Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[mikewhitney]

There is a Greek word for resurrection but it is not used.

Ah. You made an interesting point there--if we have something similar in mind on the word usage.

[Dan Zebiri]

Here's what the "word of Allah" in Surah 33/25-27 says to muslims to conquer properties, assets, lands and regions they have never been to before:

"God / Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. So that some ye SLEW, and some ye MADE PRISONERS. And He made you muslims Heirs of THEIR LANDS, their HOUSES, and their GOODS, and of A LAND which ye had not frequented or GONE TO BEFORE."
Sura 33/25-27 (Yusuf Ali version)

Siam failed to show me in the Matthew 28:18-20 verses he cited, WHERE Jesus Christ commanded His disciples and followers to "SLAY, TAKE PRISONERS / Forcefully abduct" then "GRAB lands, houses, properties and WHOLE REGIONS" that are NOT THEIRS that is the call to evangelise and spread the euanggelion the Gospel and Good Newsdefensive war in RESPONSE TO the hegemonism and islamist conquests that were perpetrated in the koran and acted upon by muslim colonialists and conquerors centuries earlier upon their Persian and Byzantine non-Muslim neighbors, among others.

You do know that the Christian participation in the Crusades was in response of at least 400 years of aggression of Muslim against Christians, don't you?

[DesertBerean]

Didn't someone list the ECFs who mentioned the Trinity? Can't find it here...perhaps another thread...

[rogue06]

defensive war in RESPONSE TO the hegemonism and islamist conquests that were perpetrated in the koran and acted upon by muslim colonialists and conquerors centuries earlier upon their Persian and Byzantine non-Muslim neighbors, among others.

In many ways the crusades were a belated reaction to Muslim aggression. An aggression that started centuries earlier and continued long after the crusades ended as can be seen by the seizing of southeastern Europe including two unsuccessful sieges of Vienna (1529 and 1683).

IIRC, what seems to have sparked it was that a particularly aggressive group of Muslims from Central Asia had moved into the Western Mediterranean and started attacking Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. It took a couple decades for a reaction to crystallize in the form of the First Crusade.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In many ways the crusades were a belated reaction to Muslim aggression. An aggression that started centuries earlier and continued long after the crusades ended as can be seen by the seizing of southeastern Europe including two unsuccessful sieges of Vienna (1529 and 1683).

IIRC, what seems to have sparked it was that a particularly aggressive group of Muslims from Central Asia had moved into the Western Mediterranean and started attacking Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. It took a couple decades for a reaction to crystallize in the form of the First Crusade.

Was it really the "first" Crusade?

If a "crusade" is defined as a call to arms from the church to defend the Christian holy places against an "infidel" then one would need to look back to the early seventh century CE.

[Dan Zebiri]

The start of the aggression was from the 7th centuries onwards. Hordes of Arabs poured out from the Arab peninsular under Arab Muslim armies targeting the Christian Egyptian, in North Africa as well as Sassanid Persia and the Byzantine empire in the east.

The sending of a military expedition to Egypt from the caliphal capital in Medina came in a second phase of the first Arab conquests. Until then, the conquests had been directed against lands on the northern borders of Arabia and were in the nature of raids for plunder; they had grown in scale and momentum as the Byzantine Empire and Persian Sāsānian dynasty—the two dominant political entities of the time—put up organized resistance. By 635 the Arabs had realized that in order to meet this resistance effectively they must begin the systematic occupation of enemy territory, especially Syria, where the Byzantine army was determined to halt the Arab forays. (From Britannica.com).

So, in less than just 5 short years after the traditional date of islam’s founder’s death. The Arab muslims targeted their neighbours both east and west to conquer. This expansionism and cultural hegemony practically wiped out the languages and culture of the conquered peoples of North Africa. It also wiped out Zoroastrianism in Persia.

Muslims claim that they only attack others “in self-defence” when attacked. This was not the case in the muslims’ attack and hegemony over the Sassanid Persians and the Byzantine Christians to the East. Byzantium and Persia were warring against each other and were spent forces as military powers. They certainly were not able to attack the Arab Muslims to the south, and the Arabs saw the weakness of both Persia and the eastern Roman Empire as an opportunity to be exploited militarily and politically. When the muslims attacked these eastern nations it was certainly not in any self-defence but in obedience to koranic and religious injunctions to unilateral conquests and hegemony such as those in sura al-Ahzab 25-27.


From Britannica.com

In many ways the crusades were a belated reaction to Muslim aggression. An aggression that started centuries earlier and continued long after the crusades ended as can be seen by the seizing of southeastern Europe including two unsuccessful sieges of Vienna (1529 and 1683).

IIRC, what seems to have sparked it was that a particularly aggressive group of Muslims from Central Asia had moved into the Western Mediterranean and started attacking Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. It took a couple decades for a reaction to crystallize in the form of the First Crusade.

[siam]

The start of the aggression was from the 7th centuries onwards. Hordes of Arabs poured out from the Arab peninsular under Arab Muslim armies targeting the Christian Egyptian, in North Africa as well as Sassanid Persia and the Byzantine empire in the east.

The sending of a military expedition to Egypt from the caliphal capital in Medina came in a second phase of the first Arab conquests. Until then, the conquests had been directed against lands on the northern borders of Arabia and were in the nature of raids for plunder; they had grown in scale and momentum as the Byzantine Empire and Persian Sāsānian dynasty—the two dominant political entities of the time—put up organized resistance. By 635 the Arabs had realized that in order to meet this resistance effectively they must begin the systematic occupation of enemy territory, especially Syria, where the Byzantine army was determined to halt the Arab forays. (From Britannica.com).

So, in less than just 5 short years after the traditional date of islam’s founder’s death. The Arab muslims targeted their neighbours both east and west to conquer. This expansionism and cultural hegemony practically wiped out the languages and culture of the conquered peoples of North Africa. It also wiped out Zoroastrianism in Persia.

Muslims claim that they only attack others “in self-defence” when attacked. This was not the case in the muslims’ attack and hegemony over the Sassanid Persians and the Byzantine Christians to the East. Byzantium and Persia were warring against each other and were spent forces as military powers. They certainly were not able to attack the Arab Muslims to the south, and the Arabs saw the weakness of both Persia and the eastern Roman Empire as an opportunity to be exploited militarily and politically. When the muslims attacked these eastern nations it was certainly not in any self-defence but in obedience to koranic and religious injunctions to unilateral conquests and hegemony such as those in sura al-Ahzab 25-27.


From Britannica.com

This account is incorrect and biased.

[Dan Zebiri]

Really, siam? Nice to see u finally surfacing..

Try to correct it then to prove why u claim it as "incorrect"?

Why do the sura 33/25-27 verses incite to offensive violence, fear, murder/killings, pillaging and robbery AND hegemonic conquests by muslims?

There are other similar koranic verses too, but the above should suffice, for now.

This account is incorrect and biased.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The start of the aggression was from the 7th centuries onwards. Hordes of Arabs poured out from the Arab peninsular under Arab Muslim armies targeting the Christian Egyptian, in North Africa as well as Sassanid Persia and the Byzantine empire in the east.

The sending of a military expedition to Egypt from the caliphal capital in Medina came in a second phase of the first Arab conquests. Until then, the conquests had been directed against lands on the northern borders of Arabia and were in the nature of raids for plunder; they had grown in scale and momentum as the Byzantine Empire and Persian Sāsānian dynasty—the two dominant political entities of the time—put up organized resistance. By 635 the Arabs had realized that in order to meet this resistance effectively they must begin the systematic occupation of enemy territory, especially Syria, where the Byzantine army was determined to halt the Arab forays. (From Britannica.com).

So, in less than just 5 short years after the traditional date of islam’s founder’s death. The Arab muslims targeted their neighbours both east and west to conquer. This expansionism and cultural hegemony practically wiped out the languages and culture of the conquered peoples of North Africa. It also wiped out Zoroastrianism in Persia.

Muslims claim that they only attack others “in self-defence” when attacked. This was not the case in the muslims’ attack and hegemony over the Sassanid Persians and the Byzantine Christians to the East. Byzantium and Persia were warring against each other and were spent forces as military powers. They certainly were not able to attack the Arab Muslims to the south, and the Arabs saw the weakness of both Persia and the eastern Roman Empire as an opportunity to be exploited militarily and politically. When the muslims attacked these eastern nations it was certainly not in any self-defence but in obedience to koranic and religious injunctions to unilateral conquests and hegemony such as those in sura al-Ahzab 25-27.


From Britannica.com

If that was directed towards me then you need to go back to before Islam started its expansion.

[rogue06]

Was it really the "first" Crusade?

If a "crusade" is defined as a call to arms from the church to defend the Christian holy places against an "infidel" then one would need to look back to the early seventh century CE.

It is the name of the first official one as nearly any historian could inform you

As an aside the Seljuk Turks were the "particularly aggressive group of Muslims from Central Asia" that I previously mentioned

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is the name of the first official one as nearly any historian could inform you

My question was intentionally mischievous.

If one defines a crusade as a call by the church [or church leaders] to protect the holy places of Christianity against an "infidel" then technically it was not the "first" crusade.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is the name of the first official one as nearly any historian could inform you

It is the name of the first Latin i.e. Western crusade and has come to be known as the first crusade given the others that followed it over the next centuries.

However, there was another Christian "crusade" [assuming my definition stands] a few centuries earlier.

[rogue06]

It is the name of the first Latin i.e. Western crusade and has come to be known as the first crusade given the others that followed it over the next centuries.

However, there was another Christian "crusade" [assuming my definition stands] a few centuries earlier.

And if we wanna craft our own definitions then all of the earlier jihads by Muslims count as crusades as well.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And if we wanna craft our own definitions then all of the earlier jihads by Muslims count as crusades as well.

The first "crusade" as in a call to arms by the Church against an "infidel" was conducted in the early seventh century and led by the Emperor Heraclius. It took place some four hundred and fifty years before Pope Urban II made his famous call to arms for the expulsion of the (later) Islamic forces from the Holy Places of Christendom.

[Dan Zebiri]

You are so wrong, it was not directed to you in any way.

So presumptuous as usual.

BTW Jesus Christ in His teaching never taught His followers to go on the crusades as you describe, but the koran does command muslims to go on the offensive to conquer, subdue, grab and occupy properties and lands not belonging to muslims, eg. the 'infidels' in the eyes of islam.

If that was directed towards me then you need to go back to before Islam started its expansion.