[☺]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, it's a blasphemy to claim a prophet, albeit a special one is a god, but that's not what christians believe. Christians believe God paid a visit to earth in a human form by filling up the baby Jesus with the holy spirit, and since christians believe the holy spirit is also God, it means at the end of the day that Jesus were God.

Taliesin I have been told by many muslims that was blasphemy to even believe such a thing happened.

The Quran on the other hand claims that Jesus is just a wonderfully prophet created by God and strenghtened by the holy spirit and not God himself, and the Bible itself has enough quoted speeches of Jesus himself that are proof of that interpretation.

I think we went over this before. You know Jesus was put on the cross because HE ADMITTED that he was "I am" right? Jesus himself said "Yeah I am God"

That is what got him into trouble. It was Blasphemy. Out of his own mouth Jesus said he was one with God.

Nonetheless the catholic doctrine chose the trinity-teachment as a way to defeat polytheism, because the arians, a major sect believed Jesus was an independent god, albeit a lesser one than God himself, and the threat was there that polytheism would creep into christianity through that idea.

For one, it's just not Catholicism that teaches that. MOST Christianity does. And they did "chose" it. They were just repeating facts. It wasn't something that was "made up"

Either Jesus was the Son of God, or a complete and utter loon.

There is no in-betweens.

The interesting fact is that while christianity supports the Thora, and Islam supports the Law, Thora and gospel, judaism thinks christianity and islam are false beliefs created by false prophets, and christianity thinks that islam is a false belief created by a false prophet.

Well the Jews already made their pact with God. Jesus was a way for everyone to be in on it.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

In Ancient times, the Pope was actually democratically elected by the People of Rome. Nowadays, we have the Princes of the Church (Cardinals) to represent us.

The Pope has no power to change Catholic Doctrine, he can merely speak what is spoken to him by the Holy Gost.



Absolutely not! The Pope is no replacement for God on earth! He is not to be worshipped, he is merely a man. His infallibility is ordained by the Holy Ghost through Peter to whom the Keys of Heaven were given.



I believe you are referring to Matthew 23:9. Jesus of course meant here not to call anyone on earth 'Father' as in - God the Father (Jesus Christ is God the Son). Jesus did not literally mean not to call anyone father - then he would be contradicting Deuteronomy and even Luke 1:73 where he refers to Abraham as 'Father'.

The Title of Pope, which comes from the Greek 'papa' literally means 'father'. It was a title that Christians traditionally applied to all priests. It was in time that this title came to only be used for Bishops of importance, such as Rome. (The Coptic Patriarch is also called 'Papa'). I believe in Greek Orthodox traditions they to refer to priests as 'papa'. However, the sense of 'holy father' here is not the same as 'God the Father' of heaven. Rather, it is as a spiritual leader of a community.



A priest can only forgive sins because Jesus can forgive sins as he is God and he ordained priests to forgive in his name. St Paul in Corinthians 2:10 gives us an example of a priest forgiving sins and imposing penance much like the modern Catholic Church.

Jn 20:22-23 "He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

I admit the selling of indulgences was a grave corruption within the Church, but alas, it merely demonstrates our humanity. To sin is human, to forgive - divine.



The Pharisees were criticised for different things. They stayed true to the Torah and remained orthodox. The Pharisees however were criticised as being hypocrites, in which they displayed piety to be seen as pious rather than for the Glory of God. They never claimed for example to be infallible or be able to forgive sins.

Interesting indeed, but the whole concept of the infallibility revolves around the assumption that the holy spirit would keep the catholic church from making any mistakes in terms of religion. While I and muslims in general agree that God indeed sends out his holy spirit to guide fate and destination, it's not said and quite unlikely that the catholic church dwells in the holy spirit. As can be seen in the many mistakes in terms of religion that the catholic church has committed, for example the decision to prohibit bishops and priests to marry, which led to sinning of a lot of priests and bishops with concubines and children..., or the decision to sell forgivings, that basically offered a free-cheque for rich people to commit crimes without having to fear prosecution, or the decision to create the institution of the inquisition, which led to the most horrific persecutions of innocent people and the expelling of jews and muslims from Europe... the holy spirit is not keeping them from making mistakes, the free will is as free as ever.

Taliesin

[☺]

Taliesin the Holy Spirit doesn't make someone infallible. It doesn't keep us from making mistakes.

I think you are confused with the role of the Holy Spirit.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ☺

Taliesin I have been told by many muslims that was blasphemy to even believe such a thing happened.

I think we went over this before. You know Jesus was put on the cross because HE ADMITTED that he was "I am" right? Jesus himself said "Yeah I am God"

That is what got him into trouble. It was Blasphemy. Out of his own mouth Jesus said he was one with God.

For one, it's just not Catholicism that teaches that. MOST Christianity does. And they did "chose" it. They were just repeating facts. It wasn't something that was "made up"

Either Jesus was the Son of God, or a complete and utter loon.

There is no in-betweens.

No, you are completely wrong on that account, Jesus never said himself that he were God's son, at least not beyond the symbolic notion that every believer in God is his symbolic son. The four writers of the books, Mark, John, Matthew and Luke have different accounts on what Jesus actually said when questioned by the high priest. From these witness-reports it looked as if the jewish priests already had decided to provoke the killing of Jesus and only wanted that Jesus said something that could be interpreted as blasphemous, while Jesus wanted to fulfill the prophecy and didn't try to talk himself out of the trouble, but indeed to help it along:

Luke 22:

66When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes. And they led him away to their council, and they said, 67"If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe, 68and if I ask you, you will not answer. 69But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God." 70So they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am." 71Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."

Are you the son of God? You say that I am.

Hardly a confession.

John 18:

19The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said." 22When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" 23Jesus answered him, "If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?" 24Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

John doesn't even mention the question dealing with son of God.

Mark 14:

And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"[g] 61But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 63And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? 64You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. 65And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows.

Here the question is "Are you Christ (meaning probably messiah), the son of the blessed?" And Jesus says " I am". God can't be meant by blessed, as only God can bless someone, so it can only mean his mother Mary, blessed by God, and he is indeed her son!

The last one:

Matthew 26:

"Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"[i] 63But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The question was "tells us if you are the christ, the son of God", Jesus answered "You have said so. But I tell you...", which is actually saying no, but...
You could argue that the term "Son of Man" means son of God, but that isn't supported by the Bible. As you can find in the books of Ezekiel, son of man is a synonym for a prophet inspired by the holy spirit to speak the direct word of God.

But to bring it to a definite solution, I quote here from John 20:

16Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

Jesus saying himself that he is returning to his God, not claiming he were himself God, returning to his Father and their Father, ie. his followers are also sons of God, ie. it's meant symbolically.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ☺

Taliesin the Holy Spirit doesn't make someone infallible. It doesn't keep us from making mistakes.

I think you are confused with the role of the Holy Spirit.

I think you are confused, I wasn't talking about laymen but about bishops, priests and espescially popes. The catholic church has develope the idea that the infallible pope is kept from making mistakes in cases of religion because he dwells in the holy spirit. But as I have shown, the popes indeed have made many mistakes, not only in private but also in religious cases.

Taliesin

[☺]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

No, you are completely wrong on that account, Jesus never said himself that he were God's son, at least not beyond the symbolic notion that every believer in God is his symbolic son. The four writers of the books, Mark, John, Matthew and Luke have different accounts on what Jesus actually said when questioned by the high priest. From these witness-reports it looked as if the jewish priests already had decided to provoke the killing of Jesus and only wanted that Jesus said something that could be interpreted as blasphemous, while Jesus wanted to fulfill the prophecy and didn't try to talk himself out of the trouble, but indeed to help it along:

That is your poor interperation of it.

Hardly a confession.

Within context it was.

John doesn't even mention the question dealing with son of God.

What do you think he is referring to? Come on...

Here the question is "Are you Christ (meaning probably messiah), the son of the blessed?" And Jesus says " I am". God can't be meant by blessed, as only God can bless someone, so it can only mean his mother Mary, blessed by God, and he is indeed her son!

No, "I am" is what God used when asked who he was. Jews knew this. He knew saying that would really hit them hard "I am" was saying he was God.

THAT is why he was put to death.

Jesus saying himself that he is returning to his God, not claiming he were himself God, returning to his Father and their Father, ie. his followers are also sons of God, ie. it's meant symbolically.

Yes in a secular nature this is true. We aren't talking about the secular. But the supernatural. By definition, you fail before you begin..



BTW you didn't quote the main point I made. That he HAD to be God in order to die for our sins. No other being could have done it. None.

All of Christianity would be moot if he wasn't.

[☺]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I think you are confused, I wasn't talking about laymen but about bishops, priests and espescially popes. The catholic church has develope the idea that the infallible pope is kept from making mistakes in cases of religion because he dwells in the holy spirit. But as I have shown, the popes indeed have made many mistakes, not only in private but also in religious cases.

Taliesin

I am not so sure Catholics believe the Pope is infallible. I hope not. Then again I am not Catholic.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ☺

I am not so sure Catholics believe the Pope is infallible. I hope not. Then again I am not Catholic.

As I understand things, the Pope is considered to be divinely protected from error when he is speaking ex cathedra, but not at any other time. This sort of invocation is very rarely used today; I'm not sure if the previous Pope ever actually used it at all.

[☺]

Originally Posted by Millennium

As I understand things, the Pope is considered to be divinely protected from error when he is speaking ex cathedra, but not at any other time. This sort of invocation is very rarely used today; I'm not sure if the previous Pope ever actually used it at all.

Aah.. I see. I couldn't comment on it as I am not that in the know about Catholicism.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ☺

No, "I am" is what God used when asked who he was. Jews knew this. He knew saying that would really hit them hard "I am" was saying he was God.

"I am" is a common phrase, being little more than the first-person singular conjugation of the very to be. Although it is true that God also used this phrase as a name for himself when Moses inquired as to what to tell the priests when they asked who sent him, the connection between this and Jesus answering the question you mention is tenuous at best.

Certainly such an answer, if this was the intent, would be very dramatically appropriate. However, if we assume that the Bible is not a work of fiction, then we cannot use the principles of dramatics as proof, or even evidence. God has a sense of aesthetics, to be sure, but He isn't gratuitous about it.

BTW you didn't quote the main point I made. That he HAD to be God in order to die for our sins. No other being could have done it. None.

Why not?

All of Christianity would be moot if he wasn't.

Certainly the Trinity would be, but all of Christianity? Isn't that taking things a little far?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ☺

BTW you didn't quote the main point I made. That he HAD to be God in order to die for our sins. No other being could have done it. None.

All of Christianity would be moot if he wasn't.

No, I dont think that christianity would be moot, as Jesus himself said that he came to the jews to confirm the Law, the Thora and all the prophets before him and to explain the things that the concurrent jews understood, interpreted and practiced wrongly. The idea of the dying on crux in order to wash humanity from the original sin is a theological interpretation by humans after the fact, which is understandable and necessary to soften the hard shock that Jesus was in their eyes at least killed.

The concept of original sin as a whole is not correct, as every soul carries only the burde of his own faith and deeds and not of those that sinned before his births, like for example Adam and Eve. By the way, although it's an islamic message, I can assure you that Adam and Eve received forgivance from God already in their time of life and Adam was turned into a prophet, so no original sin inherited to anyone. Again a human interpretation.

Taliesin

[☺]

Originally Posted by Millennium

"I am" is a common phrase, being little more than the first-person singular conjugation of the very to be. Although it is true that God also used this phrase as a name for himself when Moses inquired as to what to tell the priests when they asked who sent him, the connection between this and Jesus answering the question you mention is tenuous at best.

Eh, Jesus was a clever man. Loved to play word games. I think it fits well with his style. He knew it would also hit a nerve.

Why not?

how could a mer mortal take on everyone's sin and die for it? Spiritually it wouldn't be possible.

Certainly the Trinity would be, but all of Christianity? Isn't that taking things a little far?

No. Christianity is based on the belief that through Christ's death, we are all saved.

If Christ wasn't God, such a thing couldn't have happened.

[☺]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

No, I dont think that christianity would be moot, as Jesus himself said that he came to the jews to confirm the Law, the Thora and all the prophets before him and to explain the things that the concurrent jews understood, interpreted and practiced wrongly.

No, he came to replace the law. As far as dietary and sacrificial and such goes.

The idea of the dying on crux in order to wash humanity from the original sin is a theological interpretation by humans after the fact, which is understandable and necessary to soften the hard shock that Jesus was in their eyes at least killed.

Nonsense. Well you can believe that. But it's not backed by anything substantial.
As Jesus himself said it was something that HAD to be done.

The concept of original sin as a whole is not correct, as every soul carries only the burde of his own faith and deeds and not of those that sinned before his births,

Again, that is your belief. The Bible says the sins of the father affect the son also.

like for example Adam and Eve. By the way, although it's an islamic message, I can assure you that Adam and Eve received forgivance from God already in their time of life and Adam was turned into a prophet, so no original sin inherited to anyone. Again a human interpretation.

Your human interpretation you mean. Certainly not what the Bible says.

Meaning I am not arguing with you what is true or not. But your belief doesn't go along with what the Bible claims.

And that is what we are discussing. So lets stick to the topic.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ☺

how could a mer mortal take on everyone's sin and die for it? Spiritually it wouldn't be possible.

This assumes that 'God' and 'mortal' are the only two possibilities. Does Christianity not consider a third type of being, not the same thing as God but not mortal either?

[☆☆☆☆☆]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This assumes that 'God' and 'mortal' are the only two possibilities. Does Christianity not consider a third type of being, not the same thing as God but not mortal either?

Of course not. But unless that being was perfect in every spiritual way (Angels aren't even) then I would say no.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ☆☆☆☆☆

Of course not. But unless that being was perfect in every spiritual way (Angels aren't even) then I would say no.

Is it the being which must be perfect, or the life it led? Which is more important?

[☆☆☆☆☆]

The being itself. In order to be able to cleans everyone of their sins, one must be perfect.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ☆☆☆☆☆

The being itself. In order to be able to cleans everyone of their sins, one must be perfect.

Fair enough. If this is true, though, then consider that Adam and Eve were likewise perfect when they were created; they became imperfect through their own choices, not God's design. If God could create two perfect beings in Eden, why could He not do it again?

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, it's a blasphemy to claim a prophet, albeit a special one is a god, but that's not what christians believe. Christians believe God paid a visit to earth in a human form by filling up the baby Jesus with the holy spirit, and since christians believe the holy spirit is also God, it means at the end of the day that Jesus were God.

That's wrong. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, who was and ever shall be. He is filled with the Holy Spirit, because in a sense he is the Holy Spirit (although not being the 3rd person, but 2nd person of God). Jesus Christ calls himself 'The Alpha and the Omega'. So Jesus Christ as God was not a created being, but as a human he was incarnate by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary.

The Quran on the other hand claims that Jesus is just a wonderfully prophet created by God and strenghtened by the holy spirit and not God himself, and the Bible itself has enough quoted speeches of Jesus himself that are proof of that interpretation.

Only if you take it out of context and the historical way in which the Church interpreted the Bible.

So when christians are praying to Jesus they are actually praying to God, thinking God, Jesus' spirit and the holy spirit are one! In that sense they believe in one God, and that's the whole point of the Quran and Islam, too.

Quite true.

In the time of prophet Muhammad and the overboarding polytheism of Mecca and Arabia at that time, it was necessary to take a clear stance against polytheism and any ideas hinting or easing the setting of gods beside God, and since some of the christians espescially in and around Mecca took part in the polytheism of Mecca by interpreting the trinity-teachment as meaning really three gods...

I guess a few may have. Misunderstanding of doctrine is the source of heresy. It caused the Reformation, the Arian heresy, iconoclasm etc.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I think you are confused, I wasn't talking about laymen but about bishops, priests and espescially popes. The catholic church has develope the idea that the infallible pope is kept from making mistakes in cases of religion because he dwells in the holy spirit. But as I have shown, the popes indeed have made many mistakes, not only in private but also in religious cases.

Taliesin

No you are confused. Even in Catholic teaching, the so called infallibility of the Pope does not prevent him from making mistakes. The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, at all other times he is just as culpable as us. Popes can speak on religious matters out of their capacity as a theologian and yet still be fallible.

(However, even when the Pope still isn't speaking in a dogmatically binding way, Catholics should still respect his opinion)

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

That's wrong. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, who was and ever shall be. He is filled with the Holy Spirit, because in a sense he is the Holy Spirit (although not being the 3rd person, but 2nd person of God). Jesus Christ calls himself 'The Alpha and the Omega'. So Jesus Christ as God was not a created being, but as a human he was incarnate by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary.

That's wrong, only the spirit of Jesus is being thought to be non-created according to christianity, but not the body of Jesus! And the saying "I am the alpha and omega..." is only part of the revelations which were revealed by an angel to someone called John, and there it is always in the context of God saying it and not Jesus. In the ideas of chirstianity, it is the Father who uttered those words, that were supposedly revealed to John by an angel and not the son:

From revelation 1:

8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Originally Posted by undotwa

Only if you take it out of context and the historical way in which the Church interpreted the Bible.

That's the whole point of this discussion, namely that the catholic church interpreted the sayings and deeds of Jesus to mean he were God, eventhough the scriptures clearly show that Jesus himself never claimed that!

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No you are confused. Even in Catholic teaching, the so called infallibility of the Pope does not prevent him from making mistakes. The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, at all other times he is just as culpable as us. Popes can speak on religious matters out of their capacity as a theologian and yet still be fallible.

(However, even when the Pope still isn't speaking in a dogmatically binding way, Catholics should still respect his opinion)

The whole infallibility-idea, including the ex-cathedra-condition, was a new doctrine introduced in 1871 by a pope, despite the harsh resistance of many bishops, at a time when the catholic church lost most of its secular possessions to the secular states. It was a move of desperation. Sure there was an election about it, but the result was very narrow for the new doctrine and only possible after 55 bishops left the council out of protest and others got coerced by the pope and his helpers to vote for it.

Before that popes were not held to be infallible at all, some popes even got declared heretics completely and excommunicated, others even after death got dug up again and set in robes only to receive their condemning through a new pope..., which should be proof enough that before 1871 there was made no distinction made between pope, the man, and pope, the church-official.

Besides if you really believe in the infallibility-doctrine, then you must condone the religious decisions and orders that have led to the inquisition, the crusades, not only against muslims, but also the crusades against christians, and also the religious decision to condemn secularism...

not to talk about the years when there were multiple popes, up to three, at the same time.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ☺

No, he came to replace the law. As far as dietary and sacrificial and such goes.

Nonsense. Well you can believe that. But it's not backed by anything substantial.
As Jesus himself said it was something that HAD to be done.

Again, that is your belief. The Bible says the sins of the father affect the son also.

Your human interpretation you mean. Certainly not what the Bible says.

Meaning I am not arguing with you what is true or not. But your belief doesn't go along with what the Bible claims.

And that is what we are discussing. So lets stick to the topic.

1. Jesus clearly said that he came not to abolish the law but to attest/confirm it and to explain where the interpretation has gone astray from the true meaning of the Law.

2. The whole idea of the original sin and that salvation is only possible through the sacrifice of Jesus on the crux and that only those can receive that salvation, ie. enter the kingdom of heaven that have accepted Jesus and his sacrifice... is a theological interpretation after the fact, Jesus never claimed such! Besides it would be illogical, as it would mean that all the prophets and their followers before Jesus are doomed because they hadn't the opportunity to receive and acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice.
I have to admit though that the catholic church found a sort of loop-hole in that contradiction by claiming that all the prophets and their followers before Jesus' sacrifice have part in the salvation through the prophecy of that sacrifice. The catholic church claims the prophecy of Jesus' crucification would have been this:
From Genesis 3:

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

It's an unbelievably big stretch to read the crucification of Jesus out of it, and despite all the talking about, there is in the whole Genesis not one quote that supports the idea of the original sin and the need of a sacrifice by Jesus in order to make salvation possible!

And here is what God said to Adam according to the Genesis 3:

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Nothing about the descendants of Adam and the sin they inherit or the salvation that will be necessary just the punishment that Adam will have to endure a hard life.

If you say the truth, then bring forth the verses from the old testament, or the verses from Jesus' direct sayings as preserved in the books of Luke, Matthew, John or Mark, dealing with the original sin and its inheritance-ability.

Taliesin

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

1. Jesus clearly said that he came not to abolish the law but to attest/confirm it and to explain where the interpretation has gone astray from the true meaning of the Law.

Jesus did indeed say "I came not to destroy, but to fulfill". God had handed down a law which no human could hope to follow, up until the point when one would come who did follow it, and this would be the Messiah. This was what Jesus did; this was the 'perfect life' to redeem the perfect lives lost at Eden.

The old covenant with Abraham -that in exchange for following the laws set forth by God, a great nation would come through his bloodline and all nations would bless themselves by means of it- was completed when Jesus sacrificed himself; in this way, God had kept His promise. But what would happen to humanity without a covenant like this? Would we degenerate back to the lawless days before and even, to a lesser extent, during the time of the partiarchs? That certainly wouldn't do, and so a new covenant was needed.

Nothing about the descendants of Adam and the sin they inherit or the salvation that will be necessary just the punishment that Adam will have to endure a hard life.

This is something if a sticking point, unfortunately, because Adam's name, ad'ham, was "man of clay": also the name used by the Hebrews to mean humanity itself. When god spoke to ad'ham, he could have been speaking to the man or to the race.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

No, you are completely wrong on that account, Jesus never said himself that he were God's son, at least not beyond the symbolic notion that every believer in God is his symbolic son. The four writers of the books, Mark, John, Matthew and Luke have different accounts on what Jesus actually said when questioned by the high priest. From these witness-reports it looked as if the jewish priests already had decided to provoke the killing of Jesus and only wanted that Jesus said something that could be interpreted as blasphemous, while Jesus wanted to fulfill the prophecy and didn't try to talk himself out of the trouble, but indeed to help it along:

Luke 22:


Are you the son of God? You say that I am.

Hardly a confession.

John 18:


John doesn't even mention the question dealing with son of God.

Mark 14:


Here the question is "Are you Christ (meaning probably messiah), the son of the blessed?" And Jesus says " I am". God can't be meant by blessed, as only God can bless someone, so it can only mean his mother Mary, blessed by God, and he is indeed her son!

The last one:

Matthew 26:


The question was "tells us if you are the christ, the son of God", Jesus answered "You have said so. But I tell you...", which is actually saying no, but...
You could argue that the term "Son of Man" means son of God, but that isn't supported by the Bible. As you can find in the books of Ezekiel, son of man is a synonym for a prophet inspired by the holy spirit to speak the direct word of God.

But to bring it to a definite solution, I quote here from John 20:



Jesus saying himself that he is returning to his God, not claiming he were himself God, returning to his Father and their Father, ie. his followers are also sons of God, ie. it's meant symbolically.

Taliesin

John 14:9

"he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."


Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

John 14:9

"he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."


Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Damn lithp he had.....

Yes, it's pretty cut and dried. If you've heard him speak you have heard God's words. If not, there are a hell of a lot of contradictions attributed to Jesus(pbuh).

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

John 14:9

"he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."

I could say that if you'd read one series by David Eddings you'd read them all, but this does not mean he wrote only one series of fantasy novels. It means only that they are very similar and convey much the same things. This idiom, "if you've seen one you've seen them all", has been used by many languages since ancient times.

[Macrobat]

Millenium, your argument might hold water if he had said 'if you have seen me you have seen a father,' but what he plainly said (in spite of Illogic's sophomoric humor at the KJV's prosaic English) is:

"if you have seen me, you have seen God."

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Millenium, your argument might hold water if he had said 'if you have seen me you have seen a father,' but what he plainly said (in spite of Illogic's sophomoric humor at the KJV's prosaic English) is:

"if you have seen me, you have seen God."

I'm not sure how that affects things. Going back to my David Eddings parallel, I could say that if you've read the Belgariad/Malloreon then you'd read the Elenium/Tamuli, and everything else in the argument still holds. I do not mean to say that the these two series (actually, two pairs of series) are the same, but that they share similarities; the practical difference between them isn't insignificant, but it isn't large either.

Let's take a step back for a moment. I think we can safely agree on the interpretation of a different Biblical passage: namely, that no one (or no human, anyway) has seen God. Some have felt His presence very strongly, and sometimes they've tried to translate this into terms they understand, such as literal senses. Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the laws of harmonics and then exclaimed that he had just seen the face of God. Certainly he didn't mean that he had literally seen the face of God. One of the last lines in the musical of Les Miserables does a similar thing: "To love another person is to see the face of God". The principle is the same.

Jesus was the culmination of God's promise to Abraham, and of many other prophecies. This is my interpretation of what Jesus said. To see him is to see God, in a sense: everything God had worked for since Eden, every move He made, every prophecy He revealed, every miracle He performed, all collapsing into this single point in space and time, this one man through whom God's greatest plans were to be accomplished. The ramifications of this are nothing short of awe-inspiring. However, it is still not the same thing as claiming to be God.

If we take the Gospel accounts to be true, then according to Nicodemus, the Sanhedrin knew exactly who and what they were dealing with. By these accounts, the Sanhedrin laid trumped-up charges of blasphemy against Jesus, saying that he had claimed to be God, but according to these same accounts, they knew that they were lying. If they were lying when they said Jesus had claimed to be God, then why believe them?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Millenium, your argument might hold water if he had said 'if you have seen me you have seen a father,' but what he plainly said (in spite of Illogic's sophomoric humor at the KJV's prosaic English) is:

"if you have seen me, you have seen God."

oooh, witty little whippersnapper ain't you?

Jesus(pbuh) wouldn't say a Father as he was teaching a monotheistic faith. There is only one God and therefore there can only be one Father.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The whole infallibility-idea, including the ex-cathedra-condition, was a new doctrine introduced in 1871 by a pope, despite the harsh resistance of many bishops, at a time when the catholic church lost most of its secular possessions to the secular states. It was a move of desperation. Sure there was an election about it, but the result was very narrow for the new doctrine and only possible after 55 bishops left the council out of protest and others got coerced by the pope and his helpers to vote for it.

Before that popes were not held to be infallible at all, some popes even got declared heretics completely and excommunicated, others even after death got dug up again and set in robes only to receive their condemning through a new pope..., which should be proof enough that before 1871 there was made no distinction made between pope, the man, and pope, the church-official.

Besides if you really believe in the infallibility-doctrine, then you must condone the religious decisions and orders that have led to the inquisition, the crusades, not only against muslims, but also the crusades against christians, and also the religious decision to condemn secularism...

not to talk about the years when there were multiple popes, up to three, at the same time.

Taliesin

Complete FUD. The Primacy of Peter, and his infallibility is a concept as old a Christianity itself, although it has been interpretted in different ways by different denominations. When I get home, I will show you some quotes dated well before 1871 which speak of Peter's primacy.

I shall speak this: I do condone the Crusades, what they stood for, and the Inquisition. Even so, these are not considered 'infallible' commands of the Pope.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

That's wrong, only the spirit of Jesus is being thought to be non-created according to christianity, but not the body of Jesus! And the saying "I am the alpha and omega..." is only part of the revelations which were revealed by an angel to someone called John, and there it is always in the context of God saying it and not Jesus. In the ideas of chirstianity, it is the Father who uttered those words, that were supposedly revealed to John by an angel and not the son:

I'm well aware of that Jesus's body is a created being. Jesus Christ emphasises this when he says that he is the 'Son of Man', in which he refers to the fact that the blood of Adam flows through his veins.

That's the whole point of this discussion, namely that the catholic church interpreted the sayings and deeds of Jesus to mean he were God, eventhough the scriptures clearly show that Jesus himself never claimed that!

Are you that stubborn? You cannot deny, that the Scriptures which the Christian Church uses, clearly indicate that Jesus Christ was God incarnate as they represent themselves. The fact that we have passages which point to Jesus's humanity and others which point to his divintiy demonstrates Jesus's dual nature which is fully human and divine.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Complete FUD. The Primacy of Peter, and his infallibility is a concept as old a Christianity itself, although it has been interpretted in different ways by different denominations. When I get home, I will show you some quotes dated well before 1871 which speak of Peter's primacy.

I shall speak this: I do condone the Crusades, what they stood for, and the Inquisition. Even so, these are not considered 'infallible' commands of the Pope.

No, it's not FUD, whatever that should be.
What the catholic church believed before the first vatican council in 1870 was that the pope's authority was subject to a general council, ie. a sort of ecumenical council, and that all declarations of the pope in the name of Peter, or from the chair of Peter, had to be approved and signed by that council, so that the concept of the pope's infalliability was not needed.

That changed though in 1870, when pope pius IX defined the pope's infalliability when speaking ex-cathedra and defining a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church. So by this he closed out the general council and concentrated the power to define a doctrine in the hands of the pope.

Even Peter, the one you are citing as proof was subject to that council, which pope pius IX weakened.

But regarding your condoning of crusades and the inquisition, you aren't serious, are you?

From a christian point of view one can condone the crusade to open up Jerusalem again for the pilgrimage, but the other crusades, that were done for purely worldly riches, even against christians...

As to the inquisition, you are really condoning a practice that led to the death of 50 million, mostly innocent people, again instrumentalised for worldly riches?

The inquisition was not some naive practice of the catholic church to find out who is not a real christian, but a harsh measure that should terrorise the people to follow one way of thinking and to kill those that don't agree. Sure the catholic church didn't execute them directly for it didn't want to have the blood at hand, but it convinced the secular powers to do it for them, which is as bad and hypocritical to boot.

What would Jesus have said about the inquisition? He would have surely condemned it wholeheartily, and instead restated what is most important, to love God, to love your neighbour like yourself and to love even your enemy, so that gets humbled and shamed and stops his evil deeds.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I'm well aware of that Jesus's body is a created being. Jesus Christ emphasises this when he says that he is the 'Son of Man', in which he refers to the fact that the blood of Adam flows through his veins.

"Son of Man" doesn't mean that the blood of Adam flows through his veins, as every human has Adam's blood, but only a handful or less can be called "Son of Man (, ie. Adam)", those that are like Adam blessed through the breathing in of the holy spirit. In Ezekiel of the old Testament there is another prophet that had the holy spirit breathed in and that was also called "Son of Man (=Adam)" because of it.

Originally Posted by undotwa

Are you that stubborn? You cannot deny, that the Scriptures which the Christian Church uses, clearly indicate that Jesus Christ was God incarnate as they represent themselves. The fact that we have passages which point to Jesus's humanity and others which point to his divintiy demonstrates Jesus's dual nature which is fully human and divine.

Hmm, have you got a bad day or why are you so aggressive?

Off course I can deny that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, because he wasn't and because the scriptures of the Bible, the old testament and the books of Mark, Luke, John and Matthew don't support that notion. It's a special interpretation after Jesus died developed espescially by Paul and some apostles, which is understandale considering all the power, healing deaf, blinded, lame and even awaking dead people..., and wisdom Jesus had.

Jesus himself never claimed that, and actually defined all believers in God that work in God's way as sons of God, which means it's meant symbolically.

Jesus' body was created by God just like Adam's was created, and He breathed into him the holy spirit just like into Adam, that's why Jesus called himself always "Son of Man (ie. Adam)".

He was the faultless and sinless prophet, the messiah, the king of the jews. Neither is he God, nor is the holy spirit with which Jesus was filled God, and your own scriptures offer no support for the blasphemous claim that Jesus was God.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This is something if a sticking point, unfortunately, because Adam's name, ad'ham, was "man of clay": also the name used by the Hebrews to mean humanity itself. When god spoke to ad'ham, he could have been speaking to the man or to the race.

Well not really a sticking point, because as we all know even before Jesus' appearance humanity was capable to develop to such a point that it could lead a comfortable life, espescially the rich ones, the landowners, the priests, the kings and princes, the numerous lords and knights, etc... so that the punishment with which Adam was cursed, ie. that he would have a hard time to even produce his food and eat it too, until he becomes dust again, was obviously only meant for him personally. (<- point of view of OT, Quran claims Adam was forgiven after he showed true repenance and was turned into the first prophet by God)



Taliesin

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

oooh, witty little whippersnapper ain't you?

Jesus(pbuh) wouldn't say a Father as he was teaching a monotheistic faith. There is only one God and therefore there can only be one Father.

All hail the Master of the Obvious!

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The whole infallibility-idea, including the ex-cathedra-condition, was a new doctrine introduced in 1871 by a pope, despite the harsh resistance of many bishops, at a time when the catholic church lost most of its secular possessions to the secular states. It was a move of desperation. Sure there was an election about it, but the result was very narrow for the new doctrine and only possible after 55 bishops left the council out of protest and others got coerced by the pope and his helpers to vote for it.

Before that popes were not held to be infallible at all, some popes even got declared heretics completely and excommunicated, others even after death got dug up again and set in robes only to receive their condemning through a new pope..., which should be proof enough that before 1871 there was made no distinction made between pope, the man, and pope, the church-official.

Besides if you really believe in the infallibility-doctrine, then you must condone the religious decisions and orders that have led to the inquisition, the crusades, not only against muslims, but also the crusades against christians, and also the religious decision to condemn secularism...

not to talk about the years when there were multiple popes, up to three, at the same time.

Taliesin

The Inquisition was not even the Pope's decision. As a matter of fact, Urban opposed the Inquisition. It's called the Spanish Inquisition for a reason - the King of Spain dreamt that little jewel up.

I find it interesting how Muslims always manage to ignore the FACT completely that the Crusades were mounted in reaction to Muslim wars of conquest that allowed them to capture the Holy Lands, the Arabian Peninsula, much of the former Eastern Roman Empire, North Africa and even Southern Spain.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Are you that stubborn? You cannot deny, that the Scriptures which the Christian Church uses, clearly indicate that Jesus Christ was God incarnate as they represent themselves.

I deny it. I suppose that makes me a heretic, but all the same I deny it.

The fact that we have passages which point to Jesus's humanity and others which point to his divintiy demonstrates Jesus's dual nature which is fully human and divine.

Indeed, but this does not, in and of itself, mean that Jesus was God. Angels are divine, yet they are not God.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Complete FUD. The Primacy of Peter, and his infallibility is a concept as old a Christianity itself, although it has been interpretted in different ways by different denominations.

As old as the Council of Nicea, perhaps, or slightly older, but as old as Christianity? That's stretching things.

I shall speak this: I do condone the Crusades, what they stood for, and the Inquisition. Even so, these are not considered 'infallible' commands of the Pope.

Your wording is a bit awkward, so I have to ask: do you mean it when you said that you do condone the Crusades and Inquisition and such, or was that a typo?

[Taliesin]

Just replying to quote a verse from the old testament that supports my interpretation that the term "son of god" is meant symbolically:

God talks here to the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 14

1"You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. 2For you are a people holy to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Hmm, have you got a bad day or why are you so aggressive?

I'm sorry that I've been aggressive. I merely get frustrated and tired at some of the repetitiveness of these common falsehoods against the Christian Church. It's not just you who speak of them, but many others. They are like urban legends: they are repeated so often they became like fact.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Angels are divine, yet they are not God.

Angels are celestial, but they are not divine. 'Divine' can be only used in reference to God.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Millennium

As old as the Council of Nicea, perhaps, or slightly older, but as old as Christianity? That's stretching things.

The following quote from Clement (who was the third pope after Linus) demonstrates that the idea of Papal primacy is very ancient:

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

This quote also emphasizes the importance of the Roman See whilst also at the same time attesting to Jesus's divinity:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

Your wording is a bit awkward, so I have to ask: do you mean it when you said that you do condone the Crusades and Inquisition and such, or was that a typo?

I apologise for my phrasing as it was written in haste :-). I do condone both the Crusades and the Inquisition. I believe the Crusades were justified entirely as the Crusades which were conducted in the Middle East were defensive wars against Muslim expansion. Islamic aggression had been unchecked by the Christians since Mohammed. They had already conquered and forcibly converted (by the Sword of course) most of the Coptic Christians of Egypt (which was almost 100% Christian before Islam), conquered Spain (moving up to France) and threatened the might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

I condone the principle of the Inquisition, which was to define heresy and maintain orthodoxy within the Church. I do not condone however the means it was carried out, especially in Spain. It must be remembered however, the perils of the Spanish Inquisition is to this day over-exaggerated.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The Inquisition was not even the Pope's decision. As a matter of fact, Urban opposed the Inquisition. It's called the Spanish Inquisition for a reason - the King of Spain dreamt that little jewel up.

Not to spoil your parade, but it's interesting nonetheless that the Pope which succeeded Urban (I can't remember who) actually supported the Inquisition. It's a mixed bag.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

"Son of Man" doesn't mean that the blood of Adam flows through his veins, as every human has Adam's blood, but only a handful or less can be called "Son of Man (, ie. Adam)", those that are like Adam blessed through the breathing in of the holy spirit. In Ezekiel of the old Testament there is another prophet that had the holy spirit breathed in and that was also called "Son of Man (=Adam)" because of it.

Well here is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter (for what it is worth). I don't agree with your interpretation however. 'Son of Man', I was always taught' was used to emphasise Jesus's humanity while emphasising his divine Messianic role.

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

Off course I can deny that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, because he wasn't and because the scriptures of the Bible, the old testament and the books of Mark, Luke, John and Matthew don't support that notion. It's a special interpretation after Jesus died developed espescially by Paul and some apostles, which is understandale considering all the power, healing deaf, blinded, lame and even awaking dead people..., and wisdom Jesus had.

Jesus himself never claimed that, and actually defined all believers in God that work in God's way as sons of God, which means it's meant symbolically.

Jesus' body was created by God just like Adam's was created, and He breathed into him the holy spirit just like into Adam, that's why Jesus called himself always "Son of Man (ie. Adam)".

He was the faultless and sinless prophet, the messiah, the king of the jews. Neither is he God, nor is the holy spirit with which Jesus was filled God, and your own scriptures offer no support for the blasphemous claim that Jesus was God.

Some quotes from the Holy Scriptures:

Exodus 3:14 - God says "I AM who I AM" - John 8:58 - Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" in reference to Himself.

Just consider the first chapter of John:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

In this passage, God is described 'the Word'. The 'Word' was made flesh - i.e. God became incarnate. It is very clear what John is trying to say here - that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. What other possible reading can you give to this passage? Moreover, John says "We have seen his glory, the glory of One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth". i.e. That by seeing Jesus Christ, you see the glory of the Father.

There are also many other numerous parallelisms to depict Jesus Christ's divinity. (nabbed from Scripture Catholic.com)

Isaiah 42:8 - God gives His glory to no other - John 17:5; Heb. 1:3 - yet Jesus has the same glory as the Father.
Isaiah 48:17 - God is the Holy One - Acts 3:14 - Jesus is the Holy One
Psalm 97:9 - the Lord God is above all - John 3:31 - Jesus is above all.
Psalm 89:27 – I will make him the first-born, the highest (“elyon” which refers to God) of the kings of the earth - John 18:36-27 – Jesus is this first-born king.
2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.
Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "God is with us" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

No, it's not FUD, whatever that should be.
What the catholic church believed before the first vatican council in 1870 was that the pope's authority was subject to a general council, ie. a sort of ecumenical council, and that all declarations of the pope in the name of Peter, or from the chair of Peter, had to be approved and signed by that council, so that the concept of the pope's infalliability was not needed.

Quite untrue. The following is from the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) which concluded with the following jubilation of Peter's authority:

"It is Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and Cyril teach the same thing."

That changed though in 1870, when pope pius IX defined the pope's infalliability when speaking ex-cathedra and defining a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church. So by this he closed out the general council and concentrated the power to define a doctrine in the hands of the pope.

Untrue. Council is still an important mechanism for determining doctrine. Pope Pius merely defined a doctrine which had been the established belief within the Catholic Church.

Even Peter, the one you are citing as proof was subject to that council, which pope pius IX weakened.

Of course Peter is subject to councils, but it is his authority which validates them. I don't understand what you write here though.

What would Jesus have said about the inquisition? He would have surely condemned it wholeheartily, and instead restated what is most important, to love God, to love your neighbour like yourself and to love even your enemy, so that gets humbled and shamed and stops his evil deeds.

The Inquisition in principle was merely to define orthodox teachings and to declare heresy. It is true any punishment as a result of the Inquisition, usually administered by the secular authorities, probably was not in accordance with the Law of God. The Inquisition still exists today though renamed as 'The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith".. It is interesting to note however, that before 1542 (when the Office of the Universal Inquisition was founded) there was actually no Papal inquisition. All inquisitions were mandated by secular and local episcopal authorities.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

The following quote from Clement (who was the third pope after Linus) demonstrates that the idea of Papal primacy is very ancient:

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

This quote also emphasizes the importance of the Roman See whilst also at the same time attesting to Jesus's divinity:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

Well, those quotes don't talk in any way about the infallibility of the pope, but instead about the ultimate power of the church. It doesn't even claim that the church is infallible but that it has the authority to decide matters of faith and those that don't obey these decidions are deviating from the rigth path. That means that the church has theoretically the authoritative power to revert the decisions of the churches of the past. Regardless, even if you want to read into it the infallibility of the church defined, it still doesn't support the claim that the pope himself is infallible, but instead that he serves as the spokeperson of the "infallible" decisions made by the church as a whole, represented through the council.

The new innovation of pope pius IX in 1870 was to concentrate that authoritative power in his hands and to weaken the council, and because of that change 55 bishops left the council out of protest and others were coerced by the pope and his helpers to vote for the change, and despite all this it was still a narrow election for it.

Religious politics at play at a time when the secular government of Italy overtook most of the land the vatican held until then.

Originally Posted by undotwa

I apologise for my phrasing as it was written in haste :-). I do condone both the Crusades and the Inquisition. I believe the Crusades were justified entirely as the Crusades which were conducted in the Middle East were defensive wars against Muslim expansion. Islamic aggression had been unchecked by the Christians since Mohammed. They had already conquered and forcibly converted (by the Sword of course) most of the Coptic Christians of Egypt (which was almost 100% Christian before Islam), conquered Spain (moving up to France) and threatened the might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

I condone the principle of the Inquisition, which was to define heresy and maintain orthodoxy within the Church. I do not condone however the means it was carried out, especially in Spain. It must be remembered however, the perils of the Spanish Inquisition is to this day over-exaggerated.

Nonesense, there was no forced conversion happening in Egypt. Your history is completely wrong:

Perhaps the greatest glory of the Coptic Church is its Cross. Copts take pride in the persecution they have sustained as early as May 8, 68 A.D., when their Patron Saint Mark was slain on Easter Monday after being dragged from his feet by Roman soldiers all over Alexandria's streets and alleys. The Copts have been persecuted by almost every ruler of Egypt. Their Clergymen have been tortured and exiled even by their Christian brothers after the schism of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. and until the Arab's conquest of Egypt in 641 A.D. To emphasize their pride in their cross, Copts adopted a calendar, called the Calendar of the Martyrs, which begins its era on August 29, 284 A.D., in commemoration of those who died for their faith during the rule of Diocletian the Roman Emperor. This calendar is still in use all over Egypt by farmers to keep track of the various agricultural seasons and in the Coptic Church Lectionary.

For the four centuries that followed the Arab's conquest of Egypt, the Coptic Church generally flourished and Egypt remained basically Christian. This is due to a large extent to the fortunate position that the Copts enjoyed, for the Prophet of Islam, who had an Egyptian wife (the only one of his wives to bear a child), preached especial kindness towards Copts: "When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts for they are your proteges and kith and kin". Copts, thus, were allowed to freely practice their religion and were to a large degree autonomous, provided they continued to pay a special tax, called "Gezya", that qualifies them as "Ahl Zemma" proteges (protected). Individuals who cannot afford to pay this tax were faced with the choice of either converting to Islam or losing their civil right to be "protected", which in some instances meant being killed. Copts, despite additional sumptuary laws that were imposed on them in 750-868 A.D. and 905-935 A.D. under the Abbasid Dynasties, prospered and their Church enjoyed one of its most peaceful era. Surviving literature from monastic centers, dating back from the 8th to the 11th century, shows no drastic break in the activities of Coptic craftsmen, such as weavers, leather-binders, painters, and wood-workers.

So, it was actually the persecution of the roman pagans followed by the equally brutal persecution by the roman christians, after the coptic church was declared as heresy by the catholic church, that prepared the way for the muslims to liberate the copts from that persecution which is a holy duty for the muslims, to help others in emergency, that are oppressed and persecuted for their belief in God.

After they were liberated by muslims they and their belief and church actually flourished, for four hundred years. I have to admit though that it was a religious mistake to charge the copts the jizia-tax, since they were liberated and didn't fight against the muslims, but a lot of islamic rulers made that mistake after prophet Muhammad died. Still except for the obligatory tax, their life was much better than under the roman empire, regardless if the pagan-phase or the christian phase.
Things changed for the worse though at the beginning of the second millenia, when the crusades started, but changed again for the better at the beginning of the 19th century:

The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the "Gezya" tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship. For example, there were restrictions on repairing old Churches and building new ones, on testifying in court, on public behavior, on adoption, on inheritance, on public religious activities, and on dress codes. Slowly but steadily, by the end of the 12th century, the face of Egypt changed from a predominantly Christian to a predominantly Muslim country and the Coptic community occupied an inferior position and lived in some expectation of Muslim hostility, which periodically flared into violence. It is remarkable that the well-being of Copts was more or less related to the well-being of their rulers. In particular, the Copts suffered most in those periods when Arab dynasties were at their low.

The position of the Copts began to improve early in the 19th century under the stability and tolerance of Muhammad Ali's dynasty. The Coptic community ceased to be regarded by the state as an administrative unit and, by 1855 A.D., the main mark of Copts' inferiority, the "Gezya" tax was lifted, and shortly thereafter Copts started to serve in the Egyptian army. The 1919 A.D. revolution in Egypt, the first grassroots dispaly of Egyptian identity in centuries, stands as a witness to the homogeneity of Egypt's modern society with both its Muslim and Coptic sects. Today, this homogeneity is what keeps the Egyptian society united against the religious intolerance of extremist groups, who occasionaly subject the Copts to persecution and terror. Modern day martyrs, like Father Marcos Khalil, serve as reminders of the miracle of Coptic survival.

Despite persecution, the Coptic Church as a religious institution has never been controlled or allowed itself to control the governments in Egypt. This long-held position of the Church concerning the separation between State and Religion stems from the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, when he asked his followers to submit to their rulers: ``Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.'' [Mathew 22:21]. The Coptic Church has never forcefully resisted authorities or invaders and was never allied with any powers, for the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are clear: ``Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'' (Mathew 26:52). The miraculous survival of the Coptic Church till this day and age is a living proof of the validity and wisdom of these teachings.

Source: http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

Regarding the crusades, you have again your history wrong. It wasn't the muslim's conquering that posed the problem for the catholic church. After all all these countries in North-Africa and elsewhere had independent churches that were regarded by the catholic church as not orthodox, often even as heretic, and were therefore sometimes if not often subject to persecution and oppression, so that the catholic church was probably content, that the muslims overtook them, so they would not have to ponder about them anymore, and the churches and christians of North-Africa were content to be liberated from oppression and persecution. Sure they had to pay a special tax, which over the generations led many christians to convert to Islam in order to save that tax, but they could freely practice their worship of God.

No, it wasn't these liberating expansion of the muslims after prophet Muhammad died, that was the cause for the crusades, instead it was a combination of the weakening of Byzantium due to internal problems, the appearance of nomadic turkish tribes, that shortly before converted to Islam and the internal problems of the western church and the overboarding lawlessness and internal wars that led to the crusades.
Byzantium not anymore able to finance a working army and threatened by turkish nomads as well as christian Venice had the brilliant PR-idea to call the catholic church for help. Byzantium reported to Rome that the pilgrims were harassed by the turkish nomads, which they surely were, and were therefore not able to complete their pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The pope at that time on the other hand found it was a brilliant opportunity to finally solve the internal problems of the christian communities by concentrating on an external enemy, namely the Turks, who were portrayed as pagans that threatened to conquer the holy land including Jerusalem. The pope figured, if the christian world would lead a holy war, they would finally regain their lost unity, ie. unite the western and eastern church again, and stop the internal wars and lawlessness. It didn't work out, soon the crusades were instrumentalised by different metropoles like Venice to fight against other christian cities, jews in Europe were slaughtered by crusaders, those that arrived in the holy land were instrumentalised in an inner-Islam-fight between shias and sunnis...

The irony is though, that the ottomans that defeated the nomadic turks, ie. the seljuks, who were the PR-reason for the first crusade, could legitimate their expansion as being the result of a defensive war against the numerous crusades that followed, another irony was that the christians and jews in the conquered countries lived afterwards more freely and happy than under the rule of the christian church and empires, without oppression and persecution, except for the obligatory tax:

Instead, a new foe arose, moving haphazardly across the empire. Around the sixth century, the first in a series of waves of Turkish bands appeared in southwest Asia. These nomads converted to Islam and fought with, then against, the Persians, Byzantines, and Arabs. When the Seljuk Turk leader Alp Arslan ("Victorious Lion") made a tentative probe into the empire's eastern perimeter near Lake Van in 1071, the multilingual mercenary army from Constantinople fell apart even before fighting began at the battle of Manzikert. With the disintegration of the army, the only limit to the Turks' march for the next decade was the extent of their own ambition and energy.

Byzantium lost the heart of its empire, and with it the reserves of soldiers, leaders, taxes, and food that had enabled it to survive for the past four centuries. From its weakened position, the empire confronted Venice, a powerful commercial and later political rival. By the end of the eleventh century, the Venetians took undisputed trading supremacy in the Adriatic Sea and turned their attention to the eastern Mediterranean. The Byzantines also faced the challenges of the Normans, led by Robert Guiscard, who took the last Byzantine stronghold in Italy.

In 1081 the Comnenian family claimed the Byzantine throne. In an earlier time, with the empire in its strength this politically astute family might have accomplished great things. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, though, the best they could do was play a balance-of-power game between east and west. Fifteen years later, in 1096, the first crusaders appeared, partially in response to the Council of Clermont, partially in response to the opportunity for gold and glory. Alexium Comnenus (1081-1118) had appealed to Pope Urban II for help against the Turks, but the emperor had not bargained on finding a host of crusaders, including the dreaded Normans, on his doorstep. Alexius sent them quickly across the Dardanelles where they won some battles and permitted the Byzantines to reclaim some of their losses in Asia Minor.

Subsequent crusades, however, failed to bring good relations between east and west, whose churches had excommunicated each other in 1054. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, the combination of envy, hatred, and frustration that had been building up for some time led to an atrocity. The Venetians controlled the ships and money for this crusade and persuaded the fighters to attack the Christian city of Zara in Dalmatia - a commercial rival of Venice - and Constantinople before going on to the Holy Land. Venice wanted a trade monopoly in the eastern Mediterranean more than a fight with the Muslims. Constantinople was paralyzed by factional strife, and for the first time, an invading force captured the city and devastated it far more than the Turks would 250 years later. A French noble described the scene:

The fire...continued to rage for a whole week and no one could put it out....What damage was done, or what riches and possessions were destroyed in the flames was beyond the power of man to calculate....The army...gained much booty; so much, indeed, that no one could estimate its amount or its value. It included gold and silver, table-services and precious stones, satin and silk, mantles of squirrel fur, ermine and miniver, and every choicest thing to be found on this earth...so much booty had never been gained in any city since the creation of the world.

The Venetians made sure they got their share of the spoils, such as the bronze horses now found at St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice, and played a key role in placing a new emperor on the throne. The invaders ruled Constantinople until 1261. The Venetians put a stranglehold on commerce in the region and then turned their hostility toward the Genoese, who threatened their monopoly.

The Paleologus Dynasty (1261-1453), which ruled the empire during its final two centuries, saw the formerly glorious realm become a pawn in a new game. Greeks may have regained control of the church and the state, but there was little strength left to carry on the ancient traditions. The free peasant became ever rarer, as a form of feudalism developed in which nobles resisted the authority of the emperor and the imperial bureaucracy. The solidus, the Byzantine coin which had resisted debasement from the fourth through the eleventh century, now fell victim to inflation. The church, once a major support for the state, became embroiled in continual doctrinal disputes. Slavic peoples such as the Serbs, who had posed no danger to the empire in its former strength became threats. After the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century destroyed the exhausted Seljuq Turks, a new, more formidable threat appeared - the Ottoman, or Osmanli, Turks.

Blessed after 1296 with a strong line of male successors and good fortune, the Ottomans rapidly expanded their power through the Balkans. They crossed the Straits into Europe in 1354 and moved up the Vardar-Morava valleys to take Serres (1383), Sofia (1385), Nish (1386), Thessalonica (1387), and finally Kossovo from the South Slavs in 1389. The Turks won their victories by virtue of their overwhelming superiority in both infantry and cavalry. But their administrative effectiveness, which combined strength and flexibility, solidified their rule in areas they conquered. In contrast to the Christians, both Roman and Byzantine, who were intolerant of religious differences, the Turks allowed monotheists, or any of the believers in a "religion of the book" (the Bible, Torah, or Koran), to retain their faith and be ruled by a religious superior through the millet system, a network of religious ghettoes.

Source: http://www.yasou.org/byzantium/byz.htm

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Well, those quotes don't talk in any way about the infallibility of the pope, but instead about the ultimate power of the church. It doesn't even claim that the church is infallible but that it has the authority to decide matters of faith and those that don't obey these decidions are deviating from the rigth path.

It talks about the ultimate power of the Church 'sojourned at Rome' i.e. the Holy See. Papal infallibility does not stretch any further than the 'authority to decide matters of faith'. That is all it is.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have time.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Well here is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter (for what it is worth). I don't agree with your interpretation however. 'Son of Man', I was always taught' was used to emphasise Jesus's humanity while emphasising his divine Messianic role.

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



Some quotes from the Holy Scriptures:

Exodus 3:14 - God says "I AM who I AM" - John 8:58 - Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" in reference to Himself.

Just consider the first chapter of John:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

In this passage, God is described 'the Word'. The 'Word' was made flesh - i.e. God became incarnate. It is very clear what John is trying to say here - that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. What other possible reading can you give to this passage? Moreover, John says "We have seen his glory, the glory of One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth". i.e. That by seeing Jesus Christ, you see the glory of the Father.

There are also many other numerous parallelisms to depict Jesus Christ's divinity. (nabbed from Scripture Catholic.com)

Isaiah 42:8 - God gives His glory to no other - John 17:5; Heb. 1:3 - yet Jesus has the same glory as the Father.
Isaiah 48:17 - God is the Holy One - Acts 3:14 - Jesus is the Holy One
Psalm 97:9 - the Lord God is above all - John 3:31 - Jesus is above all.
Psalm 89:27 – I will make him the first-born, the highest (“elyon” which refers to God) of the kings of the earth - John 18:36-27 – Jesus is this first-born king.
2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.
Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "God is with us" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

I will reply about the topic of "Son of man" at the end of my posting. Other things are more important at the moment:
Exodus 3:

13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [b] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, [c] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

So what Jesus has done, described in John 8, was the same as Moses was instructed to do, to say the name of I AM, as a synonym for God, to make clear that God has indeed sent him. He hasn't said "I am "I AM"", ie. claimed that he were God, but only uttered "I AM" as the sign that he was sent by God, just like Moses should do and has done!

From the same page John 8, that you quoted from I have found more interesting verses describing perfectly the symbolic nature of the notion "Father":

25"Who are you?" they asked.

"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. 26"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." 30

So, here we have, clear as day: Jesus did nothing on his own, but just spoke what the Father has taught (!) him. If Jesus was God incarnated, he would have autonomy and not having to be taught anything, but that is obviously not the case.


And now the last and ultimately decisive verses in the topic:

39"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would[d] do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
The Children of the Devil
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

So, here clearly the unbelieving jews stated that God was their only Father, and Jesus replied that he came from God (not that he is God), and since they didn't believe him, they belonged to their father, the devil!

Jesus himself clearly uses the concept as well as the jews in a symbolic manner, ie. who believes in God and does his work is God's son, one who doesn't believe and does evil things is the son of the devil, off course only symbolically!

As to the rest of your verses, they are not sayings by Jesus, but interpretations by some writers of the Bible!

Now let's see what the old testament has to say about "Son of man":

Numbers 23:

19 God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

In the whole Bible I found only three instances where "Son of Man" was mentioned: In the books about a)Ezekiel, b)Daniel and c)Jesus.

So, obviously "Son of Man" means something special and not just human nature..

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

So, it was actually the persecution of the roman pagans followed by the equally brutal persecution by the roman christians, after the coptic church was declared as heresy by the catholic church, that prepared the way for the muslims to liberate the copts from that persecution which is a holy duty for the muslims, to help others in emergency, that are oppressed and persecuted for their belief in God.

After they were liberated by muslims they and their belief and church actually flourished, for four hundred years. I have to admit though that it was a religious mistake to charge the copts the jizia-tax, since they were liberated and didn't fight against the muslims, but a lot of islamic rulers made that mistake after prophet Muhammad died. Still except for the obligatory tax, their life was much better than under the roman empire, regardless if the pagan-phase or the christian phase.

The Coptic Church only became schismatic because of a misunderstanding, although political influences may have been at play. The Church's split over the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 which concluded that Christ has two natures: human and divine. The problem however was that the Copts believed that the Roman Church was preaching an almost Nestorian view of Christology.

It's undeniable that under the Patriarch Cyrus the Copts endured much persecution at the hands of the Eastern Roman Orthodox Church (not under the See of Rome), however the persecution from the Muslims was no less severe. While forced mass conversions did not occur under the initial years, Coptic culture was severely persecuted. Amer ibi Alass destroyed the rebuilt Library of Alexandria because it contained Christian material. He also imposed a severe tax upon the Coptic Christians which forced them into poverty. Periodically, Christian bishops were thrown in jail and ransom demanded. The Umayyad Caliph Suliman ibin abed wrote to his general "to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood".

The fact that there were several Coptic revolts proves that their rule must have been harsh: A.D. 725 in the Eastern Delta against the Ommayyds and in A.D. 815 the Abbasids. In retribution, many Coptic communities were slaughtered. El Maamoun used elephants to suppress the 815 revolt.

With all this persecution, it is no wonder that the Coptic population reduced from 9 million before the Arab Invasion of the 7th century to 700,000 in 1900.

Things changed for the worse though at the beginning of the second millenia, when the crusades started, but changed again for the better at the beginning of the 19th century:

Look up, you will see that persecution occured before the Crusades. Afterall, was not the Sepulchre destroyed before the 1st crusade?

Regarding the crusades, you have again your history wrong. It wasn't the muslim's conquering that posed the problem for the catholic church. After all all these countries in North-Africa and elsewhere had independent churches that were regarded by the catholic church as not orthodox, often even as heretic, and were therefore sometimes if not often subject to persecution and oppression, so that the catholic church was probably content, that the muslims overtook them, so they would not have to ponder about them anymore, and the churches and christians of North-Africa were content to be liberated from oppression and persecution. Sure they had to pay a special tax, which over the generations led many christians to convert to Islam in order to save that tax, but they could freely practice their worship of God.

What really ignited the Crusades was the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre by Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. A Completely unprovoked action. At the time of the first crusade, the Spaniards were involved in the Reconquista - the reconquering of Christian Spain from the Muslims. You can imagine the Christian mindset. Christian pilgrims were regularly attacked in Jerusalem. It was a time of great persecution under Al-Hakim.

What would the Muslim reaction be if Christians destroyed and pillaged the Mosque of Mecca?

instead it was a combination of the weakening of Byzantium

Umm, caused by Islamic expansion! Constantinople lost Egypt to the Caliph armies and the Holy Lands. It is quite obvious what the cause was, like how the Western Roman Empire fell to the Barbarians.

Byzantium not anymore able to finance a working army and threatened by turkish nomads as well as christian Venice had the brilliant PR-idea to call the catholic church for help. Byzantium reported to Rome that the pilgrims were harassed by the turkish nomads, which they surely were, and were therefore not able to complete their pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

PR-idea? More like a struggle for survival. I don't know where you get these ideas from. The height of the Roman Empire was long gone.

The pope at that time on the other hand found it was a brilliant opportunity to finally solve the internal problems of the christian communities by concentrating on an external enemy, namely the Turks, who were portrayed as pagans that threatened to conquer the holy land including Jerusalem. The pope figured, if the christian world would lead a holy war, they would finally regain their lost unity, ie. unite the western and eastern church again, and stop the internal wars and lawlessness. It didn't work out, soon the crusades were instrumentalised by different metropoles like Venice to fight against other christian cities, jews in Europe were slaughtered by crusaders, those that arrived in the holy land were instrumentalised in an inner-Islam-fight between shias and sunnis...

Keep in mind that the Great Schism of 1054 was not really formalised yet. The Crusades did have a double purpose, in that they were to be seen as a formal gesture of support for the Roman Church's orthodox brethren. The first crusade's main intention was to recapture Jerusalem from the Arabs who had been persecuting Christians and destroyed the Great Church of the Holy Sepulchre (one of the holiest churches of Christendom).

The irony is though, that the ottomans that defeated the nomadic turks, ie. the seljuks, who were the PR-reason for the first crusade, could legitimate their expansion as being the result of a defensive war against the numerous crusades that followed, another irony was that the christians and jews in the conquered countries lived afterwards more freely and happy than under the rule of the christian church and empires, without oppression and persecution, except for the obligatory tax:

Everything was lovely under the Muslims wasn't it? I'm not going to defend the actions of many of the Crusaders, especially under the Siege of Jerusalem in 1099. The tax which the Muslims imposed was suppressive and was means in which they coerced Christians to convert to Islam. They denied Christians any role in the Government, and often they were shunned. In many ways, the Muslim treatment of Christians was much the same as the Christian treatment of Jews.