Crusades

[Angel dude]

You are the one who raised the issue and made the charge. I just asked for any evidence you might think you have.

 

[Angel dude]

I asked you about the claim that the Freemasons teach about Baphomet.

Yummy. These Templar Knights taste just like fried chicken. These Knights are going straight to my thighs. Oh crap. And it is almost bathing suit season. How am I going to score a hot Succubus at Styx Beach now.

 

[Barney2.0]

I personally believe the Crusades held a purpose in Christianity but in the end was pretty much politics. Muslims burned the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and would attack Christian pilgrims on their way to the holy land and the Byzantine empire sent a plea because it had no more military capabilities to defend itself although the Crusaders later betrayed their oath to the Byzantine empire and attacked it but in a way the Crusades saved all of Christendom.

 

[Angel dude]

I personally believe the Crusades held a purpose in Christianity but in the end was pretty much politics. Muslims burned the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and would attack Christian pilgrims on their way to the holy land and the Byzantine empire sent a plea because it had no more military capabilities to defend itself although the Crusaders later betrayed their oath to the Byzantine empire and attacked it but in a way the Crusades saved all of Christendom.

It did have a religious purpose. To make the Muslims think that the Christians were the ones fighting them, when it was just a bunch of demon-raping, goat-kissing, Satan-loving Satanist Knights. Thank you Knights. You are the reason why Muslims hate us so badly. We could have figured a way to live peacefully, but you screwed it up. (Enter applause here).

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You still have not given any evidence. No quotations or testimonies from you. And just because a book is written by a university does not mean it is reliable or true.

To Summarize this conversation thus far.

Angel: The Crusaders were Pagan Baphomet worshippers.
Me: Where is your proof for this.
Angel: This website says so and I know a free mason who told me so.
Me: Do you actually have any credible primary sources.
Angel: Here is a letter by a Crusader in which he admits he worships Baphomet.
Me: Your translation seems different from this university's professional translation. Please tell me where you got your translation of the paragraph from.
Angel: You have no sources, universities can't be trusted. Prove me wrong.
Me at this point: ???????????????

Maybe he was. Without looking it up tell me who painted this and in what year if you are such an expert. Maybe I will believe you then. At least I actually know of this picture from many books and articles relating to those events and this picture was in just about anything I have ever saw on the subject. It is also one of the most popular pictures depicting the Orders worship of the Baphomet deity.

Why do I have to source your evidence? If I had handed this sort of speculation into my Professor's hand without a citation explaining where the source come from he would have rightly corrected me and told me I have to provide the citation if I am the one using it as evidence. It's clear you've never gone through a course or program in higher learning so here's my task to you, show me when the picture was drawn (clearly it wasn't painted). Whom was the artist? How did this artist have access to these secret Knights Templar worship services? Where was the service being held? Is there any archaeological evidence from the remains of Knight Templar ruins to support your claim?

Do some responsible research please.

 

[Barney2.0]

You do know that was just the Templar order, the Crusaders had many orders not just the Templars but the Templars were one of the most powerful and largest of the Crusader orders, the Pope and the Papacy began to fear their power and I suspect that this is what motivated the Pope to arrest them all on the charges of idol worship and paganism. Torturing them until they were forced to confess to the false charges of idol worship before finally being burned at the stake.

 

[tz620q]

You do know that that was just the Templar order Crusaders had many orders not just the Templars but the Templars were one of the most powerful and largest of the Crusader orders, the Pope and the Papacy began to fear their power and I suspect that this is what motivated the Pope to arrest them all on the charges of idol worship and paganism. Torturing them until they were forced to confess to the false charges of idol worship before finally being burned at the stake.

That actually has a much more sinister history. King Phillip IV of France wanted to declare war with the English. To do this he wanted to have the Pope grant him some of the money normally collected in the French churches and sent to support the Catholic Churches. The Pope refused and Phillip borrowed the money from Jewish money lenders to fund his war. He also started taking control of the Church in France, appointing his own bishops and using the church collections to fund his war. Later when he could not repay the Jewish lenders, he expelled them from France and grabbed their properties. Then he started borrowing money from the Knights Templar. In the meantime the Pope protested against his usurping the right to appoint bishops in France and wrote him a famous bull called Unam Sanctam. Phillip burned the bull and sent 2000 mercenaries to capture the Pope at his summer palace in Italy. They held Pope Boniface VIII, who was quite old, for three days without food and water. Finally the Italians were able to free him; but he died a month later. King Phillip them worked to discredit Pope Boniface VIII saying that he worshiped Satan and other ridiculous charges. Eventually, he had appointed enough French Bishops that were in his pocket to sway the selection of the new Pope to a French candidate and he moved the Papacy from Rome to Avignon, France and for the next 67 years all the Popes were French. In the meantime, he used the same tactics that he had used on Pope Boniface VIII on the Knights Templar and got the new Pope to slander them as well. This led to their being arrested, tortured, and burned at the stake. That solved Phillip's problems with owing them money. Quite a ruthless man was King Phillip IV. Oddly the propaganda campaign that he started against Boniface and against the Knights Templar has discredited them to many even today. This just shows how powerful socially constructed truth is, sometimes even more powerful than fact.

 

[Barney2.0]

That actually has a much more sinister history. King Phillip IV of France wanted to declare war with the English. To do this he wanted to have the Pope grant him some of the money normally collected in the French churches and sent to support the Catholic Churches. The Pope refused and Phillip borrowed the money from Jewish money lenders to fund his war. He also started taking control of the Church in France, appointing his own bishops and using the church collections to fund his war. Later when he could not repay the Jewish lenders, he expelled them from France and grabbed their properties. Then he started borrowing money from the Knights Templar. In the meantime the Pope protested against his usurping the right to appoint bishops in France and wrote him a famous bull called Unam Sanctam. Phillip burned the bull and sent 2000 mercenaries to capture the Pope at his summer palace in Italy. They held Pope Boniface VIII, who was quite old, for three days without food and water. Finally the Italians were able to free him; but he died a month later. King Phillip them worked to discredit Pope Boniface VIII saying that he worshiped Satan and other ridiculous charges. Eventually, he had appointed enough French Bishops that were in his pocket to sway the selection of the new Pope to a French candidate and he moved the Papacy from Rome to Avignon, France and for the next 67 years all the Popes were French. In the meantime, he used the same tactics that he had used on Pope Boniface VIII on the Knights Templar and got the new Pope to slander them as well. This led to their being arrested, tortured, and burned at the stake. That solved Phillip's problems with owing them money. Quite a ruthless man was King Phillip IV. Oddly the propaganda campaign that he started against Boniface and against the Knights Templar has discredited them to many even today. This just shows how powerful socially constructed truth is, sometimes even more powerful than fact.

I was putting it in a simple way but the issue itself is way more complicated but I know for a fact there's no evidence that the Knights Templar were actually devil worshippers besides falsified testimonies.

 

[tz620q]

I was putting it in a simple way but the issue itself is way more complicated but I know for a fact there's no evidence that the Knights Templar were actually devil worshippers besides falsified testimonies.

By the way, your assessment of the Crusades is fairly balanced. They were a varying bunch with the First Crusade seeming to meet its military goals, though the Crusaders lacked Byzantine support. This led to animosity between the Crusaders and the Byzantines that prompted the Crusaders to form the Levant nations under the control of European nobles and not the Byzantine Emperor. That was a result that soured most of the future Crusade efforts as far as the Catholics and the Orthodox. The later Crusades devolved downward until the Fourth Crusade was a total mess with the conflict being transferred from Palestine to Constantinople. Later Crusades like the Seventh and Eighth under King Louis IX of France had noble goals; but were not ran very well militarily. So it is probably best from a historical viewpoint to talk about each one individually and not make general statements about them. You did this quite well and I appreciate your ability to look at this history with the stark stare that is needed.

 

[Barney2.0]

By the way, your assessment of the Crusades is fairly balanced. They were a varying bunch with the First Crusade seeming to meet its military goals, though the Crusaders lacked Byzantine support. This led to animosity between the Crusaders and the Byzantines that prompted the Crusaders to form the Levant nations under the control of European nobles and not the Byzantine Emperor. That was a result that soured most of the future Crusade efforts as far as the Catholics and the Orthodox. The later Crusades devolved downward until the Fourth Crusade was a total mess with the conflict being transferred from Palestine to Constantinople. Later Crusades like the Seventh and Eighth under King Louis IX of France had noble goals; but were not ran very well militarily. So it is probably best from a historical viewpoint to talk about each one individually and not make general statements about them. You did this quite well and I appreciate your ability to look at this history with the stark stare that is needed.

I as an Orthodox believe that the disunity which sowed between the Orthodox and Catholic and the mistrust with one another also really helped the Muslims in Jihading the Christians down. Fourth Crusade was a horrible tragedy of Christian vs Christian while the Muslims benefited the most out of it as only a few generations later the old wearied walls of mighty Constantinople finally fell to the Jihadi hordes.

 

[Angel dude]

That actually has a much more sinister history. King Phillip IV of France wanted to declare war with the English. To do this he wanted to have the Pope grant him some of the money normally collected in the French churches and sent to support the Catholic Churches. The Pope refused and Phillip borrowed the money from Jewish money lenders to fund his war. He also started taking control of the Church in France, appointing his own bishops and using the church collections to fund his war. Later when he could not repay the Jewish lenders, he expelled them from France and grabbed their properties. Then he started borrowing money from the Knights Templar. In the meantime the Pope protested against his usurping the right to appoint bishops in France and wrote him a famous bull called Unam Sanctam. Phillip burned the bull and sent 2000 mercenaries to capture the Pope at his summer palace in Italy. They held Pope Boniface VIII, who was quite old, for three days without food and water. Finally the Italians were able to free him; but he died a month later. King Phillip them worked to discredit Pope Boniface VIII saying that he worshiped Satan and other ridiculous charges. Eventually, he had appointed enough French Bishops that were in his pocket to sway the selection of the new Pope to a French candidate and he moved the Papacy from Rome to Avignon, France and for the next 67 years all the Popes were French. In the meantime, he used the same tactics that he had used on Pope Boniface VIII on the Knights Templar and got the new Pope to slander them as well. This led to their being arrested, tortured, and burned at the stake. That solved Phillip's problems with owing them money. Quite a ruthless man was King Phillip IV. Oddly the propaganda campaign that he started against Boniface and against the Knights Templar has discredited them to many even today. This just shows how powerful socially constructed truth is, sometimes even more powerful than fact.

Didn't alot of the Catholics themselves to a degree have a problem with Boniface too though. I am only saying/asking This because when I read dantes inferno in high school there were passages that made it seem like there were some kind of dispute between them and even the study parts during the appendix area of the book with other notes, there seemed to be a lot of hate towards him, by Dante himself and groups of other Catholics. Please clarify any truth, or if it was more of just an individual thing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The basis of the Freemasons existed since the crusades. The people are saying that the Freemasons has a 300 year lapse from the Crusades. The only truth to that was that was when the first, for lack of a better phrase, mass grouping lodge was built. But the fundamentals of Freemasonry had existed for a long time even before then.
The earliest masonic texts each contain some sort of a history of the craft of masonry. The oldest known work of this type, The Halliwell Manuscript, or Regius Poem, dates from between 1390 and 1425. This document has a brief history in its introduction, stating that the "craft of masonry" began with Euclid in Egypt, and came to England in the reign of King Athelstan (born about 894, died 27 October 939).[1] Shortly afterwards, the Cooke Manuscript traces masonry to Jabal son of Lamech (Genesis 4: 20–22), and tells how this knowledge came to Euclid, from him to the Children of Israel (while they were in Egypt), and so on through an elaborate path to Athelstan.[2] This formed the basis for subsequent manuscript constitutions, all tracing masonry back to biblical times, and fixing its institutional establishment in England during the reign of Athelstan (927–939).[3]

So, let me understand...you're saying that the Knights Templar weren't knights at all, but engaged in building buildings? Interesting!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Didn't alot of the Catholics themselves to a degree have a problem with Boniface too though. I am only saying/asking This because when I read dantes inferno in high school there were passages that made it seem like there were some kind of dispute between them and even the study parts during the appendix area of the book with other notes, there seemed to be a lot of hate towards him, by Dante himself and groups of other Catholics. Please clarify any truth, or if it was more of just an individual thing.

There are places in Dante's Inferno where certain people are seen in hell, and maybe that was Dante's opinion of Boniface. That doesn't really mean anything, though.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It did have a religious purpose. To make the Muslims think that the Christians were the ones fighting them, when it was just a bunch of demon-raping, goat-kissing, Satan-loving Satanist Knights. Thank you Knights. You are the reason why Muslims hate us so badly. We could have figured a way to live peacefully, but you screwed it up. (Enter applause here).

Your knowledge of history is admirable.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You do know that that was just the Templar order Crusaders had many orders not just the Templars but the Templars were one of the most powerful and largest of the Crusader orders, the Pope and the Papacy began to fear their power and I suspect that this is what motivated the Pope to arrest them all on the charges of idol worship and paganism. Torturing them until they were forced to confess to the false charges of idol worship before finally being burned at the stake.

It was the government of France that feared the power of the Templars and who actually tried them and put them to death. It's probable that the papacy gave their blessing.

 

[Erik Nelson]

This was addressed to another poster. At least you are willing to look into the history of this instead of throwing rocks from the sidelines. As far as the when and where, I would start in the 700's and go till 1683 when the last siege of Vienna was repelled. Though truthfully this did not end Muslim aggression and we could go right into the Ottoman empire after that and keep going until today; but that is such a nonsensical amount of time, maybe we should center on only one part of this history.

Mary Saves Christendom—Again

11 September, 1683

 

[tz620q]

Mary Saves Christendom—Again

11 September, 1683

There is a movie out about this called "The Day of the Siege". It was made by Polish and Italian production companies; but oddly is in English and stars F. Murray Abraham. It used to be on Netflix, like so many other titles used to be on Netflix; but they dropped it almost a year ago. It does take some liberties with the history; but does a good job of showing the forces and what their motivations were. Here is a link to the Wiki page.