- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
The only reason that I am "not on topic" is because I am proposing such a contrary view, which has resulted in certain individuals attacking the church and its interpretation of who Jesus the Christ really was and is and ever will be. How could you expect me, as a believer, to not stand up for the body of Christ Jesus, the church. If I were not to confess what I have thus far, then Jesus would not confess me as his own before the Father. I have diverged from the forum topic only out of necessity.
About the Gnostic gospels, I have already shared how those are indeed false gospels because of how late they were written, and how they do not solve the problem of sin because they do not bridge the gap between humanity and their transcendent, heavenly Father.
Now, MasterSin, I feel it necessary to lovingly enlighten you to the fact that I have studied the Crusades in some depth. In fact, I am a history major, and I have a Bible and theology minor. So, I might have a rough idea about what I am addressing. The reason that the Crusaders were doing what they were was for a mixture of reasons. The Slavs were invading Northeastern Europe at the time, and the Roman Empire had long since collapsed. The only central authority left to defend the frontier was the church. I grant that the Crusaders went forth in the hope of converting the Slavs because they were indeed pagan. I am convinced that the sword was the wrong way to go about it, but in the defense of the Crusaders they were persuaded that they were protecting an innocent third party. Therefore, the context of the Crusader ought to be considered before wholesale judgment is passed. They had good intentions, but they were not in keeping with the original intent of Christianity. The original intent of Christianity is what really matters anyway, right? The setting right of all things, and thereby the renewal of relationship with a loving Father who takes no delight in the death of the wicked.