefs and forming the first protestant state didn't help either
J
Sorry forgot the quote:
Peaceful_Crusader
"Which examples do you think of when saying that "Northern Crusades" attacked Orthodox kingdoms in the name of the RCC?"
The Teutonic attacks on Poland and Lithuania. In fairness, I don't know if the Pope sanctioned the attacks on Poland or the order just did it but, in the end, I think the loss to Poland and Lithuania led to the collapse of the Teutonic Order. Converting to Lutheran beliefs and forming the first protestant state didn't help either
Peaceful_Crusader
"Which examples do you think of when saying that "Northern Crusades" attacked Orthodox kingdoms in the name of the RCC?"
The Teutonic attacks on Poland and Lithuania. In fairness, I don't know if the Pope sanctioned the attacks on Poland or the order just did it but, in the end, I think the loss to Poland and Lithuania led to the collapse of the Teutonic Order. Converting to Lutheran beliefs and forming the first protestant state didn't help either
Last edited:
P
Hi Spartan. As far as I know, Poland and Lithuania were not Orthodox countries, but Catholic... It's true that especially Lithuania had many Orthodox subjects - but the rulers were Catholic. The Teutonic attacks were initially carried out to forceconvert the Pagan peoples to Catholisism, not from Orthodoxy to Catholisism. It's true that the Teutonic Order fought against Poland-Lithuania later too, but that was more about political expansion.
C
And who was His promise to? Who are the heirs to the promise? God will keep His promise to them that He made the promise to and He wills that none of them who He gave the promise to perish but they who He made the promise to come to repentennce, Peter says He is longsuffering to us who is us? Well the letter is addressed to Christians "through the knowledge of Him that has CALLED US to glory and virtue" "Whereby are given US EXCEEDING GREAT AND PRECIOUS PROMISES; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having ESCAPED THE CORRUPTION THAT IS IN THE WORLD THROUGH LUST"
"where fore the rather brethren give dilligence to make your calling and election sure"
2:1
"But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily bring ****able heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, AND BRING SWIFT DESTRUCTION UPON THEMSELVES, And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be spoken evil of."
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned BUT CAST THEM DOWN TO HELL and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto Judgement, And spared not the old world, etc, etc."
"THE LORD KNOWETH HOW TO DELIVER THE GODLY OUT OF TEMPTATIONS AND RESERVE THE UNJUST UNTO THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT TO BE PUNISHED."
"But these as natural brute beasts MADE TO BE TAKEN AND DESTROYED, speak evil of things THAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, AND SHALL UTTERLY PERISH And shall receive the award of UNRIGHTEOUSNESS." etc etc.
Second Peter is perhaps one of the most ****ing accounts written on what will happen to those that have gone against Him, He does not wish that they come to repentence because Peter addresses the elect Christians and Peter tell them the elect that they should repent, Peter is clearly and I quote him adressing the "Brethren" the "beloved" those with "knowledge of God" "elected unto glory"!!!
Peter totally ****s all but saved Christians throughtout Epistle and finishes with
"Ye therefore beloved seeing ye know these things before, BEWARE lest ye also being led away with THE ERROR OF THE WICKED, FALL FROM YOUR OWN STEADFASTNESS, But grow in grace, AND IN KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, To Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."
So Peter totally ****s everything you just said 'Peacefulcrusader' and Peter writes that the beloved the elect of God come to repentence lest they be lead away into the error of the wicked and fall.
"where fore the rather brethren give dilligence to make your calling and election sure"
2:1
"But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily bring ****able heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, AND BRING SWIFT DESTRUCTION UPON THEMSELVES, And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be spoken evil of."
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned BUT CAST THEM DOWN TO HELL and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto Judgement, And spared not the old world, etc, etc."
"THE LORD KNOWETH HOW TO DELIVER THE GODLY OUT OF TEMPTATIONS AND RESERVE THE UNJUST UNTO THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT TO BE PUNISHED."
"But these as natural brute beasts MADE TO BE TAKEN AND DESTROYED, speak evil of things THAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, AND SHALL UTTERLY PERISH And shall receive the award of UNRIGHTEOUSNESS." etc etc.
Second Peter is perhaps one of the most ****ing accounts written on what will happen to those that have gone against Him, He does not wish that they come to repentence because Peter addresses the elect Christians and Peter tell them the elect that they should repent, Peter is clearly and I quote him adressing the "Brethren" the "beloved" those with "knowledge of God" "elected unto glory"!!!
Peter totally ****s all but saved Christians throughtout Epistle and finishes with
"Ye therefore beloved seeing ye know these things before, BEWARE lest ye also being led away with THE ERROR OF THE WICKED, FALL FROM YOUR OWN STEADFASTNESS, But grow in grace, AND IN KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, To Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."
So Peter totally ****s everything you just said 'Peacefulcrusader' and Peter writes that the beloved the elect of God come to repentence lest they be lead away into the error of the wicked and fall.
P
Cup of Ruin. You need to calm yourself down. Your arguments are NOT convincing. But since you ignore the aspects I've told you so far, I'll give yet another verse:
1 Timothy 2:1-4:
"1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
So, Cup of Ruin. Can you please stop spreading your false teachings on the topic? Thank you.
1 Timothy 2:1-4:
"1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
So, Cup of Ruin. Can you please stop spreading your false teachings on the topic? Thank you.
J
Thanks for setting the record straight on Poland and Lithuania.
The fact that they were Catholic makes it more troubling. Although I don't agree with the idea of attacking Orthodox churches on the grounds of doctrinal differences there is at least the excuse of heresy that can be used. By attacking Catholics there is not even an excuse. The Teutonic Order was set up to protect the Holy Land as an off shoot of the Hospitlars. They end up being an expansionist arm of Prussia. The fact that Poland and Lithuania were Catholic makes this even more obvious.
The fact that they were Catholic makes it more troubling. Although I don't agree with the idea of attacking Orthodox churches on the grounds of doctrinal differences there is at least the excuse of heresy that can be used. By attacking Catholics there is not even an excuse. The Teutonic Order was set up to protect the Holy Land as an off shoot of the Hospitlars. They end up being an expansionist arm of Prussia. The fact that Poland and Lithuania were Catholic makes this even more obvious.
- Status